Contingency and Contractual Obligations

3 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Contingency and Contractual Obligations

As a result of the Share Exchange, the Company inherited the following contingencies:

(a) In January 2010, the Company experienced a flood in its Calgary office premises as a result of a broken water pipe. There was significant damage to the premises rendering them unusable until the landlord had completed remediation. Pursuant to the lease contract, the Company asserted that rent should be abated during the remediation process and accordingly, the Company did not pay any rent after December 2009. During the remediation process, the Company engaged an independent environmental testing company to test for air quality and for the existence of other potentially hazardous conditions. The testing revealed the existence of potentially hazardous mold and the consultant provided specific written instructions for the effective remediation of the premises. During the remediation process, the landlord did not follow the consultant’s instructions and correct the potentially hazardous mold situation and subsequently in June 2010 gave notice and declared the premises to be ready for occupancy. The Company re-engaged the consultant to re-test the premises and the testing results again revealed the presence of potentially hazardous mold. The Company determined that the premises were not fit for re-occupancy and considered the landlord to be in default of the lease and the lease terminated.

On January 30, 2014 the landlord filed a Statement of Claim against the Company for rental arrears in the amount aggregating approximately CAD $759,000. On October 20, 2014, the Company filed a summary judgment application stating that the landlord’s claim is barred as it was commenced outside the 2-year statute of limitation period under the Alberta Limitations Act. The landlord subsequently filed a cross-application to amend its Statement of Claim to add a claim for loss of prospective rent in an amount of approximately CAD $665,000. The applications were heard on June 25, 2015.   On July 3, 2015 the court issued a decision allowing both applications.  On the basis of this decision, the landlord’s claim for rental arrears in the approximate amount of CAD $759,000 has now been replaced by a claim for loss of prospective rent in the approximate amount of CAD $665,000 (which the Company believes is more accurately quantified at approximately CAD $450,000).  The decision has been appealed by both parties and the appeal hearing has been scheduled for March 16, 2016.

(b) In September 2013, the Company was notified by the Railroad Commission of Texas (the “Commission”) that the Company was not in compliance with regulations promulgated by the Commission. The Company was therefore deemed to have lost its corporate privileges within the State of Texas and as a result, all wells within the state would have to be plugged. The Commission therefore collected $25,000 from the Company, which was originally deposited with the Commission, to cover a portion of the estimated costs of $88,960 to plug the wells. In addition to the above, the Commission also reserved its right to separately seek any remedies against the Company resulting from its noncompliance.

(c) On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action complaint styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No. 14-CV-316-JHP-TLW, United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (the “Proceeding”).  The plaintiffs added as defendants twenty-seven (27) specifically named operators, including the Company, as well as all Osage County lessees and operators who have obtained a concession agreement, lease or drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) in Osage County allegedly in violation of National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).  Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the BIA improperly approved oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling permits prior to August 12, 2014, without satisfying the BIA’s obligations under federal regulations or NEPA, and seek a determination that such oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling permits are void ab initio.  Plaintiffs are seeking damages against the defendants for alleged nuisance, trespass, negligence and unjust enrichment.  The potential consequences of such complaint could jeopardize the corresponding leases.

On October 7, 2014 Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the August 11, 2014 Proceeding on various procedural and legal arguments.  Plaintiffs filed their response to the motion to dismiss on October 27, 2014.  Spyglass filed its reply brief on November 10, 2014 and the plaintiffs were granted leave until November 19, 2014 to file a reply to Spyglass’ reply brief.  Once the briefing cycle concluded on November 19, 2014, the motion to dismiss became ripe for determination by the court.  Oral arguments may be ordered by the court.  There is no specific timeline by which the court must render a ruling.

(d) Mega West Energy Missouri Corp. (“Mega West”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, is involved in two cases related to oil leases in West Central, Missouri.  The first case (James Long and Jodeane Long v. Mega West Energy Missouri and Petro River Oil Corp., case number 13B4-CV00019) is a case for unlawful detainer, pursuant to which the plaintiffs contend that Mega West oil and gas lease has expired and Mega West is unlawfully possessing the plaintiffs real property by asserting that the leases remain in effect.  The case was originally filed in Vernon County, Missouri on September 20, 2013.  Mega West filed an Answer and Counterclaims on November 26, 2013 and the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims. Mega West filed a motion for Change of Judge and Change of Venue and the case was transferred to Barton County.  The court granted the motion to dismiss the counterclaims on February 3, 2014.  As to the other allegations in the complaint, the matter is still pending.

Mega West filed a second case on October 14, 2014 (Mega West Energy Missouri Corp. v. James Long, Jodeane Long, and Arrow Mines LLC, case number 14VE-CV00599).  This case is pending in Vernon County, Missouri.  Although the two cases are separate, they are interrelated.  In the Vernon County case, Mega West has made claims for: (1) replevin for personal property; (2) conversion of personal property; (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment regarding the lease; (4) constructive eviction of the lease; (5) breach of fiduciary obligation against James Long; (6) declaratory judgment that the oil and gas lease did not terminate; and (7) injunctive relief to enjoin the action pending in Barton County, Missouri.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss on November 4, 2014, and Arrow Mines, LLC filed a motion to dismiss on November 13, 2014.  Both motions remain pending, and Mega West will file an opposition to the motions in the near future. 

(e) The Company is from time to time involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. It does not believe that any of these claims and proceedings against it is likely to have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.