Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

v3.19.3.a.u2
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 8  – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES  

 

During March and April 2018, the Company purchased certain equipment pursuant to capital leases. The effective borrowing rate was approximately 35%, and all obligations were due by December 2018. In conjunction with the assignment of the liabilities owed under the IBC Bank loan agreements to N&B Energy in September 2018, as discussed under “NOTE 2 – Liquidity and Going Concern Considerations” – “Assumption Agreement” all of the remaining obligations were assumed by the purchaser.

 

Lineal (which as of December 31, 2019 has been completely divested in connection with the Lineal Divestiture discussed in “NOTE 10 – Merger Agreement and Divestiture”) has the usual liability of contractors for the completion of contracts and the warranty of its work. In addition, Lineal acts as prime contractor on a majority of the projects it undertakes and is normally responsible for the performance of the entire project, including subcontract work. Management is not aware of any material exposure related thereto which has not been provided for in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

 

Legal Proceedings. From time to time suits and claims against Camber arise in the ordinary course of Camber’s business, including contract disputes and title disputes. Camber records reserves for contingencies when information available indicates that a loss is probable, and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.

 

MidFirst 

 

In October 2018, the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement with MidFirst Bank, its prior landlord, and settled all claims relating to the Company’s prior office space lease.  

 

Maranatha Oil Matter

 

In November 2015, Randy L. Robinson, d/b/a Maranatha Oil Co. sued the Company in Gonzales County, Texas (Cause No. 26160). The plaintiff alleged that it assigned oil and gas leases to the Company in April 2010, retaining a 4% overriding royalty interest and 50% working interest and that the Company failed to pay such overriding royalty interest or royalty interest. The interests relate to certain oil and gas properties which the Company subsequently sold to Nordic Oil USA in April 2013. The petition alleges causes of actions for breach of contract, failure to pay royalties, non-payment of working interest, fraud, fraud in the inducement of contract, money had and received, constructive trust, violation of theft liability act, continuing tort and fraudulent concealment. The suit seeks approximately $100,000 in amounts alleged owed, plus pre-and post-judgment interest. The Company has filed a denial to the claims and intends to vehemently defend itself against the allegations.

 

PetroGlobe Energy Holdings, LLC and Signal Drilling, LLC

 

In March 2019, PetroGlobe and Signal sued the Company in the 316th Judicial District of Hutchinson County, Texas (Cause No. 43781). The plaintiffs alleged causes of action relating to negligent misrepresentation; fraud and willful misconduct; gross negligence; statutory fraud; breach of contract; and specific performance, in connection with a purchase and sale agreement entered into between the parties in March 2018, relating to the purchase by plaintiffs of certain oil and gas assets from the Company, and a related joint venture agreement. The lawsuit seeks in excess of $600,000 in damages, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest, court costs and attorneys’ fees, and punitive and exemplary damages. Additionally, a portion of the revenues from the properties in contention are being held in suspense as a result of the lawsuit. On October 31, 2019, the Company brought counterclaims against PetroGlobe and Signal, and Petrolia Oil, LLC and Ian Acrey, including bringing claims for causes of actions including declaratory judgment (that PetroGlobe and certain other plaintiffs represented that a lease and related wells were free of all agreements and rights in favor of third parties and provided a special warranty of title pursuant to the purchase and sale agreement); breach of contract (in connection with the purchase and sale agreement); statutory fraud; common law fraud (against Mr. Acrey and other plaintiffs); fraud by non-disclosure (against Mr. Acrey and other plaintiffs); negligent misrepresentation (against Mr. Acrey and other plaintiffs); breach of fiduciary duty (against Mr. Acrey and other plaintiffs) and seeking attorney’s fees and pre- and post-judgment interest.

 

On January 31, 2020, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement as discussed in “NOTE 1 – General”. The $250,000 that the Company agreed to pay has been included in current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2019, and the Company recognized its asset retirement obligations related these properties as current liabilities as the Company expects to become compliant with the Texas Railroad Commission in March 2020, resulting in a net settlement cost of $204,842 included on the statement of operations for the three and nine-month periods ended December 31, 2019.  Upon satisfaction of the Settlement Agreement conditions and disposition of the assets and related liabilities, the Company will record the transfer of a deposit of a surety bond of $50,000 and the related oil and gas properties of approximately $70,000 at December 31, 2019, oil currently held in storage at the Company’s location and any related outstanding accounts receivable due to the Company.  The Company has fully reserved any amounts related to the oil in storage and the accounts receivable which are recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2019 at $0.

 

The intention of such transfer of wells and partnership interests of CE is that (a) the Company shall be completely removed from liabilities resulting from future acts or omissions of CE occurring after such transfer date, (b) CE is effectively transferred and all steps have been approved by the Railroad Commission of Texas, including approval of new directors, officers, and owners of greater than a 25% interest in CE, and (c) that liability for the wells and partnership interests of the Company in CE, and the current officers and directors of CE, will be transferred after approval by the Railroad Commission along with all oil in storage tanks and the bond currently in place. CE operates all of our producing wells and leases located in Hutchinson County, Texas.

 

The Company also agreed to bring the certain wells into regulatory compliance to the extent such compliance is required to obtain Railroad Commission of Texas approval and upon successful completion of the Company bringing the properties into regulatory compliance, the Company is required to assign to PetroGlobe, or its designee, all of its right, title and interest in all wells, leases, royalties, minerals, equipment, and other tangible assets associated with specified wells and properties. Such properties shall be free and clear of all claims and liens arising during the direct operation of such properties by CE. In the event that the Railroad Commission of Texas fails or refuses to approve the form “P-5 O” to remove all current officers, directors, and owners of CE from the form and substitute the officers, directors and owners of CE as directed by PetroGlobe within 180 days of delivery of assignment of the Company’s interests in CE to PetroGlobe, or its designee, the parties will cooperate to seek divestiture of their interests in the wells and leaseholds held in escrow. Upon completion of such divestiture and removal of Company and the current officers and directors of CE from potential regulatory responsibility for such wells and leaseholds, the Company is required to direct the release to PetroGlobe of all funds held in escrow. If the properties are not divested within the additional 180 day period, the funds held in escrow are to be returned to the Company.

 

Upon the Company successfully bringing properties into regulatory compliance and assigning the properties to PetroGlobe, or its designee, the Company is required to also assign all of its membership interests in Petrolia.

 

The Company released the parties to the Settlement Agreement, including Ian Acrey, individually, as well as their officers, directors, or members from any claims asserted in the lawsuit, and the parties to the Settlement Agreement along with Ian Acrey, individually, released the Company, its officers, directors, shareholders and affiliate corporations from any claims asserted in the lawsuit. The Company did not release any claims or causes of action against N&B Energy, LLC, Sezar Energy, LLP related to Richard Azar, or any of their affiliates, or predecessors, or successors.

 

The parties agreed to promptly cause the filing of a motion and order to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice shortly after execution of the Settlement Agreement.

 

Apache Corporation

 

In December 2018, Apache Corporation (“Apache”) sued the Company, Sezar Energy, L.P., and Texokcan Energy Management Inc., in the 129th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas (Cause 2018-89515). Apache alleged causes of action for Breach of Contract, Money Had & Received and Conversion, relating to amounts Apache alleged it was owed under a joint operating agreement. Apache is seeking $586,438 in actual damages, exemplary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, court costs and other amounts which it may be entitled. The Company has filed a general denial to the claims and asserted the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate. The parties are currently moving towards discovery. The Company denies Apache’s claims and intends to vehemently defend itself against the allegations.

 

N&B Energy

 

On September 12, 2019, N&B Energy filed a petition in the District Court for the 285th Judicial District of Bexar County, Texas (Case #2019CI11816). Pursuant to the petition, N&B Energy raises claims against the Company for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, money had and received and disgorgement, in connection with $706,000 which it alleges it is owed under the Sale Agreement for true ups and post-closing adjustments associated therewith. The petition seeks amounts owed, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorney’s fees. The Company denies N&B Energy’s claims, believes it is owed approximately $400,000 related to the Sale Agreement and intends to vehemently defend itself against the allegations and claims and seek counterclaims. The Company is currently in negotiations to settle the matter with N&B Energy through binding arbitration.