14. CONTINGENCIES | Certain Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of lawsuits cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company is not currently a party to any proceeding that it believes, if determined in a manner adverse to the Company, could have a potential material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Amanda Olivier, et al. v. Nabors Drilling USA, L.P., and Yuma Exploration and Production, Inc. On July 9, 2014, Nabors Drilling USA, L.P. and other Nabors entities and Yuma Energy, Inc. and several of its wholly owned subsidiaries were named in a lawsuit filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, in the 80th Judicial District, concerning the death of an employee of Timco Services during the drilling of the Crosby 12-1 well. The Company has tendered its defense to its liability insurance carriers who are responding. There has been one unsuccessful mediation session. Depositions are being scheduled. Management believes that the Company has adequate insurance to meet this potential claim. Ontiveros v. Pyramid Oil, LLC, Yuma Energy, Inc. et al In September 2015, a suit was filed against the Company and Pyramid Oil LLC styled Mark A. Ontiveros and Louise D. Ontiveros, Trustees of The Ontiveros Family Trust dated March 29, 2007 vs. Pyramid Oil, LLC, et al., Case Number 15CV02959 in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara, Cook Division. In the suit, the plaintiffs allege that the 1950 Community Oil and Gas Lease between them and Pyramid Oil LLC has expired by non-production. The Company claims that the lease is still in effect, as there is no cessation of production time frame set out in the lease; production had temporarily ceased, but was still profitable when measured over an appropriate time period; and the Company was conducting workover operations on a well on the lease in an effort to re-establish production when served with the quit claim deed demand from the plaintiffs attorney. All present owners of the minerals covered by the 1950 Community Oil and Gas Lease, with the exception of the plaintiffs, have executed amendments signifying their concurrence that the 1950 Community Oil and Gas Lease is still in force and effect. On June 23, 2016, Pyramid Oil LLC filed a First Amended Cross Complaint against Texican Energy Corporation and Everett Lawley alleging interference with contractual relations and prospective economic relations, and violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The parties are presently in the process of document discovery. Yuma Energy, Inc. v. Cardno PPI Technology Services, LLC Arbitration On May 20, 2015, counsel for Cardno PPI Technology Services, LLC (Cardno PPI) sent a notice of the filing of liens totaling $304,209 on the Companys Crosby 14 No. 1 Well and Crosby 14 SWD No. 1 Well in Vernon Parish, Louisiana. The Company disputed the validity of the liens and of the underlying invoices, and notified Cardno PPI that applicable credits had not been applied. The Company invoked mediation on August 11, 2015 on the issues of the validity of the liens, the amount due pursuant to terms of the parties Master Service Agreement (MSA), and PPI Cardnos breaches of the MSA. Mediation was held on April 12, 2016; no settlement was reached. On May 12, 2016, Cardno filed a lawsuit in Louisiana state court to enforce the liens; the Court entered an Order Staying Proceeding on June 13, 2016, ordering that the lawsuit be stayed pending mediation/arbitration between the parties. On June 17, 2016, the Company served a Notice of Arbitration on Cardno PPI, stating claims for breach of the MSA billing and warranty provisions. On July 15, 2016, Cardno PPI served a Counterclaim for $304,209 plus attorneys fees. The parties are currently engaged in the arbitrator selection process. Management intends to pursue the Companys claims and to defend the counterclaim vigorously. Environmental Remediation Contingencies As of June 30, 2016, there were no known environmental or other regulatory matters related to the Companys operations that were reasonably expected to result in a material liability to the Company. The Companys operations are subject to numerous laws and regulations governing the discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise relating to environmental protection. Exploration, a subsidiary of the Company, has been named as one of 97 defendants in a matter entitled Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority East, Individually and As the Board Governing the Orleans Levee District, the Lake Borgne Basin Levee District, and the East Jefferson Levee District v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, et al., Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, No. 13-6911, Division J - 5, now removed as Civil Action No. 13-5410, before the United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiff filed the suit on July 24, 2013 seeking damages and injunctive relief arising out of defendants drilling, exploration, and production activities from the early 1900s to the present day in coastal areas east of the Mississippi River in Southeast Louisiana. The suit alleges that defendants activities have caused removal, erosion, and submergence of coastal lands resulting in significant reduction or loss of the protection such lands afforded against hurricanes and tropical storms. Plaintiff alleges that it now faces increased costs to maintain and operate the man-made hurricane protection system and may reach the point where that system no longer adequately protects populated areas. Plaintiff lists hundreds of wells, pipelines, and dredging events as possible sources of the alleged land loss. Exploration is named in association with 11 wells, four rights-of-way, and one dredging permit. The suit does not specify any deficiency or harm caused by any individual activity or facility. Although the suit references various federal statutes as sources of standards of care, plaintiff claims that all causes of action arise under state law: negligence, strict liability, natural servitude of drain, public nuisance, private nuisance, and as third-party beneficiary under breach of contract. The Company tendered its defense to its liability insurance carriers, who are responding. On February 13, 2015, the federal judge adjudicating the matter granted defendants Joint Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule 12(b)(6), thereby dismissing plaintiffs claims with prejudice in the matter. On February 20, 2015, the Board of Orleans filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit. On February 29, 2016, oral arguments were held regarding the appeal, but as of July 31, 2016, no ruling on the appeal has been made. The Company will continue to contest plaintiffs legal arguments and factual assertions. At this point in the legal process, no evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or associated economic loss can be made; therefore no liability has been recorded on the Companys books. Escheat Audits The States of Louisiana, Texas, Minnesota, North Dakota and Wyoming have notified the Company that they will examine the Companys books and records to determine compliance with each of the examining states escheat laws. The review is being conducted by Discovery Audit Services, LLC. The Company has engaged Ryan, LLC to represent it in this matter. The exposure related to the audits is not currently determinable. |