Mcardle Family Partnership v. Antero Resources Corporation

── Mcardle Family Partnership v. Antero Resources Corporation ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-1624 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/20/2026 Pg: 1 of 8 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1624 MCARDLE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, a Pennsylvania Limited Partnership, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; KEY OIL COMPANY, a West Virginia corporation; FRANKLIN L. BUTLER, an individual, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cv-00001-TSK) Argued: January 27, 2026 Decided: April 20, 2026 Before GREGORY, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished opinion. Judge Rushing wrote the opinion, in which Judge Gregory and Judge Richardson joined. ARGUED: Frank Edward Simmerman III, SIMMERMAN LAW OFFICE, PLLC, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Amy Marie Smith, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Lauren K. Turner, McKenna E. Meadows, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for Appellees. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1624 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/20/2026 Pg: 2 of 8 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1624 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/20/2026 Pg: 3 of 8 RUSHING, Circuit Judge: The McArdle Family Partnership (MFP) claims it owns mineral royalty interests in certain West Virginia oil and gas leasehold estates. It alleges that Defendants—Antero Resources Corporation, Key Oil Company, and Franklin L. Butler—breached their contract by failing to pay MFP those royalties. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on MFP’s breach of contract claim and denied MFP’s cross- motion for summary judgment. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. I. In Count II of the operative complaint, MFP claims that, by assignment from James Drilling Corporation dated May 5, 2008, MFP became vested with the following interests in West Virginia oil and gas leasehold estates: (1) a 1/32 overriding royalty interest in the Towner lease; (2) a 1/32 overriding royalty interest in the Stone lease; and (3) a 1/64 net profits interest in the Hudson leases. 1 An overriding royalty interest is “[a] share of either production or revenue from production (free of the costs of production) carved out of a lessee’s interest under an oil-and-gas lease.” Royalty, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). A net profits interest is “[a] share of production free of the costs of production . . . . [U]nlike a royalty, it is payable only if there is a net profit, and the costs that are used to calculate the net profit depend on what is negotiated.” Net-Profits Interest, Black’s Law 1 On appeal, by contrast, MFP claims a 1/64 overriding royalty interest in the Towner lease. MFP also argues it possesses a 1/16 overriding royalty interest in production from the Hudson property, which appears to be the subject of a different count in the complaint. Because the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants on Count II is the sole issue before us on appeal, we consider only