Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

4. Commitments and Contingencies

On August 26, 2010, Frank Stevenson (“Stevenson”) filed a lawsuit, styled Stevenson v. Wayne Kirk, Michael J. Mauceli, Reef Global Energy Ventures II, et al., Cause No. 10-10647, in the 191st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. The suit also names as defendants Reef Global Energy VII, L.P. and multiple other Reef-sponsored ventures and limited partnerships, as well as Reef Securities, Inc. and Paul Mauceli (collectively, “Defendants”).  On September 22, 2010, via Plaintiffs’ First Amended Original Petition, James and Carol Estle (the “Estles”) and Nancy Dykes Thurmond Antolic (“Antolic”) joined the suit as additional plaintiffs.  On January 27, 2011, Donna Stevenson (Frank Stevenson’s spouse) and Jaimie Davis (“Davis”) joined the suit as additional plaintiffs (Stevenson, Estles, Antolic, and Davis are collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) via Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Original Petition. On September 19, 2012, Robert C. Phalen filed an Original Petition in Intervention in the case, alleging the same claims as the other Plaintiffs. With respect to Davis’s and Phalen’s claims, specifically, Reef Securities, Inc. did not offer or sell the interests in the Reef program that either of them purchased.  Rather, they each purchased their interests through an unaffiliated broker/dealer.  On January 24, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Petition, by which Plaintiffs allege that, collectively, they are seeking in excess of $2.5 million in compensatory damages as well as exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs.  Plaintiffs assert claims of fraud, rescission under the Texas Securities Act (“TSA”), control person liability under the Texas Securities Act, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment.  Defendants believe Plaintiffs’ claims are meritless, and with respect to many of the Reef programs named in the Petition, Defendants believe that the claims for fraud are barred by limitations, as are any claims for rescission or breach of fiduciary duty with respect to those programs.  In addition, with respect to all Reef programs in which Plaintiffs participated, each Plaintiff received offering documents that thoroughly disclosed all material facts and risks associated with participation in such programs, particularly the fact that no guarantees or promises could be made or relied upon.

Defendants filed motions for partial summary judgment with respect to certain claims of all Plaintiffs, with the exception of Jaimie Davis.  Defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part.   More specifically, all of Plaintiffs’ registration claims under Section 33A(1) of the TSA and all claims under Section 33F(1) for control person liability as related to Section 33A(1) were dismissed.  Additionally, certain of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants for violations of Section 33A(2) of the TSA for material misrepresentations or omissions and claims for Section 33F(2) control person liability as related thereto were also dismissed.

With respect to Plaintiff Davis, Defendants were aware that she was simultaneously pursuing a FINRA arbitration claim against the individual and broker-dealer from whom she purchased her interests in the only Reef program in which she participated and on which she is suing the Defendants in this litigation.   In March 2012, the FINRA panel found against Davis on all of her claims, including those that pertained to her Reef purchases in the sole Reef program in which she participated.  As of this time, the parties have begun exchanging written discovery, and trial is scheduled for April 29, 2013.  The Defendants intend to vigorously defend against these claims. No accrual has been recorded as of September 30, 2012 as a loss is not believed to be probable.  A reasonable estimate of a possible range of loss cannot be made. The Partnership is reimbursing Reef its share of the costs of defending this lawsuit as incurred and disclosed in Note 3 above.

On December 22, 2011, TEPCO, LLC, Kiawah Resources, LLC, Meritage Energy, LLC and Ralph S. O’Connor (the “Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit styled TEPCO, LLC, Kiawah Resources, LLC, Meritage Energy, LLC and Ralph S. O’Connor v. Reef Exploration, L.P., RCWI, L.P., El Paso E&P Company, L.P., and Anchor International of Texas LP, Cause No. 2011-76727, in the 127th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.  On July 11, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition whereby they added Reef Global Energy V, L.P., Reef Global Energy VI, L.P., and Reef Global Energy VII, L.P. as additional defendants. In their Petition, Plaintiffs assert claims for alleged breaches of contracts in regard to the drilling and operation of an oil and gas well located in Galveston County, Texas.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount as well as attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs.  The Partnership owns an interest in the well in question, and if the Plaintiffs were successful, the Partnership would be required to contribute its pro rata share to any awards that Plaintiffs might receive.  The Defendants intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit.  As of this time, the parties are in the early stages of the discovery process.  No trial date has been set by the Court. No accrual has been recorded as of September 30, 2012 as a loss is not believed to be probable.  A reasonable estimate of a possible range of loss cannot be made. The Partnership is expensing its share of the costs of defending this lawsuit as incurred, and has paid $12,335 and $33,158, respectively, during the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012.