Chesapeake CEO cleared of intentional wrongdoing
NEW YORK — An investigation by Chesapeake Energy Corp.'s board of directors into outgoing CEO Aubrey McClendon's personal financing deals with company partners has found the deals did not benefit McClendon improperly or cost the company more.
The company said on Wednesday that “no intentional misconduct by Mr. McClendon or any of the company's management was found.”
McClendon, who founded Chesapeake in 1989 and oversaw it becoming the second- largest natural gas producer in the United States, had a special arrangement with the company that allowed him to invest personally in the oil and gas wells the company drilled.
As the company expanded and oil and gas prices fluctuated, McClendon needed to borrow money to pay for his stakes in the wells and he used those stakes as collateral to do so.
Last spring, Reuters reported that McClendon received loans of $1.4 billion from an investment firm called EIG Global Energy Partners that was negotiating a separate oil and gas deal with Chesapeake.
The probe sought to discover if McClendon, who was then chairman and CEO of Chesapeake, received a special deal from EIG and in return sold the company's assets at lower-than-market value. The probe also looked further back into similar deals McClendon may have struck.
“The review of the financing arrangements did not reveal any improper benefit to Mr. McClendon or increased cost to the company as a result of the overlap in the financial relationships,” the company said.
Chesapeake said McClendon had no comment on the findings.
McClendon was stripped of his role as board chairman in May. Last month, Chesapeake announced McClendon would leave the company April 1 amid philosophical differences.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.