Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 15. Commitments and Contingencies

Building, vehicle and equipment leases – Simson-Maxwell

The Company has right-of-use assets and operating lease liabilities associated with various operating lease agreements of Simson-Maxwell pertaining to seven business locations, for the premises, vehicles and equipment used in operations in the amount of $7,290,094. These values were determined using a present value discount rate of 3.45% for the premises, and 7.5% for vehicles and equipment. The leases have varying terms, payment schedules and maturities. Operating lease expense is recognized on a straight-line base over each of the lease terms.

Payments due in each of the next five years and thereafter at March 31, 2024 under these leases are as follows:

	Building		Vehicle and Equipment
	Leases		Leases		Totals
2025	$	844,894	$	642,274	$	1,487,168
2026		580,482		512,208		1,092,690
2027		408,723		339,326		748,049
2028		378,788		164,772		543,560
2029 and thereafter		815,392		2,287		817,679
	$	3,028,279	$	1,660,867	$	4,689,146
Less imputed interest						(671,461	)
Present value of remaining lease payments					$	4,017,685
Current					$	1,316,339
Non-current					$	2,701,346

Operating lease expense for these leases was $453,683 and $322,387 for the three months ended March 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively.

Legal matters

Merger-Related Litigation

On February 9, 2024, plaintiff Lawrence Rowe, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated former public minority shareholders of Viking, filed against the Company and its CEO a putative Class Action Complaint (i.e. C.A. No.4:24-cv-00489) styled Lawrence Rowe, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. James A. Doris and Camber Energy, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the merger between Viking and the Company and seek to recover damages for the alleged breaches.  The defendants deny the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the case on April 26, 2024.

Shareholder-Related Litigation

The Company was the target of a “short” report issued by Kerrisdale Capital in early October 2021, and as a result of such short report, on October 29, 2021, a Class Action Complaint (i.e. C.A.No.4:21-cv-03574) was filed against the Company, its CEO and CFO by Ronald E. Coggins, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Camber Energy, Inc., et al.; in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, pursuant to which the Plaintiffs sought to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by them as a result of the defendants’ violations of federal securities laws.   The Company and the other Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”) the Class Action Complaint, and on September 22, 2023, the Court granted the MTD in full.  On October 25, 2023, the Court signed a joint stipulation submitted by the parties, dismissing the case with prejudice.

On or about June 30, 2022, the Company was made aware of a Shareholder Derivative Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Case No. 4:22-cv-2167) against the Company, its current directors, and certain of its former directors (the “Houston Derivative Complaint”). The allegations contained in the Houston Derivative Complaint involve state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and a federal securities claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On January 20, 2023, the U.S. District Court held that certain claims brought by the plaintiff relating to director actions and statements made in proxy statements prior to June 30, 2019, were time barred, but did not dismiss certain claims brought by plaintiff relating to director actions and statements made in proxy statements after June 30, 2019.  Pursuant to Article 6 of the Amended and Restated Bylaws, on February 15, 2023, the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) formed a Committee of the Board (the “Special Litigation Committee”) to investigate, analyze, and evaluate the remaining allegations in the Houston Derivative Complaint. The Special Litigation Committee completed its investigation and found no basis to conclude that any Camber officer’s or director’s conduct “involved intentional misconduct, fraud or a knowing violation of law,” which would be required under applicable Nevada law to prevail on any claims for breach of fiduciary duty or federal proxy violations; and, on November 17, 2023, filed with the U.S. District Court a Motion to Terminate or, in the alternative, schedule an evidentiary hearing on the Motion. Briefing on the Motion was completed on January 12, 2024, and it remains pending. The defendants deny the allegations contained in the Houston Derivative Complaint.

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.

Pinch vs. Petrodome Matter

In or about late 2011 or early 2012, Petrodome Operating, LLC (“Petrodome Operating”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Petrodome (which in or about December, 2017 become a wholly owned subsidiary of Viking), on behalf of various working interest owners, including Petrodome East Creole, LLC, another subsidiary of Petrodome Energy, LLC, coordinated the drilling of an approx. 13,000 foot well in the Kings Bayou Field in Cameron Parish, LA.  Petrodome Operating engaged a third party to complete the drilling work.  The subject well produced hydrocarbons from 2012 until approximately June 2016, at which time production ceased, after which Petrodome Operating arranged for the well to be plugged in accordance with State guidelines.  During the time the well was producing hydrocarbons, royalty and/or over-riding royalty payments were made to various mineral and/or land/owners (collectively, “Mineral Owners”).   In or about October, 2019 the Mineral Owners commenced an action against Petrodome Operating, Petrodome East Creole, LLC and others claiming the Mineral Owners suffered damages (i.e., a loss of royalty and/or over-riding royalty payments) as a result of the subject well not, according to the Mineral Owners, being drilled and/or completed properly.  Petrodome Operating, Petrodome East Creole, LLC and the other defendants denied the Mineral Owners’ claims and engaged counsel to defend the action.

In or about November, 2023, the parties, without the subject Petrodome entities admitting liability, agreed to fully and completely settle the matter and pay the Mineral Owners a total sum of $6.5 million, of which Petrodome is liable for $4.15 million. Payment of Petrodome’s portion of the settlement is fully covered by insurance.  At December 31, 2023, the Company recorded an accrued liability in respect of this settlement and a receivable related to the insurance proceeds in the amount of $4.15 million.  In or about February, 2024, the action commenced by the Mineral Owners was dismissed with prejudice and the settlement was paid.