Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 1 of 82
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re: Chapter 11
MTE HOLDINGS LLC, et al., Case No. 19-12269 (CSS)
Debtors. (Jointly Administered)
BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Adv. Proc. No. 20-50815 (CSS)
ALAMO PRESSURE PUMPING, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
RODAN TRANSPORT (U.S.A), LTD. D/B/A AVEDA TRANSPORTATION AND ENERGY SERVICES’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING VALIDITY OF COMPETING M&M LIENS
Rodan Transport (U.S.A), Ltd. d/b/a Aveda Transportation and Energy Services (“Aveda”
or “Defendant”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby answers the Original Complaint
for Declaratory Judgment Regarding Validity of Competing M&M Liens [Adv. D.I. 1] (the
“Complaint”), filed by Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC, GE Oil & Gas Pressure Control,
LP, Nabors Drilling Technologies USA, Inc., Schlumberger Technology Corporation and Smith
International, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) in the above-referenced Adversary Proceeding, as
follows:
DMS 18110636.1 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 2 of 82
I. PARTIES
Plaintiffs
1. Baker Hughes is a California limited liability company with its offices and principal place of business in Houston, Harris County, Texas.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
2. GEO&G is a Texas limited partnership with its office and principal place of business in Houston, Harris County, Texas.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
3. Nabors is a Texas corporation with its offices and principal place of business in
Houston, Harris County, Texas.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
4. Schlumberger is a Texas corporation with its offices and principal place of business in Houston, Harris County, Texas.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
5. Smith is a Delaware corporation with its offices and principal place of business in
Houston, Harris County, Texas.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
2 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 3 of 82
Defendants
6. Alamo Pressure Pumping, LLC is a Texas limited-liability company and may be served with process through, its registered agent, Jeff Hansen, 1101 Little School Road, Arlington,
TX 76017.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
7. Applied US Energy, Inc. is an Ohio corporation and may be served with process through its registered agent, Cogency Global Inc., 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4360, Dallas, TX 75201.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
8. Eastham Drilling, Inc. d/b/a Big E Drilling Co. is a Texas corporation and may be
served with process through its registered agent, Lyle Eastham, 4710 Bellaire Blvd., Ste 350,
Bellaire, TX 77401.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
9. Briley Trucking, Ltd. is a Texas limited partnership and may be served with process
through its registered agent, J. Chan Price, 2301 W. Francis, Midland, TX 79701.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
10. BT Midstream, LLC is a Texas limited liability company and may be served with
process through its registered agent, Gregory P. Berry, 4841 Hill Street, Abilene, TX 79602.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
3 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 4 of 82
11. Buckeye, Inc. is a Texas corporation and may be served with process through its
registered agent, Chan Price, 2301 W. Francis, Midland, TX 79701.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
12. CSP-Permian, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and may be served with
process through its registered agent, CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste 900, Dallas, TX
75201-3136.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
13. DuraChem Production Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability company and may
be served with process through its registered agent, Tim Allen, 2495 N. Hwy 385, Andrews, TX
79714.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
14. Fluid Delivery Solutions, LLC is a Texas limited liability company and may be
served with-process through its registered agent, Cody Compton, 6795 Corporation Parkway, Suite
200, Fort Worth, TX 76126.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
15. FTS International Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability company-and may be
served with process through its registered agent, Capitol Corporate Services, Inc., 206 E. 9th Street,
Suite 1300, Austin, TX 78701 -4411.
4 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 5 of 82
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
16. Hadco Services, Inc. is a Louisiana corporation and may be served with process
through its registered agent, Hugh A. Brashier, 2508 E CR 120, Midland, TX 79706.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
17. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and may be served with
process through its registered agent Capitol Corporate Services, Inc., 206 E. 9th Street, Suite 1300,
Austin, TX 78701-4411.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
18. Integrity Bio-Chemicals, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and may be
served with process through its registered agent, Capitol Corporate Services, Inc., 206 E. 9th Street,
Suite 1300, Austin, TX 78701-4411.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
19. JW Powerline, LLC is a Texas limited liability company and may be served with
process through its registered-agent Registered Agent Solutions, Inc., 1701 Directors Blvd., Suite
300, Austin, TX 78744-0000.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
20. L.F. Manufacturing, Inc. is a Texas corporation and may be served with process
through its registered agent, Dan Edling, 5528 E. Hwy 290, Giddings, TX 78942.
5 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 6 of 82
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
21. McClinton Energy Group, L.L.C. is a Texas limited liability company and may be
served with process through its registered agent, Tony D. McClinton, 12620 Hwy 191, Midland,
TX 79707.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
22. Meyer Energy Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability company and may be
served with process through its registered agent, Jonathan Meyer, 200 Scenic Valley, Kerrville,
TX 78028.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
23. Motley Asset Management, LLC is a Texas limited liability company and may be
served with process through its registered agent, Marco Davis, 8 Old Lampasas, Odessa, TX
79765.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
24. National Oilwell DHT, L.P. is a Delaware-limited partnership and may be served
with process through its registered agent, C T Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900,
Dallas, TX 75201-3136.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
6 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 7 of 82
25. National Oilwell Varco, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership and may be served
with process through its registered agent, C T Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900,
Dallas, TX 75201-3136.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
26. New Tech Global Ventures, LLC is a Texas limited liability company and may be
served with process through its registered agent, David S. O’Neil, 1030 Regional- Park Drive,
Houston, TX 77060-1117.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
27. Nexus II Directional Drilling Specialists Ltd. is a Texas limited partnership and
may be served with process through its registered agent, IDDS Management LLC, 10314 State
Hwy 191, Midland, TX 79707.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
28. Pate Trucking Co., LLC is a Texas limited liability company and may be served
with process through its registered agent, Zane Mead, 6510 70th Street, Lubbock, TX 79242.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
29. Petro Amigos Supply Inc. is a Texas corporation and may be served with process
through its registered agent, Cesar Vasquez, 777 N. Eldridge Parkway, Ste. 400, Houston, TX
77079.
7 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 8 of 82
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
30. Prime Time Water Supply LLC is a Texas limited liability company and may be served with process through its registered agent, Homar Niestas, Jr., 3147 Copper Ave., El Paso,
TX 79930.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
31. ProPetro Services, Inc. is a Texas corporation and may be served with process through its registered agent, CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste 900, Dallas, TX 75201-
3136.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
32. EnerCorp Industrial Solutions, LLC fka Pro- Oil- and Gas Services, LLC is a
Delaware limited liability company and may be served with process through its registered-agent,
CT Corporation, 1999 Bryan St., Ste 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
33. Qwik Pipe, Inc. is a Texas corporation and may be served with process through its registered agent, Timothy G. Dixon, 1825 Upland Dr., Houston, TX 77043.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
8 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 9 of 82
34. Ranger Energy Services LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and may be
served with process through its registered agent, CT Corporation, 1999 Bryan St., Ste 900, Dallas,
TX 75201-3136.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
35. RDL Transportation Inc. is a Texas corporation and may be served with process
through its registered agent, CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste 900, Dallas, TX 75201-
3136.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
36. Reservoir Data Systems LLC is a Texas limited liability company and may be
served with process through its registered agent, Carol Hamrick, 17424 W. Grand Pkwy South,
Suite 149, Sugar Land, TX 77479.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
37. Right Light Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability company and may be served
with process through its registered agent, United States-Corporation Agents, Inc., 9900 Spectrum
Drive, Austin, TX 78717.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
38. Rodan Transport (U.S.A.), Ltd. dba Aveda Transportation and Energy Services is
a Delaware corporation and may be served with process through its registered agent, CT
Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St, Ste 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136.
9 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 10 of 82
ANSWER: With respect to any factual allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of the
Complaint, Aveda admits the same.
39. RUSCO Operating, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and may be served with process through its registered agent, Cogency Global Inc., 1601 Elm St., Suite 4360, Dallas,
TX 75201-0000.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
40. RWLS LLC d/b/a Renegade Services is a Texas limited company and may be served with process through its registered agent,-Matthew Gray, 1937 West Avenue, Levelland,
TX 79336.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
41. Select Energy Services, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and may be served with process through its registered agent, Capitol Corporate Services, Inc., 206 E. 9th Street,
Suite 1300, Austin, TX 78701-4411.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
42. Sierra Hamilton LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and may be served with process through its registered agent, Alan L. Castetter, 5100 Lassant Cove, Austin, TX 78749.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
10 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 11 of 82
43. Spraberry Production Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability company and may
be served with process through its registered agent Joseph Samaha, 508 W. Wall Street, Suite 725,
Midland, TX 79701.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
44. Summit Casing Equipment, LLC is a Texas limited liability company that forfeited
its existence with the State of Texas in February 2015 and may be served with process through its
registered agent, Andrew Eldridge, 6656 Corporation Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76126 and by
serving any officer, manager, or director at its principal offices at 6575 Corporation Parkway, Fort
Worth, TX 76126.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
45. TanMar Rentals LLC is a Louisiana limited liability company and may be served
with process through its registered agent, Capitol Corporate Services, Inc., 206 E. 9th Street, Suite
1300, Austin, TX 78701-4411.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
46. Tetra Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Swiftwater Energy Services is a Delaware corporation and may be served with process through its registered agent, Capitol Corporate
Services, Inc., 206 E. 9th Street, Suite 1300, Austin, TX 78701-4411.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
11 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 12 of 82
47. Texas Fueling Services, Inc. is-a Texas corporation and may be served with process through its registered agent, Danny M. Sheena, 2500 West Loop South, Suite 518, Houston, TX
77027.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
48. Trans-Tex Cementing Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability company and may
be served with process through its registered agent, Claude D. Givhan, 5602 Camden, Midland,
TX 79707.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
49. Trans-Tex Dyno Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability company and may be
served with process through its registered agent, Jon Andrews, 203 W. Wall, Ste. 556, Midland,
TX 79701.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
50. Triple Play Transport, LLC is a Texas limited liability company and may be served
with process through its registered agent, Hector Rodriguez, 9545 S. 385 Highway, Odessa, TX
79766.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
51. Vaughn Energy Services, Inc. is a Texas corporation and may be served with
process through its registered agent, Andy Vaughn, 12420 Water Oak Drive, Keller, TX 76244.
12 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 13 of 82
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
52. WB Supply LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and may be served with
process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company dba CSC-Lawyers
Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701-3218.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
53. WS Energy Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability company and may be served
with process through its registered agent, Jack Storm, 13330 Leopard Street, Ste. 32, Corpus
Christi, TX 78410.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
54. Wilbanks Trucking Services, LLC is a New Mexico limited liability company and
may be served with process through its registered agent, Rod Aguilar, 550 W. Texas Ave.,
Midland, TX 79701.
ANSWER: Aveda is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
regarding the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint and therefore the allegations are denied.
II. JURISDICTION & VENUE
55. This adversary proceeding arises in and relates to the above-captioned chapter 11
case now pending in this Court. This Court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and 1334(a). This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A),
(K), and (O). This Court has jurisdiction to grant the relief sought herein under the Federal
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1409.
13 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 14 of 82
ANSWER: With respect to Paragraph 55 of the Complaint, the Paragraph contains no factual allegations to either admit or deny, as the Paragraph contains either a conclusion of law or a prayer for relief. To the extent an answer is required, Aveda denies the allegations in Paragraph
55 of the Complaint.
56. Rule 7008 Statement. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7008 and
Local Bankruptcy Rule 7008-1, Plaintiffs consent to this Court’s entry of final judgment with respect to this adversary proceeding.
ANSWER: With respect to Paragraph 56 of the Complaint, the Paragraph contains no factual allegations to either admit or deny, as the Paragraph contains either a conclusion of law or a prayer for relief. To the extent an answer is required, Aveda denies the allegations in Paragraph
56 of the Complaint.
III. NATURE OF ACTION
57. This is an action pursuant to Rule 7001 (2) & (9) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 220-1, et seq. By this
Complaint, Plaintiffs seek judgment that certain of Defendants’ statutory mechanics’ and materialmen’s liens under Chapter 56 of the Texas Property Code (“M&M Liens”); which compete with Plaintiffs’ M&M Liens, are invalid. As provided in the Court’s Order Establishing
Procedures to Determine the Validity, Priority, and Extent of Liens Asserted by Statutory Lien
Claimants (the “Lien Procedures Order”) [Dkt. No. 1150 in Bankruptcy Case No. 19- 12269-CSS] and the Court’s Order (I) Procedurally Consolidating Adversary Proceedings, and (II) Setting
Certain Deadlines With Respect Thereto (the “Consolidation Order”) [Dkt. 1407 in Bankruptcy
Case No. 19-12269-CSS]:
• M&M Lien claimants may challenge the validity of competing M&M Liens (Lien Procedures Order at p. 6);
14 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 15 of 82
• Objections to the validity of M&M Liens not at issue in the Consolidated Proceeding must be lodged by August 17, 2020 (Id.); and
• Plaintiffs cannot challenge the validity of competing M&M Liens in the Consolidated Proceeding, but may “commence a separate, unconsolidated, adversary proceeding to assert such claims” (Consolidation Order at p. 3).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action for a determination of the validity of certain of
Defendants’ competing M&M Liens (the “Competing M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to Paragraph 57 of the Complaint, the Paragraph contains no
factual allegations to either admit or deny, as the Paragraph contains a statement of the nature of
the case and relief sought. To the extent an answer is required, Aveda denies the allegations in
Paragraph 57 of the Complaint.
IV. BACKGROUND
58. On November 8, 2019, MDC Energy LLC d/b/a MDC Texas Energy, LLC (“MDC
Energy”), MDC Texas Operator, LLC (“MDC Operator”), and MDC Reeves Energy, LLC (“MDC
Reeves” (each a “Debtor” and collectively with MDC Energy and MDC Operator, the “Debtors”)
filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
ANSWER: With respect to the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 58 of the
Complaint, Aveda admits the same.
59. As set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Regarding Amount,
Validity, Priority, Extent, and Value of Statutory Mechanics’ and Materialmen’s Lien Claims,
originally filed at Docket No. 1 in Adversary Proceeding No. 20-50635-CSS and now pending in the Consolidated Proceeding, Plaintiffs filed the following M&M Liens which encumber MDC
Reeves, LLC’s (“MDC Reeves”) property interests in certain oil and gas “Units:”1
1 The Units are described in the “Ankura Lien Data Spreadsheet” that Debtors uploaded to the "website established by Stretto for the Debtors’ chapter 11 cases (the “Stretto Website”) on or about June 9, 2020. According to Debtors’
15 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 16 of 82
a) Plaintiff M&M Liens Against the “A Classic Dash 18 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Nabors $575,406.86 2019017124 10/16/2019
b) Plaintiff M&M Liens Against the “Affirmed 6 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Baker Hughes $92,110,95 2019014717 9/9/2019
c) Plaintiff M&M Liens Against the “Alysheba 18 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded STC $226,796.98 2019016614 10/8/2019 Smith $85,517.50 2019016613 10/8/2019
d) Plaintiff M&M Liens Against the “California Chrome 2.7 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded GEO&G $449,259.81 2019015115 9/16/2019 STC $257,460.63 2019015109 9/16/2019 Smith $260,035.75 2019015105 9/16/2019
e) Plaintiff M&M Liens Against “Coopers Dream 23 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded STC $100,527.52 2019015812 9/26/2019 Smith $67,836.25 2019015828 9/26/2019
f) Plaintiff M&M Liens Against “Copperhead 23 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Baker Hughes $44,789.18 2019015536 9/23/2019 STC $162,790.71 2019015813 9/26/2019 Smith $45,892.50 2019015829 9/26/2019
g) Plaintiff M&M Liens Against “Count Fleet 11 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Baker Hughes $41,060.87 2019015907 9/27/2019 STC $149,979.54 2019015909 9/27/2019 Smith $474,974.94 2019015910 9/27/2019
“Ankura Lien Data—Methodology & Assumptions,” also uploaded to the Stretto Website on or about June 9, 2020, a “Unit” is a “[u]nitized group of Collateral Silos or Wells.”
16 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 17 of 82
h) Plaintiff M&M Liens Against “Delightful Dasher 11 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded STC $70,128.13 2019016615 10/8/2019 Smith $31,392.50 2019016612 10/8/2019
i) Plaintiff M&M Liens Against “Gavyns Run 23 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded STC $73,613.63 2019015814 9/26/2019 Smith $45,892.50 2019015830 9/26/2019
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Baker Hughes $142,471.07 2019017439 10/22/2019 GEO&G $91,739.32 2019016309 10/3/2019 GEO&G $127,487.44 2019019206 11/26/2019 Nabors $2,303,464.54 2019016411 10/4/2019 STC $561,181.10 2019015206 9/17/2019 Smith $86,965.21 2019019589 12/9/2019
j) Plaintiff M&M Liens Against “Omaha 11 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Baker Hughes $19,962.82 2019015667 9/24/2019 Nabors $938,403.85 2019019709 12/10/2019 STC $25,141.93 2019015538 9/23/2019 Smith $235,537.92 2019015539 9/23/2019
k) Plaintiff M&M Liens Against “Pickpocket 21 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Baker Hughes $115,938.57 2019014716 9/9/2019
l) Plaintiff M&M Lien Against “Repent 23 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded GEO&G $127,900.21 2019013432 8/20/2019
m) Plaintiff M&M Liens Against “Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded STC $544,466.39 2019017920 10/31/2019 Smith $286,278.75 2019017919 10/31/2019
17 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 18 of 82
n) Plaintiff M&M Lien Against “Runaway-Ghost 23 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded GEO&G $123,483.03 2019013433 1/25/2019
o) Plaintiff M&M Liens Against “Salt Grass 13 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Baker Hughes $354,929.81 2019015938 9/30/2019 STC $35,139.85 2019015939 9/30/2019 Smith $5,776.23 2019015941 9/30/2019
p) Plaintiff M&M Liens Against “War Admiral 24 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Baker Hughes $9,270.69 2019014720 9/9/2019 GEO&G $699,344.45 2019016310 10/3/2019 GEO&G $127,359.70 2019019207 11/26/2019 STC $80,450.00 2019015210 9/17/2019 Smith- $153,606.25 2019015207 9/17/2019
q) Plaintiff M&M Liens Against “Whirlaway 24 Unit.”
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Baker Hughes $63,898.69 2019014718 9/9/2019 GEO&G $110,150.04 2019015116 9/16/2019 GEO&G $11,258.00 2019018676 11/19/2019 Nabors $1,756,787.19 2019016412 10/4/2019 Smith $321,226.76 2019015208 9/17/2019
r) M&M Liens Against “Yucca Unit.”2
Plaintiff Lien Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Baker Hughes $147,356.19 2019015937 9/30/2019
(collectively, the “Plaintiff M&M Liens”).
2 The A Classic Dash 18 Unit, Affirmed 6 Unit, Alysheba 18 Unit, California Chrome 27 Unit, Coopers Dream-23 Unit, Copperhead 23 Unit, Count Fleet 11 Unit, Delightful Dasher 11 Unit, Gavyns Run 23 Unit, Imperial Eagle 24 Unit, Omaha 11 Unit, Pickpocket 21 Unit, Repent 23 Unit, Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit, Runaway Ghost 23 Unit, Salt Grass 13 Unit, War Admiral 24 Unit, Whirlaway 24 Unit, and Yucca Unit are, collectively, the “Subject Units.”
18 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 19 of 82
ANSWER: With respect to the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 59 of the
Complaint, Aveda does not have sufficient information to either admit or deny the same and would
therefore deny the allegation.
60. Plaintiffs’ M&M Liens encumber the “entire tract of land or leasehold interest upon
which materials were delivered to or used and if such material was furnished or used on one of
two or more tracts which tracts were treated as a unit, the lien exists as to the entire unit.” Dunigan
Tool & Sup. v. Burris, 427 S.W.2d 341, 344 (Tex. App.—Eastland, 1968, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Like
Plaintiffs, each Defendant filed one or more M&M Liens encumbering MDC Reeves’ interests in
one or more of the Subject Units. Because M&M Liens encumbering the same property interests
have equal priority and “share in [the property subject to their liens] on a pro rata basis,” Plaintiffs
have standing to object to the validity of Defendants’ competing M&M Liens.3 In re Meg
Petroleum Corp., 61 B.R. 14, 21 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1986).
ANSWER: With respect to the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 60 of the
Complaint addressing the encumbrance of the Plaintiffs liens, Aveda does not have sufficient information to either admit or deny the same and would therefore deny the allegation. With respect to the factual allegation contained in Paragraph 60 addressing each named Defendants with liens encumbering MDC Reeves’ interests in one or more of the Subject Units, Aveda does not have sufficient information to either admit or deny the same and would therefore deny the allegation.
With respect to the allegation regarding the Plaintiffs standing to object to the validity of competing M&M Liens is a factual allegation, Aveda denies as there has not yet been a determination by the Court that Aveda’s M&M Liens are a subcontractor lien rather than a contractor’s lien.
3 Whether Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ M&M Liens are of equal priority will depend, in part, on the resolution of M&M Lien priority issues pending in the Consolidated Proceeding.
19 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 20 of 82
61. To be valid, Defendants’ M&M Liens must comply with the requirements set forth in Chapter 56 of the Texas Property Code, entitled “Liens Against Mineral Property.” Chapter 56 provides for “mineral contractor” and “mineral subcontractor” liens. TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.001.
A “mineral contractor” is “a person who performs labor or furnishes ... material ... under an express or implied contract with a mineral property owner or with a trustee, agent, or receiver of a mineral property owner.” Id. at § 56.001(2). A “mineral subcontractor” is “a person who ... furnishes or hauls material” or “performs labor ... under contract with a mineral contractor” or a “mineral subcontractor.” Id. at § 56.001(4). Here, the only Debtor that owns interests in the Subject Units is MDC Reeves. Thus, all M&M Lien claimants who did not contract with (i) MDC Reeves or (ii) a trustee, agent, or receiver of MDC Reeves are mineral subcontractors.
ANSWER: With respect to the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 61 of the
Complaint, Aveda denies the same.
62. Mineral contractors and mineral subcontractors must both comply with Sections
56.021(a) and 56.022(a) of the Texas Property Code. Section 56.021(a) provides:
Not later than six months after the day the indebtedness accrues, a person claiming the lien must file an affidavit with the county clerk of the county in which the property is located [“M&M Lien Affidavit”].
Id. at § 56.021(a). Section 56.005 explains that “the indebtedness for material or services accrues on the date the material or services were last furnished.” Id. at § 56.005(b). Thus, M&M Lien claimants must file their M&M Lien Affidavits within six (6) months of the last date the claimant provided materials or services at the encumbered Unit. Additionally, Section 56.022(a) provides that a M&M Lien Affidavits must include:
(1) the name of the mineral property owner involved, if known;
(2) the name and mailing address of the claimant;
(3) the dates of performance or furnishing;
20 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 21 of 82
(4) a description of the land, leasehold interest, pipeline, or pipeline right-of-way involved; and
(5) an itemized list of amounts claimed.
Id. at § 56.002(a).
ANSWER: With respect to Paragraph 62 of the Complaint, the Paragraph contains no factual allegations to either admit or deny, as the Paragraph contains a recitation of Texas Property
Code, Section 56 et seq. To the extent an answer is required, Aveda denies the allegations in
Paragraph 62 of the Complaint.
63. Sections 56.021(b), 56.022(b), and 56.023 impose additional requirements on mineral subcontractors. Section 56.021(b) provides that “[n]ot later than the 10th day before the day the [M&M Lien Affidavit] is filed, a mineral subcontractor claiming the lien must serve on the property owner written notice that the lien is claimed.” Id. at § 56.021(b). Section 56.023 requires the “mineral subcontractor’s notice to the property owner [to] include the amount of the lien, the name of the person indebted to the subcontractor, and a description of the land, leasehold interest, pipeline, or pipeline right-of-way involved.” Id. at § 56.023. And Section 56.022(b) requires a mineral subcontractor’s M&M Lien Affidavit to include:
(1) the name of the person for whom labor was performed or material was furnished or hauled; and
(2) a statement that the subcontractor timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver.
Id. at § 56.022(b).
ANSWER: With respect to Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, the Paragraph contains no factual allegations to either admit or deny, as the Paragraph contains a recitation of Texas Property
Code, Section 56 et seq. To the extent an answer is required, Aveda denies the allegations in
Paragraph 63 of the Complaint.
21 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 22 of 82
64. For the reasons set forth, below, certain of Defendants’ Competing M&M Liens are
invalid due to Defendants’ failure to comply with one or more of Chapter 56’s requirements.
ANSWER: With respect to Paragraph 64 of the Complaint, the Paragraph contains no
factual allegations to either admit or deny, as the Paragraph contains a conclusory statement that
all competing M&M Liens are invalid. To the extent that Paragraph 64 contains a factual
allegation, the same is denied.
V. CAUSE OF ACTION
COUNT 1 Declaratory Judgment Regarding Validity of Competing M&M Liens
65. The allegations in Count 1 are directed against all Defendants.
ANSWER: Paragraph 65 of the Complaint contains no factual allegations to either admit or deny and Aveda offers no response to this Paragraph, but acknowledges that the Plaintiffs are directing Complaint for Declaratory Judgement as to all Defendants.
66. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all paragraphs above.
ANSWER: Aveda repeats and incorporates by reference its responses to the previous allegations as though fully set forth herein.
67. This claim for relief arises under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2201 and Bankruptcy Rule 7001(2) and (9).
ANSWER: Paragraph 67 of the Complaint contains no factual allegations to either admit or deny and Aveda offers no response to this Paragraph, but to acknowledge that Plaintiffs are seeking relief under the cited statute and Bankruptcy rules. To the extent that Paragraph 67 contains a factual allegation, the same is denied.
22 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 23 of 82
68. Each Competing M&M Lien set forth below fails to comply with one or more
requirements of Chapter 56 of the Texas Property Code for the reason or reasons stated:4
a. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Alamo Pressure Pumping, LLC
(“Alamo”): Alamo filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of
Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Affirmed 6 Unit $1,375,880.10 2019012260 8/2/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit $1,505,321.59 2019012252 8/2/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $1,655,759.02 2019012253 8/2/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $1,912.50 2019012254 8/2/2019 Copperhead 23 Unit $139,941.87 2019012255 8/2/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit and $4,088,743.17 2019018099 11/5/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $1,607,467.60 2019018833 11/20/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $2,324,184.1.5 2019018834 11/20/2019 Runaway Ghost 23 Unit $1,102,729.22 2019012256 8/2/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $1,616,320.43 2019012259 8/2/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $1,807,019.44 2019012260 8/2/2019 "War Admiral-24-Unit $1,882,537.46 20-19012261 8/2/2019
(the “Alamo M&M Lien Affidavits”). The Alamo M&M Lien Affidavits recorded at Instrument
Numbers 2019012250, 2019012252, 2019012253, 2019012254, 2019012255, 2019018099,
2019012256, 2019012259, 2019012260, and 20:19012261 each state that Alamo contracted with
MDC Energy. The Alamo M&M Lien Affidavits recorded at Instrument Numbers 2019018833
and 2019018834 each state that Alamo contracted with “the Mineral Property Owner,” defined in
those affidavits as MDC Texas Operator LLC, MDC Reeves Energy LLC, and MDC Energy LLC
4 The Alamo M&M Liens, Applied M&M Liens, Big E M&M Liens, Briley M&M Lien, BT M&M Liens, Buckeye M&M Liens, CSP M&M Lien, Durachem M&M Lien, Fluid M&M Liens, FTS M&M Liens, Hadco M&M Liens, Halliburton M&M Liens, Integrity M&M Liens, JW M&M Liens, LF M&M Liens, McClinton M&M Liens, Meyer M&M Liens, .Motley M&M Liens, DHT M&M Liens, NOV M&M Liens, New Tech M&M Liens, Nexus M&M Liens, Pate M&M Liens, Amigos M&M Lien, Prime Time M&M Liens, ProPetro M&M Liens, Pro Oil M&M Liens, Qwik Pipe M&M Liens, Ranger M&M Liens, RDL M&M Liens, Reservoir M&M Liens, Right Light M&M Lien, Rodan M&M Liens, Rusco M&M Liens, RWLS M&M Liens, Select M&M Liens, Sierra M&M Liens, Spraberry M&M Liens, Summit M&M Liens, Tanmar M&M Lien, Tetra M&M Lien, Texas Fueling M&M Liens, Trans-Tex Cementing M&M Liens, Trans-Tex Dyno M&M Liens, TriplePlay M&M Liens, Vaughn M&M Liens, WB M&M Liens, WS M&M Liens, and Wilbanks M&M Lien are, collectively the “Subject M&M Liens.”
23 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 24 of 82
d/b/a MDC Texas Energy LLC, collectively. However, the contract documents attached to the
Alamo M&M Lien Affidavits all reference MDC Energy as the contracting party. Because MDC
Energy does not own the property at which Alamo provided the materials and/or services
referenced in the Alamo M&M Lien Affidavits, Alamo is a mineral subcontractor. The Alamo
M&M Lien Affidavits, however, each fail to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely
served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent,
representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that Alamo otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§
56.021(b) & 56.023. Additionally, the Alamo M&M Lien Affidavits recorded at Instrument
Numbers 2019012250, 2019012252, 2019012253, 2019012254, 2019012256-, 2019012259,
2019012260, and 201901-2261- each state that “the dates of performance and-furnishing ... are as specified in the copy of the invoice attached to and made a part of this Affidavit as Exhibit C.” but
the invoices attached to these Alamo M&M Lien Affidavits do not include dates of performance
or furnishing. Accordingly, the Alamo M&M Lien Affidavits recorded at Instrument Numbers
2019012250, 2019012252, 2019012253, 2019012254, 2019012256, 2019012259, 2019012260,
and 2019012261 also fail to include the “dates of performance or furnishing” as required by
Section 56.022(a)(3) of the Texas Property Code. TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(a)(3). The M&M
Liens purportedly secured by the Alamo M&M Lien Affidavits are, therefore, invalid (the “Alamo
M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68a of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained
therein and would deny the same.
24 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 25 of 82
b. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Applied US Energy, Inc. ('“Applied”):
Applied filed the following Competing M&M Lien Affidavit in the official real property records
of Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded California Chrome 27 Unit $378,684.67 2020000933 1/22/2020 Copperhead 23 Unit $9,379.42 2020000935 1/22/2020 Count Fleet 11 Unit $26,843.29 2020001501 1/30/2020 Omaha 11 Unit $7,989.14 2020001498 1/30/2020 Pickpocket 21 Unit $3,981.39 2020000936 1/22/2020 War Admiral 24 Unit $10,024.93 2020000937 1/22/2020 Yucca Unit $21,71836- 2020001502 1/30/2020
(the “Applied M&M Lien Affidavits”). The Applied M&M Lien Affidavits state that Applied
contracted with “MDC Energy, LLC d/b/a MDC Texas Energy and/or MDC Texas Energy, LLC;
MDC Operating, LLC; and/or MDC Texas Operating, LLC.” Because neither MDC Energy, LLC
d/b/a MDC Texas Energy, LLC, MDC Operating, LLC, nor MDC Texas Operating, LLC own the
property at which Applied provided the materials and/or services referenced in the Applied M&M
Lien Affidavit, Applied would be a mineral subcontractor if Applied actually provided the relevant
materials and services. The Applied M&M Lien Affidavits, however, fail to include a-“statement that the subcontractor timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2)
or evidence that Applied otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required
by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023. Additionally, the Applied M&M Lien Affidavits state that Applied is the “parent company of Knox Oilfield Supply, Inc.” but that Applied is the
“Claimant.” Because the contract documents attached to the Applied M&M Lien-Affidavits show that “Knox Oil Field Supply, Inc.” was the relevant contracting party, the Applied M&M Lien
Affidavits are not sought by an actual mineral contractor or subcontractor as required by Section
25 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 26 of 82
56.002 of the Texas Property Code. TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.002. The M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Applied M&M Lien Affidavits are, therefore, invalid (the “Applied M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68b of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
c. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Eastham Drilling, Inc. d/b/a Big E Drilling
Co. (“Big E”): Big E filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas, including, the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $146,991.30 2019018418 11/13/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $283,805.46 2019017395 10/21/2019
(the “Big E M&M Lien Affidavits”). The Big E M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid because Big E failed to file the Big E M&M Lien Affidavits in the real property records of Reeves County, Texas
“not later than six months after the day the indebtedness accrues,” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE
§ 56.021 (a). The Big E M&M Lien Affidavits state that Big E provided the labor, materials, and/or equipment, and related, services underlying the Big E M&M Lien Affidavits during the months of
February and March 2019, but the Big E M&M Lien Affidavits were filed on November 13, 2019 and October 21, 2019, more than six months after the indebtedness accrued. Accordingly, the
M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Big-E M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “Big E M&M
Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68c of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
26 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 27 of 82
d. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Briley Trucking, Ltd. (“Briley”): Briley
filed the following Competing M&M Lien Affidavit in the official real property records of Reeves
County, Texas:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Alysheba 18 Unit $165,000.00 2019018487 11/15/2019
(the “Briley M&M Lien Affidavit”). The Briley M&M Lien Affidavit states that Briley contracted
with “MDC Texas Operator, LLC and/or MDC Texas Energy, LLC.” Because neither MDC Texas
Operator, LLC nor MDC Texas Energy, LLC own the property at which Briley provided the
materials and/or services referenced in the Briley M&M Lien Affidavit, Briley is a mineral
subcontractor. The Briley M&M Lien Affidavit, however, fails to include a “statement that the
subcontractor timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the
owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2) or
evidence that Briley otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by
TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023. Accordingly, the M&M Lien purportedly secured by the
Briley M&M Lien Affidavit is invalid (the “Briley M&M Lien”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68d of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained
therein and would deny the same.
e. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by BT Midstream, LLC (“BT”): BT filed the
following Competing M&M Lien Affidavit in the official real property records of Reeves County,
Texas:
27 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 28 of 82
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Affirmed 6 Unit $5,414,534.93 2020000370 January 10, 2020 Assault 6 Unit California Chrome 27 Unit Coopers Dream 23 Unit Copperhead 23 Unit Count Fleet 11 Unit Delightful Dasher 11 Unit Gavyns Run 23 Unit Imperial Eagle 24 Unit Just Call Me Ken 8 Unit Omaha 11 Unit Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit War Admiral 24 Unit Whirlaway 24 Unit Yucca Unit
(the “BT M&M Lien Affidavit”). The BT M&M Lien Affidavit provides “dates of billing of the furnishing and/or performance” (emphasis added) but does not provide the dates of performance or furnishing as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(a)(3) and there is no evidence that BT otherwise complied with the requirements of TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(a)(3). Further, many of the billing dates for materials allegedly furnished to certain Units pre-date BT’s filing of the BT
M&M Lien Affidavit by more than six (6) months, and, therefore, the BT M&M Lien Affidavit fails to comply with TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.021(a). The M&M Liens purportedly secured by the
BT M&M Lien Affidavit are, therefore, invalid (the “BT M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68e of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
f. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Buckeye, Inc. (“Buckeye”): Buckeye filed
Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
28 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 29 of 82
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Affirmed 6 Unit $259,631.90 19-10055 6/25/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit $171,416.41 19-10071 6/25/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $351,277.21 2019012792 8/9/2019 Pickpocket 21 Unit $165,903.42 19-10060 6/25/2019 Pickpocket 21 Unit $125,074.96 19-09845 6/21/2019- Runaway Ghost 23 Unit $105,732.17 19-09848 6/21/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $264,417.11 19-10065 6/25/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $251,276.95 19-10059 6/25/2019 Whirlaway 24 Unit $403,369.59 19-10064 6/25/2019 Whirlaway 24 Unit $102,834.15 19-10063 6/25/2019
(the “Buckeye M&M Lien Affidavits”). The Buckeye M&M Lien Affidavits state that Buckeye
contracted with MDC Texas Operator, LLC and/or MDC Texas Energy, LLC. The contract
documents attached to the Buckeye M&M Lien Affidavits show that Buckeye, contracted with
MDC Energy. Because neither MDC-Operator nor MDC Energy own the property at which
Buckeye provided the materials and/or services referenced in the Buckeye M&M Lien Affidavits,
Buckeye is a mineral subcontractor. The Buckeye M&M Lien Affidavits, however, fail to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE
§ 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that Buckeye otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien
notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023. Accordingly, the M&M Liens
purportedly secured by the Buckeye M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “Buckeye M&M
Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68f of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained
therein and would deny the same.
29 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 30 of 82
g. Competing M&M Lien Asserted by CSP Permian. LLC (“CSP”): CSP filed the following Competing M&M Lien Affidavit in the official real property records of Reeves County,
Texas:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Whirlaway 24 Unit $253,889.42 2020003573 3/13/2020
(the “CSP M&M Lien Affidavit”). The CSP M&M Lien Affidavit states that CSP contracted with
“MDC Energy LLC, d/b/a MDC Texas Energy LLC.” The invoices attached to the CSP M&M
Lien Affidavit all were billed to MDC Energy. Because MDC Energy does not own the property at which CSP provided the materials and/or services referenced in the CSP M&M Lien Affidavit,
CSP is a mineral subcontractor. The CSP M&M Lien Affidavit, however, fails to include a
“statement that the subcontractor timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE
§ 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that CSP otherwise timely, served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023. Accordingly, the M&M Lien purportedly secured by the CSP M&M Lien Affidavit is invalid (the “CSP M&M Lien”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68g of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
h. Competing M&M Lien Asserted by DuraChem Production Services. LLC
('“Durachem”'): Durachem filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Affirmed 6 Unit $483,059.55 2019017657 10/28/2019
30 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 31 of 82
(the “Durachem M&M Lien Affidavit”). The Durachem M&M Lien Affidavit is invalid because
.Durachem failed to file the Durachem M&M Lien Affidavit in the real property records of Reeves
County, Texas “not later than six months after the day the indebtedness accrues” as required by
TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.021(a). The invoices attached to the Durachem M&M Lien Affidavit show that Durachem furnished work to MDC Energy during the month of March 2019, while the
Durachem M&M Lien Affidavit-was filed on October 28, 2019. Accordingly, the M&M Lien purportedly secured by the Durachem M&M Lien Affidavit is invalid (the “Durachem M&M
Lien”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68h of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
i. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Fluid Delivery Solutions, LLC (“Fluid”):
Fluid filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves
County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Bate Recorded Affirmed 6 Unit $3,512,753.79 2019020392 12/26/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit Copperhead 23 Unit Coopers Dream 23 Unit Count Fleet 11 Unit Imperial- Eagle 24 Unit Omaha 11 Unit Pickpocket 21 Unit War Admiral 24 Unit Whirlaway 24 Unit Yucca Unit
(the “Fluid M&M Lien Affidavit”). The Fluid M&M Lien Affidavit states that it “furnished the services and materials and performed the labor identified in this lien affidavit during the period from December 2, 2018 through September 25, 2019” and that the dates on which Fluid provided
31 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 32 of 82
the “particular services, materials and labor” are set forth in the “unpaid invoices and corresponding field tickets” attached to the Fluid M&M Lien Affidavit. Because the Fluid M&M
Lien Affidavit asserts M&M Liens against eleven (11) different Units, Section 56.022(a)(3) & (4) required Fluid to, at least, provide an itemized list of the materials and services furnished in support of each M&M Lien and the relevant dates of furnishing, which Fluid failed to do. See TEX. PROP.
CODE 56.022(a)(3) &-(4). Further, the dates identified in the invoices attached to the Fluid M&M
Lien Affidavit demonstrate that Fluid failed to timely file the Fluid M&M Lien Affidavit with respect to each of the M&M Liens it asserts as required by Section 56.021 (a) of the Texas Property
Code. See TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.021(a). Moreover, the Fluid M&M Lien Affidavit states that
Fluid contracted with “MDC Energy, LLC d/b/a MDC Texas Energy, LLC.” Because MDC
Energy does not own the property subject to Fluid’s alleged M&M Liens, Fluid is a mineral subcontractor. And, although the Fluid M&M Lien Affidavit states that it “timely served written notice that this lien is claimed on the Owners, by certified mail, return receipt requested, in accordance with Chapter 56 of-the Texas Property Code,” there is no evidence that Fluid timely served notice with respect to all eleven (11) M&M Liens it asserts via its M&M Lien Affidavit.
See TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.022. Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Fluid M&M Lien Affidavit are invalid (the “Fluid M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68i of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
j. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by FTS International Services, LLC (“FTS”):
FTS filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County,
Texas, including the following:
32 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 33 of 82
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded California Chrome 27 Unit $1240,969.50 19-02961 2/25/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit $1,203,242.45 1-9-02966 2/25/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $486,495.00 2019019820 12/12/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $467,035.20 2019019823 12/12/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $311,356.80 2019019819 12/12/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $311,356.80 2019019822 12/12/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $194,598.00 2019019821 12/12/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $194,598.00 2019019824 12/12/2019 Whirlaway 24 Unit $414,801.00 2019019826 12/12/2019 Whirlaway 24 Unit $346,041.11 2019019827 12/12/2019 Whirlaway 24 Unit $230,445.00 2019019825 12/12/2019
(the “FTS M&M Lien Affidavits”). The FTS M&M Lien Affidavits state that FTS contracted with.
“MDC Energy LLC and MDC Texas Operator LLC.” The invoices attached to the FTS M&M
Lien Affidavits all were billed to MDC Energy. Because neither MDC Energy nor MDC Operator own the property at which FTS provided the materials and/or services referenced in the FTS M&M
Lien Affidavits, FTS is a mineral subcontractor. The FTS M&M Lien Affidavits, however, fail to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” or evidence that FTS otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§
56.021(b) & 56.023. Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the FTS M&M Lien
Affidavits are invalid (the “FTS M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68j of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
k. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Hadco Services, Inc. (“Hadco”): Hadco filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County,
Texas, including the following:
33 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 34 of 82
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded A Classic Dash 18 Unit $35,597.52 2019011593 7/22/2019 Affirmed 6 Unit $52,868.96 2019012658 8/8/2019 Alysheba 18 Unit $14,987.71 2019012656 8/8/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit $100,339.82 2019011592 7/22/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit $58,161.36 2019012650 8/8/2019 Copperhead 23 Unit $18,330.94 2019014101 8/29/2019 Count Fleet 11 Unit $92,791.08 2019012659 8/8/2019 Count Fleet 11 Unit $11,591.45 2019016387 10/4/2019 Gavyn’s Run 23 Unit $30,395.93 2019012655 8/8/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $5,404.53 2019016388 10/4/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $28,049.13 2019012653 8/8/2019 Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit $4,621.79 2019012657 8/8/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $8,216.55 2019016386 10/4/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $78,313.98 2019011594 7/22/2019 Whirlaway 24 Unit $59,643.16 2019012654 8/8/2019 A Classic Dash 18 Unit $35,597.52 2019011593 7/22/2019
(the “Hadco M&M Lien Affidavits”) The Hadco M&M Lien Affidavits state that Hadco contracted with MDC Operator and/or MDC Energy. The invoices attached to the Hadco M&M Lien
Affidavits all were billed to “MDC” or “MDC Texas Energy.” Because neither MDC Operator nor
MDC Energy own the property at which Hadco provided the materials and/or services referenced in. the Hadco. M&M Lien Affidavits, Hadco is a mineral subcontractor. The Hadco M&M Lien
Affidavits, however, fail to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” or evidence that Hadco otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by
TEX. PROP. CODE §'§ 56.021(b) & 56.023. Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Hadco M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “Hadco M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68k of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
34 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 35 of 82
l. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
(“Halliburton’”): Halliburton filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property
records of Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $776,766.43 19-10786 7/5/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit Whirlaway 24 Unit Count Fleet 11 Unit Copperhead 23 Unit Coopers Dream 23 Unit Affirmed 6 Unit War Admiral 24 Unit
(the “Halliburton M&M Lien Affidavit”). The Halliburton M&M Lien Affidavit states that
Halliburton performed labor or services and furnished material, machinery, or oil well supplies at
the request of “MDC Texas Energy LLC and MDC Texas Operator LLC.” Because neither MDC
Energy nor MDC Operator own the property at which Halliburton provided the materials and/or
services referenced in the Halliburton M&M Lien Affidavit, Halliburton is a mineral
subcontractor. The Halliburton M&M Lien Affidavit, however, fails to include a “statement that
the subcontractor timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the
owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” or evidence that Halliburton otherwise timely served a
mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023.
Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Halliburton M&M Lien Affidavit are
invalid (the “Halliburton M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68l of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
35 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 36 of 82
m. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Integrity Bio-Chemicals, LLC
(“Integrity”): Integrity filed Competing M&M Lien Statements in the official real property records
of Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Coopers Dream 23 Unit $113,339.18 19-06279 4/18/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $113,339.18 2019011606 7/22/2019
(the “Integrity M&M Lien Statements”). The Integrity M&M Lien Statements state that Integrity
contracted with “Transcontinental Trading Inc.” Because Transcontinental Trading, Inc. does not
own the property at which Integrity provided the materials and/or services referenced in the
Integrity M&M Lien Statements, Integrity is a mineral subcontractor. The Integrity M&M Lien
Statement filed at Instrument No. 19-06279, however, fails to include a “statement that the
subcontractor timely served written notice that the- lien is claimed on the property owner or the
owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” or evidence that Integrity otherwise timely served a
mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023. The
Integrity M&M Lien Statement filed at Instrument No. 19-06279 also fails to provide an itemized
list of amounts claimed as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §56.022(a)(5). The Integrity Lien
Statement filed at 2019011606 fails to provide the dates of performance or furnishing as required
by TEX. PROP. CODE §56.022(a)(3). Both Integrity M&M Lien Statements also fail to satisfy the requirement of filing an affidavit under TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(a) and 56.022(a). The
“Acknowledgement” attached to both Integrity M&M Lien Statements states that Scott Schroeder
“ascribed to the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledges to me that he executed the same for
the purposes and consideration therein written.” This fails to include the jurat which is necessary
to make a statement an affidavit under Texas law. See In re Reichmann Petroleum Corp., 2009
WL 915280, *8 (S.D. Tex. March 31,2009) (“Without a jurat, a statement is not an ‘affidavit’... A
36 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 37 of 82
mere acknowledgement that a document was executed for a particular purpose is insufficient.”)
(internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the M&M Lien purportedly secured by the Integrity
M&M Lien Statements is invalid (the “Integrity M&M Lien”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68m of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
n. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by JW Powerline, LLC (“JW”): JW filed
Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas, including the-following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded A Classic Dash 18 Unit $27,841.07 2020000345 1/10/2020 A Classic Dash 18 Unit $189,431.64: 2019013095 8/15/2019 A Classic Dash 18 Unit $217,272.71 2019020377 12/26/201-9 Affirmed 6 Unit $3,217.45 2020000344 1/10/2020- Affirmed-6 Unit $69,729.30. 2019014111 8/29/2019 Affirmed 6 Unit $47,761.59 2019020371 12/26/2019 Alysheba 18 Unit $102,437.47 2019013090 8/15/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit $273,223.91 2019014113. 8/29/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $84,678.99 2020000346 1/10/2020 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $580,704.72 2019014114 8/29/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $682,975.70 2019020383 12/26/2019 Copperhead 23 Unit $322,497.85 2019014115 8/29/2019 Copperhead 23 Unit $32,868.19 2020000348 1/10/2020 Copperhead 23 Unit $321,260.45 2019020372 12/26/2019 Delightful Dasher 11 Unit $19,320.52 2019011283 7/15/2019 Omaha 11 Unit $626,700.24 2020000359 1/10/2020 Omaha 11 Unit $1,115,725.25 2019014120 8/29/2019 Omaha 11 Unit $992,059.90 2019020385 12/26/2019 Pickpocket 21 Unit $422,027.94 2019014121 8/29/2019 Pickpocket 21 Unit $411,777.94 2019020374 12/26/2019 Pickpocket 21 Unit $186,632.01 2020000352 1/10/2020 Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit $57,681.15 2019013100 8/15/2019 Runaway Ghost 23 Unit $72,657.51 2019014122 8/29/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $354,089.90 2019014127 8/29/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $296,784.33 2019020387 12/26/2019 Whirlaway 24 Unit $372,083.26 2019014128 8/29/2019
37 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 38 of 82
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Whirlaway 24 Unit $284,800.69 2019020376 12/26/2019 Yucca Unit $250,19926 2019014129 8/29/2019 Yucca Unit $180,580.90 2019020382 12/26/2019
(the “JW M&M Lien Affidavits”). The JW M&M Lien Affidavits recorded on January 10, 2020 state that JW performed labor and provided materials to “MDC,” which they define as MDC
Operator and MDC Reeves. However, the invoices attached to the JW M&M Lien Affidavits recorded on January 10, 2020 all were billed to MDC Energy. The JW M&M Lien Affidavits recorded in July and August 2019 provide that JW “furnished labor and materials for the improvement of the real property described herein pursuant to a contract with MDC Texas Energy,
LLC the owner or reputed owner of the real property.” The JW M&M Lien Affidavits recorded on
December 26, 2019 state that JW “performed labor and provided materials to MDC for the construction, service, and maintenance of certain oil and water wells on the Mineral Property” and define MDC as “MDC Texas Energy, LLC.” Because MDC Energy does not own the property at which JW provided-the materials and/or services referenced in the JW M&M Lien Affidavits, JW is a mineral subcontractor. The JW M&M Lien Affidavits recorded on December 26, 2019 and
January 10, 2020, however, fail to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” or evidence that JW otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023. The JW M&M Lien Affidavits recorded in
July and August 2019 only provide that “One (1) copy of this Lien Affidavit and Claim is being sent via certified mail, return receipt requested to the above-described Owner addressed to its last known addresses.” This fails to satisfy TEX. PROP. CODE §56.021(b), which requires that notice be sent “[n]ot later than the 10th day before the day the affidavit is filed.” Additionally, the JW M&M
Lien Affidavits recorded in July and August 2019 fail to provide an itemized list of amounts
38 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 39 of 82
claimed as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §56.022(a)(5). Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the JW M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “JW M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68n of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
o. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by L.F. Manufacturing, Inc. (“LF”): LF filed
Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded War Admiral 24 Unit $217,300.28 2019015099 9/16/2019 Toyah B Unit Yucca Unit
(the “LF M&M Lien Affidavit”). The LF M&M Lien Affidavit is invalid because it was recorded in the-real property records of Reeves County, Texas more than six months after the day the alleged indebtedness underlying the LF M&M Lien Affidavit accrued. The invoices attached to the LF
M&M Lien Affidavit show LF furnished materials to the War Admiral 24, Yucca, and Toyah B
Units. The invoices, however, also show LF last furnished materials to the Toyah B Unit on
February 25, 2019 and the Yucca Unit on February 20, 2019 and filed the LF M&M Lien Affidavit more than six-months later. The LF M&M Lien Affidavit, therefore, does not comply with TEX.
PROP. CODE § 56.021(a) with respect to the Toyah B and Yucca Units. Accordingly, the M&M
Liens purportedly secured by the LF M&M Lien Affidavit are invalid (the “LF M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68o of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
39 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 40 of 82
p. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by McClinton Energy Group, L.L.C.
(“McClinton”): McClinton filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date-Recorded A Classic Dash 18 Unit $84,134.26 2019016255 10/3/2019 Affirmed 6 Unit $51,970.37 2019016252 10/3/2019 Alysheba 18 Unit $9,863.72 2019016253 10/3/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit $48,766.96 2019016254 10/3/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $40,231.04 2019016256 10/3/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $16,605.19 2019016257 10/3/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $17,887.22 2019016258 10/3/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $20,788.72 2019016259 10/3/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $38,027.98 2019016260 10/3/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $36,900.43 2019016261 10/3/2019 Copperhead 23 Unit $179,448.72 2019016262 10/3/2019 Count Fleet 11 Unit $3,793.90 2019016263 10/3/2019 Count Fleet IT Unit $4,213.42 2019016264 10/3/2019 Count Fleet 11 Unit $5,655.29 2019016265 10/3/2019 Count Fleet 11 Unit $43,710.02 2019016266 10/3/2019 Count Fleet 11 Unit $29,290.52 2019016267 10/3/2019 Delightful Dasher 11 Unit $22,380.93 2019016234 10/3/2019 Delightful Dasher 11 Unit $36,832.24 2019016268 10/3/2019- Gavyns Run 23 Unit $75,136.09 2019016272 10/3/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $734,544.59 2019016273 10/3/2019 Omaha 11 Unit $2,475.56 2019016236 10/3/2019 Omaha 11 Unit $186,977.89 2019016248 10/3/2019 Pickpocket 21 Unit $74,582.95 2019016238 10/3/2019 Repent 23 Unit $17,737.20 2019016249 10/3/2019 Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit $14,874.76 2019016237 10/3/2019 Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit $44,273.09 2019016239 10/3/2019 Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit $3,184.35 2019016240 10/372019 Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit $44,654.09 2019016241 10/3/2019 Runaway Ghost 23 Unit $94,540.30 2019016250 10/3/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $250,208.54 2019016246 10/3/2019 Whirlaway 24 Unit $64,733.95 2019016247 10/3/2019
(the “McClinton M&M Lien Affidavits”'). The McClinton M&M Lien Affidavits each contain a statement that McClinton “performed labor and/or furnished or hauled .material at the request of
MDC Energy LLC d/b/a/ MDC Texas Energy LLC.” Because MDC Energy does not own the
40 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 41 of 82
properties at which McClinton provided the materials and/or services referenced in the McClinton
M&M Lien Affidavits, McClinton is a mineral subcontractor. The McClinton M&M Lien
Affidavits, however, fail to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that McClinton otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023.
Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the McClinton M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “McClinton M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68p of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
q. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Meyer Energy Services. LLC (“Meyer”):
Meyer filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real- property records of Reeves
County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Toyah B Unit $96,158.75 19-10179 6/29/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit Alysheba 18 Unit Count Fleet 11 Unit
(the “Meyer M&M Lien Affidavit”). The Meyer M&M Lien Affidavit contains a statement that
Meyer “furnished labor, material, services, and/or equipment . . . under express or implied contracts with MDC Texas Operator, LLC and/or MED [sic]-Energy, LLC d/b/a/ MDC Texas
Energy, LLC.” Because neither MDC Operator nor MDC Energy own the properties at which
Meyer provided the materials and/or services referenced in the Meyer M&M Lien Affidavit,
Meyer is a mineral, subcontractor. The Meyer M&M Lien Affidavit, however, fails to include a
41 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 42 of 82
“statement that the subcontractor timely served written .notice that the lien is claimed on the
property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE
§ 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that Meyer otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice
as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023. Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly
secured by the Meyer M&M Lien Affidavit are invalid (the “Meyer M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68q of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained
therein and would deny the same.
r. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Motley Asset Management LLC
(“Motley”): Motley filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of
Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $665,550.00 2019017781 10/30/2019 Whirlaway 24 Unit $309,430.00 2019017780 10/30/2019
(the “Motley M&M Lien Affidavits”). The Motley M&M Lien Affidavits contain a statement that
Motley “performed labor and/or furnished or hauled material, equipment, tools, machinery or
supplies . . . under a single contract with MDC Texas Operator LLC.” Because MDC Operator
does not own the properties at which Motley provided the materials and/or services referenced in
the Motley M&M Lien Affidavits, Motley is a mineral subcontractor. The Motley M&M Lien
Affidavits, however, fail to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely served written notice
that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the-owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that Motley otherwise timely served a
mineral subcontractor lien, notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023.
42 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 43 of 82
Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Motley M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid
(the “Motley M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68r of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
s. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by National Oilwell DHT, L.P. (“DHT”):
DHT filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves
County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Coopers Dream 23 Unit $35,100.00 19-10099 6/26/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $48,600.00 19-10100 6/26/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $32,254.28 2019010680/ 7/3/2019 19-10680 Copperhead 23 Unit $23,976.00 19-10098 6/26/2019 Count Fleet 11 Unit $12,955.36 2019010685/ 7/3/2019 19-10685
(the “DHT M&M Lien Affidavits”). The DHT M&M Lien Affidavits do not comply with TEX.
PROP. CODE § 56.021(a)“because they were recorded in the real property records of Reeves
County, Texas more than six months after the day the alleged indebtedness underlying the DHT
M&M Lien Affidavits accrued. The DHT M&M Lien Affidavits or the invoices attached thereto reflect that the materials and/or services were last furnished or provided on the following dates:
43 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 44 of 82
DHT M&M Lien Affidavit Instrument No. Date Materials Last Furnished and/or Services Last Provided 19-10099 12/22/2018 19-10100 12/25/2018 201-9010680 1/2/2019 19-10098 12/22/2018 201901685 1/2/2019
Because each DHT M&M Lien Affidavit was not recorded until more than six (6) months after the relevant indebtedness accrued, the DHT M&M Lien Affidavits fail to comply with TEX. PROP.
CODE § 56.021(a). Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the DHT M&M Lien
Affidavits are invalid (the “DHT M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68s of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
t. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by National Oilwell Varco, L.P. (“NOV”):
NOV filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves
County, Texas, including the following.
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Copperhead 23 Unit $22,757.85 19-10631 7/3/2019 Copperhead 23 Unit $25,398.50 19-10662 7/3/2019- Coopers Dream 23 Unit $18,163.50 19-10630 7/3/2019
(the “NOV M&M Lien Affidavits”). The NOV M&M Lien Affidavits do not comply with TEX.
PROP. CODE § 56.021(a) because they were recorded in the real property records of Reeves County,
Texas more than six months after the day the alleged indebtedness underlying the NOV M&M
Lien Affidavits accrued. The NOV M&M Lien Affidavits or the invoices attached thereto reflect that the materials and/or services were last furnished or provided on the following dates:
44 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 45 of 82
DHT M&M Lien Affidavit Instrument No. Date Materials Last Furnished and/or Services Last Provided 19-10631 1/2/2019 19-10662 12/25/2018 19-10630 12/16/2018
Because each NOV M&M Lien Affidavit was not recorded until more than six (6) months after the relevant indebtedness accrued, the NOV M&M Lien Affidavits fail to comply with TEX. PROP.
CODE § 56.021(a). Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the NOV M&M Lien
Affidavits are invalid (the “NOV M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68t of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
u. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by New Tech Global Ventures, LLC (“New
Tech”): New Tech filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of
Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded A Classic Dash 18 Unit $50,610.75 2020002699 2/19/2020 Alysheba 1-8 Unit $105,425.00 2020002698 2/19/2020 California Chrome 24 Unit $15,716.25 2019015905 9/27/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $34,324.00 2019020250 12/20/2019 Copperhead 23 Unit $21,928.00 2019017297 10/18/2019 Count Fleet 11 Unit $186,385.00 2020002715 2/19/2020 Count Fleet 11 Unit $130,760.75 2019017296 10/18/20-19 Delightful Dasher 11 Unit $7,975.00 2019018512 11/15/2019 Gavyns Run 23 Unit $14,001.00 2019019199 11/26/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $96,739.50 2020002199 2/6/2020 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $157,307.00 2019017298 10/18/2019 Omaha 11 Unit $58,190.00 2019017300 10/18/2019 Omaha 11 Unit $88,660.75 2020002700 2/19/2020
45 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 46 of 82
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Omaha 11 Unit $131,147.00 2020002701 2/19/2020 Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit $163,556.75 2019017295 10/18/2019 Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit $47,033.00 2019020249 12/20/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $55,205.30 2019017299 10/18/2019 Whirlaway 24 Unit $60,861.00 2020002702 2/19/2020 Whirlaway 24 Unit $39,899.00 2019016070 10/1/2019
(the “New Tech M&M Lien Affidavits”). The New Tech M&M Lien Affidavits recorded at
Instrument Nos. 2019015905, 2019017297, 2019017298, 2019017295, 2019016070,
2019018512, 2019017299, 2019017300, and 2019017296 contain a statement that New Tech
“furnished services as a mineral contractor for the leasehold interest described herein under a
contract by and between Claimant and MDC Texas Operator, LLC.” The New Tech M&M Lien
Affidavits recorded at Instrument Nos. 20190191-99, 2020002199, 2019020250 and 2019020249
contain a statement that that New Tech “furnished services . . . under a contract by and between
Claimant and MDC Texas Operator, LLC and/or MDC Texas-Energy, LLC.” The New Tech
M&M Lien Affidavits recorded at Instrument Nos. 2020002698, 2020002699, 2020002700,
2020002701, 2020002702, and 2020002715 contain a statement that New Tech “furnished services ... for the leasehold interests described herein under a contract by and between Claimant and MDC Texas Operator, LLC and/or MDC Texas Energy, LLC and/or MDC Reeves Energy,
LLC.” However, the invoices attached to the New Tech M&M Lien Affidavits recorded at
Instrument Nos. 2020002698, 2020002699, 2020002700, 2020002701, 2020002702, and
2020002715 show that New Tech invoiced MDC Energy. Because neither MDC Operator nor
MDC Energy own the properties at which New Tech provided the materials and/or services referenced in the New Tech M&M Lien Affidavits, New Tech is a mineral subcontractor. The New
Tech M&M Lien Affidavits, however, fail to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely
46 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 47 of 82
served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that New
Tech otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE
§§ 56.021(b) & 56.023. Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the New Tech M&M
Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “New Tech M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68u of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
v. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Nexus II Directional Drilling Specialists,
Ltd. (“Nexus’”): Nexus filed the following Competing M&M Lien Affidavit in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Alysheba 18 Unit $2,116,231.95 2019014003 8/28/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit Copperhead 23 Unit Delightful Dasher H Unit Gavyns Run 23 Unit Imperial Eagle 24 Unit Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit Whirlaway 24 Unit
(the “Nexus M&M Lien Affidavit”). The Nexus M&M Lien Affidavit-contains a statement that
Nexus “performed labor and/or furnished or hauled material, equipment, tools, machinery or supplies ... under a single contract with MDC Energy, LLC d/b/a/ MDC Texas Energy, LLC.”
Because MDC Energy did not own the properties at which Nexus provided the materials and/or services referenced in the Nexus M&M Lien Affidavit, Nexus is a mineral subcontractor. The
Nexus M&M Lien Affidavit, however, fails to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent,
47 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 48 of 82
representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that Nexus otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE. §§
56.021(b) & 56.023. Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Nexus M&M Lien
Affidavit are invalid (the “Nexus M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68v of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained
therein and would deny the same.
w. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Pate Trucking Company, LLC (“Pate”):
Pate filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County,
Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Affirmed 6 Unit $3,360.00 19-10387 6/28/2019 Affirmed 6 Unit $6,687.50 19-10384 6/28/2019 Affirmed 6 Unit $36,660.00 19-10388 6/28/2019 California Chrome 24 Unit $1,615.00 19-10373 6/28/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $30,960.00 19-10376 6/28/2019 Omaha 11 Unit $19,925.94 19-10374 6/28/2019 Omaha LI Unit $855.00 19-10370 6/28/2019 Omaha 11 Unit $855.00 19-10372 6/28/2019 Pickpocket 21 Unit $30,971.50 19-10371 6/28/2019 Pickpocket 21' Unit $4,826.57 19-10377 6/28/2019 Pickpocket 21 Unit $10,679.37 19-10381 6/28/2019 Runaway Ghost 23 Unit $45,772.19 19-10380 6/28/2019 Runaway Ghost 23 Unit $88,664.38 19-10379 6/28/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $56,921.16 19-10385 6/28/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $56,921.16 19-10386 6/28/2019 Yucca Unit $21,319.16 19-10382 6/28/2019 Yucca Unit $2,235.00 19-10383 6/28/2019
48 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 49 of 82
(the “Pate M&M Lien Affidavits”). The Pate M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid because they do not include “an itemized list of amounts claimed” as required-by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(a)(5).
The Pate M&M Lien Affidavits do not attach copies of invoices, and many do not contain a complete description of the dates on which Pate provided services or furnished materials as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(a)(3). Because the Pate M&M Lien Affidavits do not comply with TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.022(a)(3) and/or (5), the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Pate M&M Lien Affidavits (the “Pate M&M Liens”) are invalid.
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68w of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
x. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Petro Amigos Supply, Inc. (“Amigos”):
Amigos filed the following Competing M&M Lien Affidavit in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit $1,244,091.59 2019016306 10/3/2019
(the “Amigos M&M Lien Affidavit”). The Amigos M&M Lien Affidavit contains a statement that
“pursuant to purchase orders, Claimant furnished MDC Texas Energy, LLC with materials in connection with well sites ....” Because MDC Energy does not own the property at which Amigos provided the materials and/or services referenced in the Amigos M&M Lien Affidavit, Amigos is a mineral subcontractor. The Amigos M&M Lien Affidavit, however, fails to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely served written-notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that Amigos otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required
49 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 50 of 82
by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 567021(b) & 56.023. Additionally, the Amigos M&M Lien Affidavit fails to include “the name of the mineral property owner, if known” or a sufficient description of “the land, leasehold interest, pipeline, or pipeline right-of-way involved” as required by TEX. PROP.
CODE § 56.022(a)(1) & (4). Accordingly, the M&M Lien purportedly secured by the. Amigos
M&M Lien Affidavit is invalid (the “Amigos M&M Lien”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68x of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
y. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Prime Time Water Supply, LLC (“Prime
Time”): Prime Time filed the following Competing M&M Lien Affidavit in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded A Classic Dash 18 Unit $133,838.24 2020002866 2/24/2020 Affirmed 6 Unit California Chrome 27 Unit Coopers Dream 23 Unit Copperhead 23 Unit Count. Fleet 11 Unit Delightful Dasher 11 Unit Gavyns Run 23 Unit Imperial Eagle 24 Unit Omaha 11 Unit Pickpocket 21 Unit Repent 23 Unit Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit Runaway Ghost 23 Unit War Admiral 24 Unit Yucca Unit
(the “Prime Time M&M Lien Affidavit”). The Prime Time M&M Lien Affidavit contains a statement Prime time “furnished supplies, hauled material, and provided labor and services ... pursuant to a November 1, 2017 Master Services and Supply Contract (attached as Exhibit 1)
50 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 51 of 82
between Claimant and MDC Energy LLC (a/k/a MDC Texas Energy LLC) ....” Because MDC
Energy does not own the properties at which Prime Time provided the materials and/or services
referenced in the Prime Time M&M Lien Affidavit, Prime Time is a mineral subcontractor. The
Prime Time M&M Lien Affidavit contains a statement that written notice of the claim was served
on “the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver on Monday, February 19,
2020.” The Prime Time M&M Lien Affidavit, however, fails to comply with TEX. PROP. CODE §
56.021(b) because the notice was not served at least ten (10) days before Prime Time M&M Lien
Affidavit was filed. Additionally, the Prime Time M&M Lien Affidavit attempts to assert multiple
liens, as evidenced by the inclusion of multiple Units. While the Prime Time M&M Lien Affidavit generally asserts that Prime Time provided services from December 18, 2018 through August 29,
2029, the Prime Time M&M Lien Affidavit fails to break down the dates that Prime Time performed the services or furnished the materials to each of the Units listed in the Prime Time
M&M Lien Affidavit as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(a)(3). Upon review of the invoices attached to the Prime Time M&M Lien Affidavit, the only service date listed is on invoice 4221 dated August 15, 2019, which states that Prime Time rendered services rendered to the California
Chrome 27 Unit from March 1,2019 through August 31,2019. No other invoices attached provide dates that Prime Time performed services or furnished materials for MDC Energy. Further, the dates of the invoices attached to the Prime Time M&M Lien Affidavit indicate that all services
Prime Time provided to MDC Energy were provided more than six (6) months prior to the date the Prime Time M&M Lien Affidavit was filed. The Prime Time M&M Lien Affidavit, therefore, was not filed in accordance with TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.021(a). Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Prime Time M&M Lien Affidavit are invalid (the “Prime Time M&M
Liens”).
51 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 52 of 82
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68y of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
z. Competing, M&M Liens Asserted by ProPetro Services, Inc (“ProPetro”):
ProPetro filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves
County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded California Chrome 27 Unit $126,653.75 2019011773 7/24/2019- Copperhead 23 Unit $86,303.27 2019011271 7/15/2019 Copperhead 23 Unit $289,269.20 2019011774 7/24/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $164,146.00 2019011776 7/24/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $184,005.20 2019011775 7/24/2019
(the “ProPetro M&M Lien Affidavits”). The ProPetro M&M Lien Affidavits contain a statement that ProPetro “performed labor and/or furnished or hauled material, equipment, tools, machinery or supplies .... under a single contract with MDC Energy LLC.” Because MDC Energy does not own the property at which ProPetro-provided the materials and/or services referenced in the
ProPetro M&M Lien Affidavits, ProPetro is a mineral subcontractor. The ProPetro M&M Lien
Affidavits, however, fail to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that ProPetro otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023.
Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the ProPetro M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “ProPetro M&M Liens”).
52 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 53 of 82
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68z of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
aa. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by EnerCorp Industrial Solutions, LLC f/k/a
Pro Oil and Gas Services. LLC (“Pro Oil”): Pro Oil filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $268,500.00 2019019731 12/11/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $248,500.00 2019019730 12/11/2019
(the “Pro Oil M&M Lien Affidavits”). The Pro Oil M&M Lien Affidavits contains a statement that “pursuant to a contract between Claimant and MDC Energy, LLC and/or MDC Texas Operator
LLC . . . Claimant performed labor and furnished material, machinery and supplies ....” Because neither MDC Energy nor MDC Operator LLC own the properties at which Pro Oil provided the materials and/or services referenced in the Pro Oil M&M Lien Affidavits, Pro Oil is a mineral subcontractor. The Pro Oil M&M Lien Affidavits, however, fail to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely served written notice that the lien is- claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 5.6.022(b)(2) or evidence that Pro Oil otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by
TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023. Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Pro Oil M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (“Pro-Oil M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68aa of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
53 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 54 of 82
bb. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Qwik Pipe, Inc (“Qwik Pipe”): Qwik Pipe
filed. Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County,
Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded California Chrome 24 Unit $560,838.60 2019015942 9/30/2019 Copperhead 23 Unit Omaha 11 Unit Toyah B Unit Yucca Unit
(the “Qwik Pipe M&M Lien Affidavit”). The Qwik Pipe M&M Lien Affidavit contains a statement
that Qwik Pipe did “work performed for MDC Energy, LLC d/b/a MDC Texas Energy, LLC.”
Because MDC Energy did-not own the property at which Qwik-Pipe provided the materials and/or
services referenced in the Qwik Pipe M&M Lien Affidavit, Quikpipe is a mineral subcontractor.
The Qwik Pipe M&M Lien Affidavit, however, fails to include a “statement that -the subcontractor timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE '§ 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that Qwik
Pipe otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE
§§ 56.021(b) & 56.023. Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Qwik Pipe
M&M Lien Affidavit are invalid (the “Qwik Pipe M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68bb of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained
therein and would deny the same.
cc. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Ranger Energy Services, LLC (“Ranger”):
Ranger filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves
County, Texas, including the following:
54 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 55 of 82
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded California Chrome 27 Unit. $430,771.02 2019011900 7/26/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit $426,432.02 2019011901 7/26/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit $425,206.02 2019011902 7/26/2019 Pickpocket 21 Unit $14,297.00 2019011904 7/26/2019 Pickpocket 21 Unit $390,193.06 2019011911 7/26/2019 Pickpocket 21 Unit $540,553.06 2019011912 7/26/2019 Pickpocket 21 Unit $240,420.40 2019011913 7/26/2019
(the “Ranger M&M Lien Affidavits”). The Ranger M&M Lien Affidavits contain a statement that
“pursuant to a contract between Claimant and MDC Energy, LLC (hereinafter referred to as
‘MDC’), Claimant performed labor and furnished material, machinery and supplies ….” Because
MDC Energy did not own the properties at which Ranger provided the materials and/or services
referenced in the Ranger M&M Lien Affidavits, Ranger is a mineral subcontractor. The Ranger
M&M Lien Affidavits, however, fail to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely served
written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative,
or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that Ranger otherwise
timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) &
56:023. Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Ranger M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “Ranger M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68cc of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained
therein and would deny the same.
dd. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by RDL Transportation, Inc. (“RDL”): RDL
filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County,
Texas, including the following:
55 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 56 of 82
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Affirmed 6 Unit $164,000.00 19-07974 5/17/2019 California Chrome 27 $145,000.00 19-07970 5/17/2019 Copperhead 23 Unit $309,000.00 19-07971 5/17/2019
(the “RDL M&M Lien Affidavits”). The RDL M&M Lien Affidavits seek recovery of amounts
that are claimed in other RDL M&M Lien Affidavits. The RDL M&M Lien Affidavit recorded at
Instrument No. 19-07974, related to Affirmed 6 Unit, makes a claim for an amount that is also
included in the RDL M&M Lien Affidavit recorded at Instrument No. 19-07971 relating to
Copperhead 23 Unit. The RDL M&M Lien Affidavit recorded at Instrument No. 19-07970,
relating to California Chrome 27 Unit, makes a claim for an amount that is also included in the
RDL M&M Lien Affidavit recorded at Instrument No. 19-07971 relating to Copperhead 23 Unit.
Because the RDL M&M Lien Affidavits seek double recoveries and do not accurately- include
“itemized list[s] of the amounts claimed” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE. § 56.022(a)(5), they
were not filed in accordance with Chapter 56 of the Texas Property Code. Accordingly, the M&M
Liens purportedly secured by the RDL M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “RDL M&M
Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68dd of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained
therein and would deny the same.
ee. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Reservoir Data Systems, LLC
(“Reservoir”): Reservoir filed the following Competing M&M Lien Affidavit in the official real
property records of Reeves County, Texas:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Affirmed 6 Unit $273,251.60 2019016087 10/1/2019 California Chrome 24 Unit Coopers Dream 23 Unit Copperhead 23 Unit
56 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 57 of 82
Imperial Eagle 24 Unit Pickpocket 21 Unit Repent 23 Unit Runaway Ghost 23 Unit Toyah B Unit War Admiral 25 Unit
(the “Reservoir M&M Lien Affidavit”). The Reservoir M&M Lien Affidavit contains a statement
that “pursuant to a contract between MDC Energy, LLC and MDC Texas Operator LLC
(collectively ‘MDC’) and Claimant, MDC was to employ Claimant from time to time in connection
with the provision of services.” Because neither MDC Energy nor MDC Operator own the
properties at which Reservoir provided the materials and/or services referenced in the Reservoir
M&M Lien Affidavit, Reservoir is a mineral subcontractor. The Reservoir M&M Lien Affidavit,
however, fails to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely served written notice that the
lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as required
by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that Reservoir otherwise timely served a mineral
subcontractor lien notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023. Furthermore,
upon review of the invoice summary attached to Reservoir M&M Lien Affidavit, the Reservoir
M&M Lien Affidavit was recorded more than six months after the last date of services on some or
all of the Units as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.021(a). More specifically, the Reservoir
M&M Lien Affidavit was not filed within six (6) months after the day the relevant indebtedness accrued as to services provided at the following Units: California Chrome-27 Unit, Toyah B Unit,
Pickpocket 21 Unit, Coopers Dream 23 Unit, Affirmed 6 Unit, Copperhead 23 Unit, Repent 23
Unit, and Runaway Ghost 23 Unit. Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the
Reservoir M&M Lien Affidavit are invalid (the “Reservoir M&M Liens”).
57 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 58 of 82
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68ee of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
ff. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Right Light Services, LLC (“Right
Light”): Right Light filed Competing M&M- Lien Affidavits in the official real property records
of Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date-Recorded Affirmed 6 Unit $9,707.04 2019020306 12/23/2019 California Chrome 24 Unit $10,534.62 2019020305 12/23/2019 Count Fleet 11 Unit $4,773.10 2019020304 12/23/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $129,319.10 2019020313 12/23/2019 Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit $2,658.96 2019020302 12/23/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $76,180,96 2019020303 12/23/2019 Whirlaway 24 Unit $22,150.80 2019020307 12/23/2019
(the “Right Light M&M Lien Affidavit”). The Right Light M&M Lien Affidavits contains a
statement that “MDC Energy LLC d/b/a MDC Texas Energy, LLC contracted with Claimant to
furnish material, machinery, or supplies ad or/perform labor and services Because MDC Energy
does not own the property at which Right Light provided the materials and/or services referenced
in the Right Light M&M Lien Affidavits, Right Light is a mineral subcontractor. The Right Light
M&M Lien Affidavits, however, fail to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely served
written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative,
or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that Right Light otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) &
56.023. Accordingly,, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Right Light M&M Lien
Affidavits is invalid (the “Right Light M&M Liens”).
58 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 59 of 82
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68ff of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained
therein and would deny the same.
gg. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Rodan Transport (USA), Ltd. d/b/a Aveda
Transportation and Energy (“Rodan”): Rodan filed the following Competing M&M Lien
Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Alysheba 18 Unit $291,665.18 2020001453 1/29/2020 Omaha 11 Unit $222,115.00 2020001447- 1/29/2020
(the “Rodan M&M Lien Affidavits”). The Rodan M&M Lien Affidavits contain a statement that
“MDC Texas Energy, LLC contracted with Claimant to furnish material, machinery, or supplies
and/or perform labor and services ....” Because MDC Energy did not own the properties at which
Rodan provided the materials and/or services referenced in the Rodan M&M Lien Affidavits,
Rodan is a mineral subcontractor. The Rodan M&M Lien Affidavits, however, fail to include a
“statement that the subcontractor timely served written notice that the lien is claimed or the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE
§ 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that Rodan otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice
as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023. Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly
secured by the Rodan M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “Rodan M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations in 66gg of the Complaint, Aveda admits that it
filed mineral liens on Alysheba 18 Unit and Omaha 11 unit on the dates stated. Aveda denies the
remainder of the allegation that MDC Energy is not a mineral property owner. Aveda denies that
it was a mineral subcontractor required to serve written notice. Aveda maintains and asserts that
MDC Energy was an agent for MDC Reeves. Answering further, Aveda would show that MDC
59 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 60 of 82
Reeves admitted debt owed to Aveda in its Schedules of Assets and Liabilities filed in the Debtors’ chapter 11 cases.
hh. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by RUSCO Operating, LLC (“Rusco”):
Rusco filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves
County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded A Classic Dash 18 Unit $32,384.19 2019017370 10/21/2019 Alysheba 18 Unit $27,508.68 2019017371 10/21/2019 Alysheba 18 Unit $50,108.14 2019017372 10/21/2019 Count Fleet 11 Unit $11,543.63 19-10446 7/1/2019 Count Fleet 11 Unit $19,386.50 19-10460 7/1/2019 Count Fleet 11 Unit $87,025.14 2019017367 10/21/2019 Count Fleet 11 Unit $116,650.00 2019017368 10/21/2019 Count Fleet 11 Unit $13,805.71 2019017369 10/21/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $25,928.90 2019017362 10/21/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $24,038.90 2019017363 10/21/2019 Imperial Eagle 24-Unit $6,919.43 2019017364 10/21/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $10,091.93 2019017365 10/21/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $8,577.35 2019017366 10/21/2019 Omaha 11 Unit $49,072.03 2019017360 10/21/2019 Omaha 11 Unit $23,300.57 2019017359 10/21/2019- Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit $3,801.07 2019017356 10/21/2019 Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit $3,801.07 2019017357 10/21/2019 Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit $3,801.07 2019017358 10/21/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $8,577.35 2019017355 10/21/2019 Whirlaway 24 Unit $14,181.13 2019017353 10/21/2019 Whirlaway 24 Unit $41,541.63 2019017354 10/21/2019
(the “Rusco M&M Lien Affidavits”). For the reasons set forth below, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Rusco M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “Rusco M&M Liens”).
60 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 61 of 82
• Rusco M&M Lien Affidavits filed against Count Fleet 11 Unit: The Rusco M&M
Lien Affidavit recorded at Instrument No. 19-10446 states that “the month or months that the labor was performed for which payment is demanded is November 22, 2018 through November 30,
2018.” The Rusco M&M Lien Affidavit recorded at Instrument No. 19-10460 states that “the month or months that the labor was performed for which payment is demanded in December 17,
2018-December 31, 2018.” The Rusco M&M Lien Affidavits recorded at Instrument Nos. 19-
10446 and 19-10460 were recorded more than six months after Rusco asserts it last furnished material or services to the Count Fleet 11 Unit. TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.021(a) requires that a lien affidavit be filed in the official real property records within six (6) months after the date the relevant indebtedness accrued.
The Rusco M&M-Lien Affidavits recorded as Instrument Nos. 2019017367, 2019017368, and 2019017369 contain a statement that Rusco provided services “pursuant to a contract between
MDC Energy, LLC and MDC Texas*Operator LLC” and Rusco. Because neither MDC Energy nor MDC Operator own an interest in the properties at which Rusco provided the materials and/or services referenced in the Rusco M&M Lien Affidavits, Rusco is a mineral subcontractor. The
Rusco M&M Lien Affidavits recorded at Instrument Nos. 2019017367, 2019017368, and
2019017369 provides that “written notice of claimant’s claim to the liens described herein was served on or about October 16, 2019.” The Rusco M&M Lien Affidavits recorded at Instrument
Nos. 2019017367,2019017368, and 2019017369 do not otherwise provide that the notice required by Chapter 56 of the Texas Property Code was served at least ten (10) days before the relevant lien affidavit was filed, as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.021(b).
• Rusco M&M Lien Affidavits filed against A Classic Dash 18 Unit, Alysheba 18
Unit, Imperial Eagle 24 Unit, Omaha 11 Unit, Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit, War Admiral 24 Unit,
61 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 62 of 82
and Whirlaway 24 Unit: The Rusco M&M Lien Affidavits filed against these Units contain a statement that Rusco provided services “pursuant to a contract between MDC Energy, LLC and
MDC Texas Operator LLC” and Rusco. Because neither MDC Energy nor MDC Operator own an interest in the properties at which Rusco provided the materials and/or services referenced in the
Rusco M&M Lien Affidavits, Rusco is a mineral subcontractor. The Rusco M&M Lien Affidavits filed against these Units provide that “written notice of claimant’s claim to the liens described herein was served ... on or about October 16, 2019.” The Rusco M&M Lien Affidavits filed against these Units are invalid because they do not otherwise provide that the notice required by TEX.
PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) and 56.023 was served at least ten (10) days before the relevant M&M
Lien Affidavit was filed.
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68hh of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
ii. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by RWLS LLC d/b/a Renegade Services
(“RWLS”): RWLS filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of
Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded A Classic Dash 18 Unit $169;833.48 2020000536 1/5/2020 California Chrome 27 Unit $179,500.14 2019020358 12/26/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $985,659.59 2020001713 2/4/2020 Pickpocket 21 Unit $165,988.82 2019020355 12/26/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $343,972.83 2020001712 2/4/2020:
(the “RWLS M&M Lien Affidavits”). The RWLS M&M Lien Affidavits contain a statement that
“pursuant to a contract between Claimant and MDC Texas Energy, LLC, Claimant performed labor and furnished or hauled material, machinery or supplies ….” Because MDC Energy does not
62 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 63 of 82
own an interest in the properties at which RWLS provided the materials and/or services referenced in the RWLS M&M Lien Affidavits, RWLS is a mineral subcontractor. The RWLS M&M Lien
Affidavits state that a “true and correct copy of’ the mineral subcontractor lien notice RWLS served is attached as Exhibit C to the RWLS M&M Lien Affidavits. Exhibit C to the RWLS M&M
Lien Affidavit recorded at Instrument No. 2020000536 is a notice sent to Red Willow Production,
LLC, not to MDC Reeves. Exhibit C to the RWLS M&M Lien Affidavit recorded at Instrument
Nos. 2019020358, 2019020355, 2020001713, are 2020001712 are notices sent to other entities but not to MDC Reeves. There is no evidence that RWLS otherwise complied with TEX. PROP. CODE
§§ 56.021(b) & 56.023 in sending proper notice to MDC Reeves. Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the RWLS M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “RWLS M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68ii of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
jj. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Select Energy Services, LLC (“Select”):
Select Energy Services, LLC (“Select Energy”) filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
Unit Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded War Admiral 24 Unit $69,948.95 2020002554 2/18/2020 Yucca Unit $425,368.65 2020003446 3/10/2020
(the “Select Energy M&M Lien Affidavits”). The Select Energy M&M Lien Affidavits contain a statement that Select Energy “performed labor and/or furnished or hauled material, at the request of MDC Texas Energy, LLC.” Because MDC Energy does not own an interest in the properties at which Select Energy provided the materials and/or services referenced in the Select Energy M&M
Lien Affidavits, Select Energy is a mineral subcontractor. The Select Energy M&M Lien
63 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 64 of 82
Affidavits, however, fail to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely served written notice
that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as
required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that Select Energy otherwise timely
served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) &56.023.
Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Select Energy M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “Select M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68jj of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained
therein and would deny the same.
kk. Competing M&M Liens Asserted by Sierra Hamilton, LLC (“Sierra”): Sierra
filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County,
Texas, including the following:
Unit(s) Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded A Classic Dash 18 Unit $748,031.04 2019020098 12/18/2019 Affirmed 6 Unit California Chrome 27 Unit Coopers Dream 23 Unit Copperhead 23 Unit Delightful Dasher 11 Unit Imperial Eagle 24 Unit Omaha 11 Unit Pickpocket 21 Unit Repent 23 Unit Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit Runaway Ghost 23 Unit Seattle Slew 17 Unit Sir Barton 24 Unit Toyah B Unit War Admiral 24 Unit Whirlaway 24 Unit Yucca Unit
64 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 65 of 82
Unit(s) Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded A Classic Dash 18 Unit $433,755.00 2020001983 2/5/2020 Affirmed 6 Unit California Chrome 27 Unit Coopers Dream 23 Unit Copperhead 23 Unit Delightful Dasher 11 Unit Imperial Eagle 24 Unit Omaha 11 Unit Pickpocket 21 Unit Repent 23 Unit Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit Runaway Ghost 23 Unit Seattle Slew 17 Unit Sir Barton 24 Unit Toyah B Unit War Admiral 24 Unit Whirlaway 24 Unit Yucca Unit
(the “Sierra M&M Lien Affidavits”). The Sierra M&M Lien Affidavits each- state that Sierra
“performed labor or services and has furnished material” at the request of “MDC TEXAS
ENERGY, LLC.” Because MDC Energy, LLC d/b/a MDC Texas Energy, LLC does not own the property at which Sierra provided the materials and/or services referenced in the Sierra M&M Lien
Affidavits, Sierra is a mineral subcontractor. The Sierra M&M Lien Affidavits, however, fail to include a “statement that the subcontractor timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP.
CODE § 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that Sierra otherwise timely served a mineral subcontractor lien notice as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023. Additionally, although the Sierra
M&M Lien Affidavits (i) list the invoices comprising the lien amounts and (ii) contain a statement that “[t]he labor, services, material, machinery, or oil well supplies were generally invoiced within
15 days of being furnished” and “the invoice dates represent the approximate dates of performance,” the Sierra M&M Lien Affidavits, fail to include the actual “dates of performance
65 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 66 of 82
or furnishing” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(a)(3). Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Sierra M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “Sierra M&M Liens’”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68kk of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
ll. Competing M&M Lien Asserted by Spraberry Production Services, LLC
(“Spraberry”): Spraberry filed the following Competing M&M Lien Affidavit in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas:
Unit(s) Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded A Classic Dash 18 Unit $951,843.61 19-10817 7/5/2019 Affirmed 6 Unit Alysheba 18 Unit California Chrome 27 Unit Coopers Dream 23 Unit Copperhead 23 Unit Gavyns Run 23 Unit Imperial Eagle 24 Unit Pickpocket 21 Unit Repent 23 Unit Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit Runaway Ghost 23 Unit Seattle Slew 17 Unit Toyah B Unit War Admiral 24 Unit Whirlaway 24 Unit
(the “Spraberry M&M Lien Affidavit”). The Spraberry M&M Lien Affidavit states that Spraberry furnished the relevant labor and/or services “[u]nder an express or implied contract with MDC
Texas Energy, LLC and its affiliated entity MDC Texas Operator, LLC.” Because neither MDC
Energy nor MDC Operator own. The property at which Spraberry provided the materials and/or services referenced in the Spraberry M&M Lien Affidavit, Spraberry is a mineral subcontractor.
The Spraberry M&M Lien Affidavit, however, fails to-include a “statement that the subcontractor
66 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 67 of 82
timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2) or evidence that
Spraberry otherwise timely served a mineral-subcontractor-lien notice as-required by TEX. PROP.
CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023. Additionally, although the Spraberry M&M Lien Affidavit (i) lists the invoices comprising its lien amount and (ii) contains a statement that it “furnished labor and/or services on and for the Wells at the request of Operator on or about the dates shown on the statement of account attached hereto as Exhibit ‘B,’” the Spraberry M&M Lien Affidavit fails to include the actual “dates of performance or furnishing” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE §
56.022(a)(3). Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly -secured by the Spraberry M&M Lien
Affidavit are invalid (the “Spraberry M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68ll of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
mm. Competing M&M Lien Asserted by Summit Casing Equipment, LLC
(“Summit”): Summit filed the- following Competing M&M Lien Affidavit in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas:
Unit(s) Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Copperhead 23 $68,200.53 2019019202 11/26/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $34,065.03 2019020094 12/18/2019 Delightful Dasher 11 Unit $34,094.92 2019019869 12/13/2019 Gavyns Run 23 Unit $33,481.12 2019019360 12/03/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $95,983.34 2019019883 12/13/2019 Omaha 11 Unit $103,181.47 2019020090 12/18/2019 Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit $33,182.97 2019019348 12/03/2019 Whirlaway 24 Unit $57,140.12 2019020101 12/18/2019
(the “Summit M&M Lien Affidavits”). The Summit M&M Lien Affidavit filed at Instrument No.
2019019202 states that “MDC Texas Energy, LLC contracted with [Summit] to furnish materials,
67 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 68 of 82
machinery, or supplies and/or perform labor and services.” Because MDC -Energy does not own
the property at which Summit provided the- materials and/or services referenced in the Summit
M&M Lien Affidavit, Summit is a mineral subcontractor. The Summit M&M Lien Affidavit filed at Instrument No. 2019019202 attaches a copy-of a mineral subcontractor lien notice to, inter alia,
MDC Reeves (the “Summit Lien Notice”). The Summit Lien Notice, however, is dated November
18, 2019, which is less than ten (10) days prior to the date Summit filed the Summit M&M Lien
Affidavit. Accordingly, Summit failed to timely serve the Summit Lien Notice as required by TEX.
PROP. CODE § 56.021(a). Further, the Summit M&M Lien Affidavit filed at Instrument No.
2019019202 states that Summit “last furnished materials and/or services in connection with the
Subject Wells on May 23, 2019,” which is more than six (6) months prior to the Summit M&M
Lien Affidavit’s recordation date. The Summit M&M Lien Affidavit filed at Instrument No.
2019019202, therefore, also fails to comply with TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.021(a). Moreover, Texas
Secretary of State records provide that Summit forfeited its right to do business in the State of
Texas as of February 20, 2015, which is prior to the dates that Summit provided-the materials
and/or services identified in the Summit M&M Lien Affidavits. As a result, Summit’s ability to
enforce its M&M Liens is forfeit pursuant to, inter alia, Section 171.253 of the Texas Tax Code.
Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Summit M&M Lien Affidavits are
invalid (the “Summit M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68mm of the
Complaint, Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations
contained therein and would deny the same.
68 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 69 of 82
nn. Competing M&M Lien Asserted by TanMar Rentals, LLC (“Tanmar”): Tanmar filed the following Competing M&M Lien Affidavit in the official real property records of Reeves
County, Texas:
Unit(s) Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Delightful Dasher 11 Unit $37,029.88 2020000072 1/3/2020
(the “Tanmar M&M Lien Affidavit”). The Tanmar M&M Lien Affidavit attaches contract documents stating that the billing period related to the unpaid materials and services for which
Tanmar asserts an M&M Lien were furnished at the Delightful Dasher 11 Unit “from 5/31/2019 through 5/31/2019,” which is more than six (6) months prior to the Tanmar M&M Lien Affidavit’s recordation date. The Tanmar M&M Lien Affidavit, therefore, fails to comply with TEX. PROP.
CODE § 56.021(a). Accordingly, the M&M Lien purportedly secured by the Tanmar M&M Lien
Affidavit is invalid (the “Tanmar M&M Lien”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68nn of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
oo. Competing M&M Lien Asserted by Tetra Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Swiftwater, a Tetra Company (“Tetra”): Tetra filed the Competing M&M Lien Affidavit in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas, including:
Unit(s) Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Copperhead 23 Unit $270,256.07 2019019357 12/3/2019
(the “Tetra M&M Lien Affidavit”). The Tetra M&M Lien Affidavit states that it provided materials or services to the Copperhead 23 Unit “[f]rom January 16, 2019 to May 21, 2019,” which is more than six (6) months prior to the Tetra M&M Lien Affidavit’s recordation date. The Tetra
M&M Lien Affidavit, therefore, fails to comply with TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.021(a). Accordingly,
69 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 70 of 82
the M&M Lien purportedly secured by the Tetra M&M Lien Affidavit is invalid (the “Tetra M&M
Lien”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68oo of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained
therein and would deny the same.
pp. Competing M&M Lien Asserted by Texas Fueling Services, Inc. (“Texas
Fueling’”): Texas Fueling filed the following Competing M&M Lien Affidavit in the official real
property records of Reeves County, Texas:
Unit(s) Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded A Classic Dash 18 $2,242,559.15 2019016606 10/8/2019 Alysheba 18 California Chrome 27 Imperial Eagle 24 Omaha 11 Rocket Wrangler 11 War Admiral 24 Whirlaway 24
(the “Texas Fueling M&M Lien Affidavit”). The Texas Fueling M&M Lien Affidavit contain a
statement that Texas Fueling provided the relevant materials and services to “MDC Texas Operator
LLC and MDC Texas Energy LLC.” Because neither MDC Operator nor MDC Energy own an
interest in the properties at which Texas Fueling provided the materials and/or services referenced
in the Texas Fueling M&M Lien Affidavit, Texas Fueling, is a mineral subcontractor. The Texas
Fueling M&M Lien Affidavit does not contain a statement that Texas Fueling “timely served
written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent” as required by
TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2), and there is no evidence that Texas Fueling otherwise complied
with TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) & 56.023 in sending proper notice to MDC Reeves.
70 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 71 of 82
Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Texas Fueling M&M Lien Affidavits
are invalid (the “Texas Fueling M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68pp of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained
therein and would deny the same.
qq. Competing M&M Lien Asserted by Trans-Tex Cementing Services, LLC
(“Trans-Tex Cementing”): Trans-Tex Cementing filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavit in the
official real property records of Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
Unit(s) Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded California Chrome 27 Unit $87,008.30 19-03801 3/8/2019" Delightful Dasher 1.1 Unit $193,355.57 - 19-03803 3/8/2019 Omaha 11 Unit $99,426.91 19-03789 3/8/2019 Omaha 11 Unit $88,692.60 19-03797 3/8/2019 Runaway Ghost 23 Unit $189,925.81 19-03796 3/8/2019
(the “Trans-Tex Cementing M&M Lien Affidavits”). The Trans-Tex Cementing M&M Lien
Affidavits contain the following statements regarding the dates that Trans-Tex Cementing provided materials or services to the relevant Units:
• 19-03801: “The account is in the current sum of $87,008.30 for tools, supplies and equipment described in Exhibit ‘A’ from September 7, 2018 through September 30, 2018;”
• 19-03803: “The account is in the current sum of $193,355.57 for tools, supplies and equipment described in Exhibit ‘A’ from July[] 16, 2018 through July 31, 2018;”
• 19-03789: “The account is in the current sum of $99,426.91 for tool's, supplies and equipment described in Exhibit ‘A’ from August 21, 2018 through August 31, 2018;”
• 19-03797: “The account is in the current sum of $88,692.50 for tools, supplies and equipment described in Exhibit ‘A’ from August 7, 2018-through August 16, 2018;” and
• 19-03796: The account is in the current sum of $189,925.81 for tools, supplies and equipment described in Exhibit ‘A’ from August 18, 2018 through August 31, 2018.”
The last dates on which Trans-Tex Cementing provided materials or services to the relevant Units
are all more than six (6) months prior to the Trans-Tex Cementing M&M Lien Affidavits’
71 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 72 of 82
recordation dates. Accordingly, each Trans-Tex Cementing M&M Lien Affidavit fails to comply with TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.021(a). Thus, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Trans-Tex
Cementing M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “Trans-Tex Cementing M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68qq of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
rr. Competing M&M Lien Asserted by Trans-Tex Dyno Services, LLC (“Trans-
Tex Dyno”): Trans-Tex Dyno filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavit in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
Unit(s) Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded California Chrome 27 $2,410,88 19-03747 3/8/2019 California Chrome 27 $1,601.25 19-03750 3/8/2019 California Chrome 27 $87,348.30 19-03753 3/8/2019
(the “Trans-Tex Dyno M&M Lien Affidavits”). The Trans-Tex Dyno M&M Lien Affidavits recorded at Instrument Nos. 19-03747 and 19-03750 contain the following statements regarding the dates that Trans-Tex Dyno provided materials or services to the relevant Units:
• 19-03747: “The account is in the current sum of $2,401.88 for tools, supplies and equipment described in Exhibit ‘A’ from September 3, 2018 through September 25, 2018;”
• 19-03750: “The account is in the current sum of $800.63 for tools, supplies and equipment described in Exhibit ‘A’ from October 22, 2018 through August 22, 2018;”
The last dates on which Trans-Tex Dyno provided materials or services to the Units described in the Trans-Tex Dyno M&M Lien Affidavits bearing Instrument Nos. 19-03747 and 19-03750 are more than six (6) months prior to those M&M Lien Affidavits’ recordation dates. Accordingly, the
Trans-Tex Dyno M&M Lien Affidavits bearing Instrument Nos. 19-03747 and 19-03750 fail to comply with TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.021(a). Additionally, the Trans-Tex Dyno M&M Lien
Affidavit bearing Instrument No. 19-03753 states that “[t]he account is in the current sum of
72 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 73 of 82
$87,348.30 for tools, supplies and equipment described in Exhibit ‘A,’” but the invoice attached as Exhibit ‘A’ states that the total amount due is “$2,401.88.” Accordingly, the Trans-Tex Dyno
M&M Lien Affidavit bearing Instrument No. 19-03753 fails to accurately provide “an itemized list of amounts claimed,” as required by TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(a)(5). Thus, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Trans-Tex Dyno M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “Trans-Tex
Dyno M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68rr of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
ss. Competing M&M Lien Asserted by Triple Play Transport LLC (“Tripleplay”):
Tripleplay filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves
County, Texas, including the following:
Unit(s) Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Alysheba 18 Unit $11,024.00 2019015429 9/20/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit $1,350.00 2019015432 9/20/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit $2,470.00 2019015433 9/20/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit $13,366.00 2019015434 9/20/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $776,676.40 2019015436 9/20/2019 Copperhead 23 Unit $13,752.00 2019015437 9/20/2019 Copperhead 23 Unit $13,752.00 2019015438 9/20/2019 Omaha 11 Unit $3,160.00 2019015440 9/20/2019 Repent 23 Unit $776,676.40 2019015442 9/20/2019 Runaway Ghost 23 Unit $777,030.40 2019015443 9/20/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $5,790.00 2019015445 9/20/2019 Yucca Unit $2,056.00 2019015447 9/20/2019 Yucca Unit $21,946.00 2019015446 9/20/2019
(the “Tripleplay M&M Lien Affidavits”). The Tripleplay M&M Lien Affidavits recorded at
Instrument Nos. 2-019015436, 2019015442, and 2019015443 each assert separate liens against the Coopers Dream 23, Repent 23, and Runaway Ghost 23 Units for amounts related to
Tripleplay’s provision of the same materials or services. Accordingly, the Tripleplay M&M Lien
73 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 74 of 82
Affidavits recorded at Instrument-Nos. 2019015436, 201915442, and 2019015443 fail to comply
with TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.003 and TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(a)(5) because they assert liens for
services not provided to the relevant Units and fail to provide accurate “itemized list[s] of amounts
claimed.” Additionally:
• the Tripleplay M&M Lien Affidavit recorded at Instrument No. 2019015437 asserts a lien for services provided between 3/1/2019 and 3/7/2019;
• the Tripleplay M&M Lien Affidavit recorded at Instrument No. 2019015438 asserts a lien for services provided between 3/1/2019 and 3/7/2019;
• the Tripleplay M&M Lien Affidavit recorded at Instrument No. 2019015432 asserts a lien for services provided on 2/26/2019;
• the Tripleplay M&M Lien Affidavit recorded at Instrument No. 2019015440 asserts a lien for services provided between 2/25/2019 and 2/27/2019;
• the Tripleplay M&M Lien Affidavit recorded at Instrument No. 2019015447 asserts a lien for services provided on 3/5/2019;
• the Tripleplay M&M Lien Affidavit recorded-at Instrument No. 2019015446 asserts a lien for services provided between 3/8/2019 and 3/15/2019;
• the Tripleplay M&M Lien Affidavit recorded at Instrument No. 2019015434 asserts a lien for services provided between 3/6/2019 and 3/17/2019;
• the Tripleplay M&M Lien Affidavit recorded at Instrument No. 2019015429 asserts a lien for services provided between 2/22/2019 and 3/8/2019;
• the Tripleplay M&M Lien Affidavit recorded at Instrument No. 2019015433 asserts a lien for services provided between 2/28/2019 and 3/2/2019; and
• the Tripleplay M&M Lien Affidavit recorded at Instrument No. 2019015445 asserts a lien for services provided between 2/20/2019 and 2/22/2019.
(collectively, the “Late-Filed Tripleplay M&M Lien Affidavits”). Because the Late-Filed
Tripleplay M&M Lien Affidavits were not filed within six (6) months after the last date of the
services, they are untimely under TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.021(a). Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Tripleplay M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “Tripleplay M&M
Liens”).
74 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 75 of 82
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68ss of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained
therein and would deny the same.
tt. Competing M&M Lien Asserted by Vaughn Energy Services, Inc. (“Vaughn”):
Vaughn filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves
County, Texas, including the following:
Unit(s) Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Affirmed 6 Unit $117,769.86 19-08213 5/22/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit $120,389.10 19-08214 5/22/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $36,095.00 19-08215 5/22/2019 Count Fleet 11 Unit $473,224.80 2019016498 10/7/2019 Delightful Dasher 11 Unit $9,085.00 19-08217 5/22/2019 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $281,773.75 2019016497 10/7/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $23,899.00 2019016495 10/7/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $15,267.60 19-08216 5/22/2019 Whirlaway 24 Unit $35,932.75 2019016496 10/7/2019
(the “Vaughn M&M Lien Affidavits”). The Vaughn M&M Lien Affidavits state that Vaughn
furnished labor and materials “[p]ursuant to a contract by and between Claimant and MDC Texas
Operator, LLC.” Additionally, the invoices attached to the Vaughn M&M Lien Affidavits show
that Vaughn billed MDC Energy for the materials and services it provided. Because neither MDC
Operator nor MDC Energy own the property at which the services and materials described in the
Vaughn M&M Lien Affidavits were furnished, Vaughn is a mineral subcontractor. The Vaughn
M&M Lien Affidavits fail to comply with TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2) because none of them
contain a statement that Vaughn “timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the
property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver.” Additionally, there is no evidence that Vaughn otherwise complied with TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021 (b) or 56.023 by timely serving written notice on the property owners that Vaughn was claiming the M&M Liens described
75 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 76 of 82
in the Vaughn M&M Lien Affidavits. Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the
Vaughn M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “Vaughn M&M Liens’).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68tt of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
uu. Competing M&M Lien Asserted by WB Supply, LLC (“WB”): WB filed
Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County, Texas, including the following:
Unit(s) Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded Affirmed 6 Unit $122,980.91 2019016394 10/4/2019 Affirmed 6 Unit $193,189.21 2019015073 9/16/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit $38,330.53 2019017588 10/24/2019 California Chrome 27 Unit $336,779.14 2019013821 8/26/2019 Coopers Dream 23 Unit $526,980.08 2019016393 10/4/2019 Pickpocket 21 Unit $118,583.97 2019016395 10/4/2019 Pickpocket 21 Unit $257,218.91 2019015074 9/16/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $65,881.81 2019017589 10/24/2019 War Admiral 24 Unit $844,839.32 2019013822 8/26/2019
(the “WB M&M Lien Affidavits”'). The WB M&M Lien Affidavits state that WB provided materials and services “[p]ursuant to a contract between [WB] and MDC Texas Operator, LLC and/or MDC Texas Energy, LLC,” and the invoices attached to the WB M&M Lien Affidavits state that WB sold its materials and services to MDC Energy. Because neither MDC Operator nor
MDC Energy own the property at which WB provided the materials and services described in the
WB M&M Lien Affidavits, WB is a mineral subcontractor. The WB M&M Lien Affidavits fail to comply with TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2) because none of them contain a statement that WB
“timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver.” Additionally, there is no evidence that WB otherwise complied with
TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) or 56.023 by timely serving written notice on the property owners
76 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 77 of 82
that WB was claiming the M&M Liens described in the WB M&M Lien Affidavits. Accordingly,
the M&M Liens purportedly secured by the WB M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “WB M&M
Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68uu of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained
therein and would deny the same.
vv. Competing M&M Lien Asserted by WS Energy Services, LLC (“WS”): WS
filed Competing M&M Lien Affidavits in the official real property records of Reeves County,
Texas, including the following:
Unit(s) Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded California Chrome 27 Unit $196,848.09 2020000237 1/8/2020 Copperhead 23 Unit $118,668.65 2020000323 1/10/2020 Imperial Eagle 24 Unit $406,280.93 2020000236 1/8/2020 Rocket Wrangler 11 Unit $15,211.88 2020000378 1/1.0/2020 War Admiral 24 Unit $341,904.30 2020000282 1/9/2020 Whirlaway 24 Unit $93,575.48 2020000326 1/10/2020
(the “WS M&M Lien Affidavits”). The WS M&M Lien Affidavits state that WS contracted with
“MDC Texas Operator LLC,” and the invoices attached to the WS M&M Lien Affidavits are billed
to MDC Energy. Because neither MDC Operator nor MDC Energy own the property at which WS
provided the materials and services described in the WS M&M Lien Affidavits, WS is a mineral subcontractor. The WS M&M Lien Affidavits fail to comply with TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(b)(2) because none of them contain a statement that WS “timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver.” Additionally, there is no evidence that WS otherwise complied with TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 56.021(b) or 56.023
by timely serving written notice on the property owners that WS was claiming the M&M Liens
77 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 78 of 82
described in the WS M&M Lien Affidavits. Accordingly, the M&M Liens purportedly secured by
the WS M&M Lien Affidavits are invalid (the “WS M&M Liens”).
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68vv of the Complaint,
Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained
therein and would deny the same.
ww. Competing M&M Lien Asserted by Wilbanks Trucking Services, LLC
(“Wilbanks”): Wilbanks filed the following Competing M&M Lien Affidavit in the official real
property records of Reeves County, Texas:
Unit(s) Amount Instrument No. Date Recorded California Chrome 27 Unit $928,396.00 19-02203 2/11/2019 Count Fleet 11 Unit Coopers Dream 23 Unit Pickpocket 21 Unit War Admiral 24 Unit
(the “Wilbanks M&M Lien Affidavit”). The Wilbanks M&M Lien Affidavit states that Wilbanks
contracted with MDC Energy for the materials and services identified in the Wilbanks M&M Lien
Affidavit. Because MDC Energy does not own the property at which Wilbanks provided the
materials and services described in the Wilbanks M&M Lien Affidavit Wilbanks is a mineral
subcontractor. The Wilbanks M&M Lien Affidavit fails to comply with TEX. PROP. CODE §
56.022(b)(2) because it does not contain a statement that Wilbanks “timely served written notice that the lien is claimed on the .property owner or the owner’s agent, representative, or receiver.”
Additionally, there is no evidence that Wilbanks otherwise complied with TEX. PROP. CODE §§
56.021(b) or 56.023 by timely serving written notice on the property owners that Wilbanks was
claiming the M&M Liens described in the Wilbanks M&M Lien Affidavits. Furthermore,
Wilbanks improperly claims a $928,396.00 M&M Lien against each of the Units described in the
chart above when the materials and services for which Wilbanks seeks its M&M Liens were not
78 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 79 of 82
all provided at each Unit. Accordingly, the Wilbanks M&M Lien Affidavit fails to comply with
TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.003 and TEX. PROP. CODE § 56.022(A)(5) because if asserts liens for services not provided to the relevant Units and fails to provide an accurate “itemized list of amounts claimed.” The M&M Liens purportedly secured by the Wilbanks M&M Lien Affidavit are, therefore, invalid (the “Wilbanks M&M Liens”').
ANSWER: With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 68ww of the
Complaint, Aveda does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained therein and would deny the same.
69. Relief Sought with Respect to Count 1: Plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgment:
a. declaring that the Subject M&M Liens are invalid and unenforceable under Chapter 56 of the Texas Property Code; b. awarding Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as is equitable and just (see TEX. PROP. CODE §§-56.042 & 53.156 and 28 U.S.C. § 2202); and c. awarding such other and further relief that Plaintiffs may be justly entitled to receive.
ANSWER: Paragraph 69 of the Complaint contains no factual allegations to either admit or deny and Aveda offers no response to this Paragraph, but acknowledges that the Plaintiffs are seeking relief under the cited statute and Bankruptcy rules.
VI. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
70. All conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred.
ANSWER: Aveda denies Paragraph 70 of the Complaint that all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred. The Debtors do not dispute that Aveda provided labor or services capable of supporting a mineral lien. It is undisputed that Aveda’s liens satisfy the statutory requirements in Chapter 56 of the Texas Property Code. It is undisputed that Aveda timely filed its mineral lien and the affidavits included all matters required by section 56.022. The
79 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 80 of 82
Plaintiffs seek to invalidate Aveda’s competing mineral liens by making the conclusory argument that Aveda was a mineral subcontractor and not a mineral contractor. There has been no Court determination of Aveda’s status as a mineral subcontractor, required to give notice of claim, instead of a mineral contractor, that is not required to give notice. Hence, all conditions precedent have not been performed or have occurred.
71. By filing this suit, Plaintiffs do not waive or release any rights, claims, causes-of action, or defenses, or make any election of remedies that they now have or may have, but expressly reserve all such rights, claims, causes of action, and defenses, whether or not the same have been asserted or may hereafter be asserted in this or any other proceeding.
ANSWER: Paragraph 71 of the Complaint contains no factual allegations to either admit or deny and Aveda offers no response to this Paragraph, but to acknowledge the Plaintiffs’ express statement that they do not waive or release any rights, claims, causes of action, or defenses. To the extent a response is required, Aveda denies same.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Aveda may rely upon the following affirmative defenses.
1. The Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
2. Aveda’s mineral liens are valid because, among other reasons, Aveda
substantially complied with Texas law with respect to the preparation and filing
of its mineral liens. See Seven N. Holdings, L.P. v. Mathis & Sons, Inc., 2014
Tex. App. LEXIS 835, at *15 (Tex. App. 11th Dist. Jan. 24, 2014).
3. MDC Energy was the agent, apparent agent and/or implied agent for MDC
Reeves.
4. Plaintiffs’ recovery is barred, in whole or in part, because the contracting entity,
MDC Energy, and the purported owner, MDC Reeves, are one and the same
80 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 81 of 82
such that any distinction constitutes a sham contract pursuant to Section 53.026
of the Texas Property Code.
5. All claims in the complaint are barred by the equitable doctrine of estoppel,
waiver and/or laches.
6. A determination of Aveda’s status as a mineral subcontractor instead of a
mineral contractor has been preserved and not yet determined by this or any
other court.
7. The Debtors have not properly rebutted the prima facie validity of Aveda’s
claims and liens. And the Plaintiffs herein offer no substantial evidence to
invalidate Aveda’s claims and liens.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Aveda reserves the right to assert additional or different affirmative defenses as may be discovered during the course of discovery or additional investigation into this matter and in a manner consistent with applicable law, including but not limited to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 8(c) as incorporated by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7008. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7013, Aveda reserves the right to file counterclaims against the Plaintiffs.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Aveda seeks recovery of its attorneys’ fees and costs from Plaintiffs under Sections
56.041 and 53.156 of the Texas Property Code, 28 U.S.C. § 2202, and under any other applicable
provision at law or in equity.
81 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48 Filed 10/01/20 Page 82 of 82
WHEREFORE, Aveda respectfully requests that the Court enter an order (i) dismissing the
Complaint with prejudice or, upon trial of this matter, denying all relief requested by Plaintiffs,
(ii) awarding Aveda its attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses in defending against the Complaint, and (iii) granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just.
Dated: October 1, 2020 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP Wilmington, Delaware /s/ Kevin G. Collins David M. Powlen (DE No. 4978) Kevin G. Collins (DE No. 5149) 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 300-3434 [email protected] [email protected]
Counsel for Rodan Transport (U.S.A), Ltd. d/b/a Aveda Transportation and Energy Services
82 Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48-1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re: Chapter 11
MTE HOLDINGS LLC, et al., Case No. 19-12269 (CSS)
Debtors. (Jointly Administered)
BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Adv. Proc. No. 20-50815 (CSS)
ALAMO PRESSURE PUMPING, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 1, 2020, I caused a copy of the foregoing Rodan Transport
(U.S.A.), Ltd. D/B/A Aveda Transportation and Energy Services’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original
Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Regarding Validity of Competing M&M Liens to be served by electronic means on all parties requesting service through the Court’s ECF system and by email on counsel listed on Exhibit A.
/s/ Kevin G. Collins Kevin G. Collins (DE No. 5149)
Case 20-50815-CSS Doc 48-1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT A
Christopher P. Simon, Esq. Phil F. Snow, Esq. CROSS & SIMON, LLC Kenneth Green, Esq. 1105 N. Market Street, Suite 901 Blake Hamm, Esq. Wilmington, Delaware 19801 SNOW SPENCE GREEN LLP [email protected] 2929 Allen Parkway, Suite 2800 Houston, Texas 77019 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
2