Energy Transfer LP

On August 8, 2019, Energy Transfer disclosed that in mid-2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) Enforcement Staff initiated a non-public formal investigation “regarding allegations that diesel fuel may have been included in the drilling mud at the Tuscarawas River HDD [i.e., Horizontal Directional Drilling Activities].”

On this news, Energy Transfer’s stock fell $0.65, or 4.6%, over two trading days to close at $13.38 per share on August 12, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on December 16, 2021, FERC publicly issued to Energy Transfer the Order To Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, directing the Company to show cause why it should not be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $40 million. The order alleged that the HDD crews intentionally included diesel fuel and other toxic substances and unapproved additives in the drilling mud during its HDDs under the Tuscarawas River.

On this news, Energy Transfer’s stock fell $0.24, or 2.8%, over two trading days to close at $8.25 per share on December 20, 2021, thereby injuring investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Energy Transfer had inadequate internal controls and procedures to prevent contractors from engaging in illegal conduct with regards to drilling activities, and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related to such controls and procedures; (2) Energy Transfer through its subsidiary Rover Pipeline, LLC hired third-party contractor to conduct HDD for the Rover Pipeline Project, whose conduct of adding illegal additives in the drilling mud caused severe pollution near the Tuscarawas River when a large inadvertent release took place on April 13, 2017; (3) Energy Transfer continually downplayed its potential civil liabilities when the FERC was actively investigating the Company’s wrongdoing related to the April 13 Release and consistently provided it with updated information about FERC’s findings on this matter; (4) these issues were foreseeably likely to subject Energy Transfer to increased governmental scrutiny and enforcement, as well as increased reputational and financial harm, and would also materially impact Energy Transfer’s financial results; and (5) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.