Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System v. Energy Transfer LP

This is a securities class action against Energy Transfer LP (“Energy Transfer” or the “Partnership”) and certain of the Partnership’s senior executives (collectively, “Defendants”) on behalf of investors in Energy Transfer common units between February 25, 2017 and November 11, 2019, inclusive.

Lead Plaintiffs Have Reached a Proposed Settlement of the Action for $15 Million

Lead Plaintiffs Allegheny County Employees’ Retirement System, Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, Denver Employees Retirement Plan, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers National Pension Fund, and Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System, on behalf of themselves and the Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $15,000,000 in cash that, if approved, will resolve the Action (the “Settlement”).

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected and you may be eligible for a payment from the Settlement.  The Class consists of:

all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common units of Energy Transfer between February 25, 2017, and November 11, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by definition (see paragraph 26 of the Notice).  Also excluded from the Class are the persons and entities who submitted a valid and timely request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the mailing of the Class Notice.  A list of the persons and entities who requested exclusion is available at www.EnergyTransferSecuritiesLitigation.com.

Please read the Settlement Notice to fully understand your rights and options.  Copies of the Settlement Notice and Claim Form can be found in the Case Documents list on the right of this page.  You may also visit the case website, www.EnergyTransferSecuritiesLitigation.com, for more information about the Settlement.

To be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed) or submitted on-line by no later than November 28, 2025.

Payments to eligible claimants will be made only if the Court approves the Settlement and a plan of allocation, and only after any appeals are resolved, and after the completion of all claims processing.  Please be patient, as this process will take some time to complete.

IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES

November 28, 2025	Claim Filing Deadline.  Claim Forms must be postmarked (if mailed) or submitted on-line no later than November 28, 2025.
September 16, 2025	Objection Deadline.  Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or the motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses, must be submitted so they are received no later than September 16, 2025, in accordance with the instructions in the Settlement Notice.
October 7, 2025 at 1:00 p.m.	Settlement Hearing.  The Settlement Hearing will be held on October 7, 2025 at 1:00 p.m., before the Honorable Gerald A. McHugh of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in Courtroom 9B of the James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.  The Settlement Hearing will be held to consider, among other things, whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable and should be approved; and whether Lead Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses should be approved.

Background and History of the Litigation

Energy Transfer is a Dallas, Texas-based natural gas and energy transportation and storage company. Its projects include the Mariner East pipeline, a multibillion-dollar, 350-mile pipeline that carries highly volatile natural gas liquid from the Marcellus and Utica Shale areas in western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Eastern Ohio to destinations in Pennsylvania. On February 13, 2017, Energy Transfer obtained approval from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PaDEP”) to construct an expansion of the Mariner East pipeline, referred to as Mariner East 2 (“ME2”) and 2X. 

Lead Plaintiffs allege that throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly assured investors that Energy Transfer had properly obtained valid permits to begin construction on ME2. In addition, the Partnership repeatedly touted that that ME2 would have an initial capacity of 275,000 barrels of natural gas liquids per day, with an “upside” capacity of up to 450,000 barrels per day. Lead Plaintiffs allege that unknown to the investing public, however, the Partnership improperly obtained the critical construction permits.  Further, Energy Transfer decided to bring ME2 into service using a nearly 100-year-old, existing 12-inch pipeline with the Mariner East 2 pipe in one area, in order place Mariner East 2 in service by the end of 2018. The use of this 12-inch pipeline would result in ME2 having an initial capacity far smaller than 275,000 barrels of natural gas per day— and yet Defendants continued to repeatedly tell the market that have an initial capacity of 275,000 barrels of natural gas liquids per day with an “upside” capacity of up to 450,000 barrels per day, and failed to disclose the use of the 12-inch line.  

Lead Plaintiffs allege that the truth began to be revealed on August 9-10, 2018, when Energy Transfer discussed the use of the 12-inch line on its earnings conference call and analysts, after following up with Energy Transfer executives after the call, issued reports on August 10 that revealed the reduction in initial capacity due to the use of the 12-inch line. Energy Transfer’s unit price declined significantly in response, causing severe investor losses. Then, on October 21, 2018, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published two news stories that detailed new information concerning, among other things, geological challenges for ME2’s construction and Energy Transfer’s lack of candor with PaDEP concerning construction risks, which were also associated with significant unit price declines. Finally, on November 12, 2019, the Associated Press published an article, “FBI Eyes How Pennsylvania Approved Pipeline,” which cited interviews with current and former state employees who reported that Energy Transfer’s Mariner East pipeline project was under investigation by the FBI, and that the investigation “involves the permitting of the pipeline, whether [Pennsylvania Governor Tom] Wolf and his administration forced environmental protection staff to approve construction permits and whether Wolf or his administration received anything in return,” and the Philadelphia Enquirer also reported on the investigation. On this news, the price of Energy Transfer’s common units fell sharply, which caused significant losses to the investor Class.

On February 19, 2020, the Judge overseeing the lawsuit, The Honorable Gerald A. McHugh, appointed the Allegheny County Employees’ Retirement System, the Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and the Parish of East Baton Rouge, the Denver Employees Retirement Plan, the IAM National Pension Fund, and the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement Plan, as Lead Plaintiffs.  Judge McHugh also appointed Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Barrack Rodos & Bacine as Co-Lead Counsel.

Lead Plaintiffs researched and filed their Amended Complaint on June 15, 2020. On April 6, 2021, the Court issued its Opinion and Order denying in large part the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, which left the vast majority of the Plaintiffs’ claims in place. The Parties then proceeded to discovery.

On September 17, 2021, Lead Plaintiffs filed their opening brief in support of their motion for class certification. Defendants filed their opposition to Lead Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on March 1, 2022, and Lead Plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of class certification on April 22, 2022. In addition, Defendants filed a sur-reply in further opposition to class certification on May 6, 2022 and Lead Plaintiffs filed a sur-sur-reply brief on May 27, 2022. The Court held oral argument on class certification on July 8, 2022

On August 5, 2022, the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General reported that Defendants pled no contest to environmental crimes in connection with the pipelines at issue in this case: Energy Transfer was “convicted of criminal charges related to their conduct during the construction of two major pipelines in Pennsylvania. Mariner East 2 Pipeline . . . and Revolution Pipeline.” PA OAG Press Release, Case Update: Energy Transfer Convicted Of Criminal Charges Related To Construction Of Mariner East 2 Pipeline, Revolution Pipeline In Pennsylvania (August 5, 2022). The Attorney General’s Environmental Crime Section also published a Criminal Conviction Fact Sheet, which highlights the significance of Energy Transfer’s plea:

Today, Energy Transfer, the company that Sunoco merged its pipeline business into in 2017, has announced it will not attempt to defend its behavior or dispute OAG’s evidence at trial. Energy Transfer has pleaded no contest, meaning the company will be convicted of the charges and will be presumed guilty of those charges beyond a reasonable doubt. This marks a landmark agreement that addresses unlawful impacts on water quality as a result of pipeline construction, which is at the heart of our criminal case.

On August 23, 2022, the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, certifying a Class Period from February 25, 2017 to November 11, 2019. 

On September 6, 2022, Defendants submitted a Petition for Permission to Appeal the Class Certification Order, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). On September 30, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs submitted an opposition to Defendants’ Rule 23(f) petition for leave to appeal the district court’s class certification order and on October 24, 2022, the Third Circuit denied Defendants’ petition to appeal. 

On November 30, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendants’ Production of Documents and Communications Concerning Related Investigations and Litigations, ordering Defendants to produce four categories of certain previously produced materials by December 30, 2022.

On December 7, 2022, the Court approved the Parties’ stipulation regarding fact and expert depositions and discovery deadlines, extending, among others, the deadline to complete non-expert depositions to May 31, 2023; the deadline to serve opening expert reports and the disclosures required under Rule 26 to June 30, 2023; and the deadline to take expert depositions to October 13, 2023.

On April 20, 2023, Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendants’ production of responsive documents from two additional custodians, as well as text message communications. On May 19, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and extended the deadline to complete fact discovery to July 14, 2023. In response, on June 16, Defendants filed a motion to compel Lead Plaintiffs’ production of text message communications. Then, on July 7, 2023, Defendants moved to quash Plaintiffs’ subpoenas for certain non-party depositions. On July 18, Plaintiffs opposed Defendants’ Motion to Quash. On July 19, 2023, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Compel Lead Plaintiffs’ Production of Text Message Communications and granted Defendants’ Motion to Quash. 

On September 15, 2023, Lead Plaintiffs served their opening expert reports, which included reports from Chad Coffman (concerning loss causation and damages), Edward Ziegler (concerning pipeline construction issues), and Mark Gallagher (concerning water quality and safety issues). Defendants served rebuttal expert reports on November 10, 2023, and the expert deposition period concluded on December 22, 2023.

Discovery in the Action commenced in June 2021 and concluded in December 2023.  Pursuant to detailed document requests and substantial negotiations, Defendants and third parties produced more than 1.5 million pages of documents to Lead Plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs also produced more than 52,000 pages of documents to Defendants.  Lead Plaintiffs also served subpoenas on and negotiated document discovery with 19 third parties, while Defendants served subpoenas on and negotiated discovery with 12 third parties.  In addition, the Parties conducted depositions of 31 fact witnesses, including the Individual Defendants and other senior Energy Transfer executives, and nine expert witnesses.  The Parties also served and responded to interrogatories and requests for admission, exchanged numerous letters concerning disputes between the Parties and with nonparties on discovery issues, and litigated multiple motions to compel the production of responsive documents.

On January 19, 2024, Lead Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on falsity and scienter for certain of Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations, while Defendants moved for summary judgment on falsity, scienter, and loss causation for all of the alleged misrepresentations. Briefing on both motions was completed on March 29, 2024.

On August 8, 2024, the Court issued a decision granting the motions for summary judgment in part and denying them in part.  The Court found that there were disputes of material fact as to whether Defendants’ statements regarding the in-service date for ME2, as well as its capacity, were false or misleading, made with scienter, and caused Lead Plaintiffs and the Class to suffer damages.  The Court also found as a matter of law that certain statements Energy Transfer made from February to June 2018 concerning ME2’s initial capacity were false or misleading, that the statements were attributable to Individual Defendants Long, McCrea, and Ramsey and that those Individual Defendants knew “the falsity or misleadingness of the initial capacity by February 2018.”  The Court also found that Lead Plaintiffs could not show any losses caused by Defendants’ statements concerning Energy Transfer’s commitment to safety and regulatory compliance, and on that basis granted summary judgment for Defendants on all corrective disclosures except the August 2018 alleged corrective disclosure and all statements except those concerning ME2’s in-service timing and capacity made on or before August 9, 2018. 

On February 14, 2025, the Court entered an order scheduling the trial of Lead Plaintiffs’ remaining claims to begin on May 28, 2025 and also setting the schedule for the remaining pre-trial submissions.  On March 6, 2025, the Parties exchanged their exhibit lists, the names of witnesses they planned to call at trial, and deposition designations.  On March 27, 2025, Lead Plaintiffs filed three Daubert motions and four motions in limine, and Defendants filed two Daubert motions and six motions in limine.  On April 10, 2025, Lead Plaintiffs provided Defendants with their proposed jury instructions and verdict form.

On March 25, 2025, Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion to bifurcate the upcoming trial, which would lead to resolving Class-wide issues in the first phase of trial before turning to any Plaintiff-specific issues in a second phase.  On March 27, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to empanel 12 jurors in the upcoming trial.  The Parties filed their oppositions to those motions on April 16, 2025.

On April 23, 2025, following an earlier mediation with Robert A. Meyer of JAMS, the Parties reached an agreement in principle to settle and release all claims asserted in the Action in return for a cash payment of $15,000,000, subject to certain terms and conditions and the execution of a customary “long form” stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers

On June 12, 2025, the Parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Stipulation”), which sets forth the terms and conditions of the Settlement.  On July 9, 2025, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement, authorized the Settlement Notice to be disseminated to potential Class Members, and scheduled the Settlement Hearing to consider whether to grant final approval to the Settlement for October 7, 2025.