Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
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 Securities, Inc., Paul Mauceli, and multiple other Reef-sponsored ventures and limited partnerships, among others (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 Jaime 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 (“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 programs 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 misrepresentations and omissions under the Texas Securities Act (“TSA”), fraud, control person liability under the Texas Securities Act, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment. Plaintiffs have represented they are dismissing their theft claims. Plaintiff Davis asserts against defendant Reef Oil & Gas Income and Development Fund, L.P. a claim for tortious interference with an existing contract. Defendants believe Plaintiffs’ claims are meritless because, among other things, in connection with each Reef program 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. Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants misallocated costs, expenses and deductions among unidentified Reef-sponsored ventures and limited partnerships. Plaintiffs seek approximately $2.5 million as actual damages, $620,000 as exemplary damages, as well as attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs. Defendants intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit and may seek damages from plaintiffs. Defendants filed Motions for Partial Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal of certain of Plaintiffs Stevenson, Estles, and Antolic’s claims. Following Defendants’ filing of their Motions for Summary Judgment, by filing their Sixth Amended Petition, Plaintiffs dismissed their claims for rescission under the TSA for failure of Defendants to register under the TSA, control person liability under the TSA in connection with such registration claims, and a majority of Plaintiffs’ fraud claims under the TSA. On December 18, 2012, the Court heard Defendants’ Joint Motion to Sever and Stay Claims of Plaintiff Jaimie Davis and to Sever Claims of Plaintiff Robert Phalen, and on that same date, the Court granted the Motion. Accordingly, Jaimie Davis’s claims have been severed and stayed, and are now pending under Cause of Action No. DC-13-00527 in the Dallas County District Court. Additionally, Robert Phalen’s claims have been severed and are now pending under Cause of Action No. DC-13-00528. As to the remaining Plaintiffs in the Stevenson matter, trial has been set for July 14, 2014. The Defendants intend to vigorously defend against these claims. No accrual has been recorded as of March 31, 2014 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 April 11, 2014, judgment was rendered in favor of the Reef Defendants and other defendants in regard to all claims made by the plaintiffs in the case of TEPCO, LLC et al. v. Reef Exploration, L.P. et al. by the 127th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. Reef Exploration, L.P., RCWI, L.P., Reef Global Energy V, L.P., Reef Global Energy VI, L.P. and Reef Global Energy VII, L.P. are collectively referred to as the “Reef Defendants.” The Court also found that the Reef Defendants were entitled to recover attorneys’ fees from the Plaintiffs. This lawsuit, which is styled as 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, was brought on December 22, 2011. After extensive summary judgment briefing in which the Reef Defendants prevailed on their motion in March 2013, the court tried the remaining issues on January 21, 22 and March 11, 2014. In their petition, Plaintiffs asserted claims for alleged breaches of contract in regard to the drilling and operation of an oil and gas well located in Galveston County, Texas. Plaintiffs sought 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. However, we have determined that the Partnership’s interest is a leasehold interest that should not be subject to the claims stated in this case. The interests owned by the other defendants consist partly or entirely of non-consent interests under the Joint Operating Agreement with the Plaintiffs and represents leasehold interests owned by the Plaintiffs for which the plaintiffs declined to participate in the well in question. If the Plaintiffs were successful on appeal, and if we were not successful in getting the Partnership dismissed from the case due to the nature of its ownership interest in the well, the Partnership could be required to contribute its pro rata share to satisfy any judgment the Plaintiffs might receive. The Reef Defendants have requested the Court to modify certain language in the judgment, after the resolution of which the Plaintiffs’ thirty day period to file a notice of appeal will commence. The Reef Defendants expect the Plaintiffs to appeal the court’s decision. A reasonable estimate of a possible range of loss cannot be made. No loss accrual has been recorded as of March 31, 2014 as a loss is not believed to be probable. Due to our determination of the nature of the Partnership’s leasehold interest, the Partnership has not been charged attorney fees related to this case, and would not be entitled to any portion of attorney fees which might ultimately be recovered from Plaintiffs.

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 Securities, Inc., Paul Mauceli, and multiple other Reef-sponsored ventures and limited partnerships, among others (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 Jaime 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 (“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 programs 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 misrepresentations and omissions under the Texas Securities Act (“TSA”), fraud, control person liability under the Texas Securities Act, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment. Plaintiffs have represented they are dismissing their theft claims. Plaintiff Davis asserts against defendant Reef Oil & Gas Income and Development Fund, L.P. a claim for tortious interference with an existing contract. Defendants believe Plaintiffs’ claims are meritless because, among other things, in connection with each Reef program 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. Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants misallocated costs, expenses and deductions among unidentified Reef-sponsored ventures and limited partnerships. Plaintiffs seek approximately $2.5 million as actual damages, $620,000 as exemplary damages, as well as attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs. Defendants intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit and may seek damages from plaintiffs. Defendants filed Motions for Partial Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal of certain of Plaintiffs Stevenson, Estles, and Antolic’s claims. Following Defendants’ filing of their Motions for Summary Judgment, by filing their Sixth Amended Petition, Plaintiffs dismissed their claims for rescission under the TSA for failure of Defendants to register under the TSA, control person liability under the TSA in connection with such registration claims, and a majority of Plaintiffs’ fraud claims under the TSA. On December 18, 2012, the Court heard Defendants’ Joint Motion to Sever and Stay Claims of Plaintiff Jaimie Davis and to Sever Claims of Plaintiff Robert Phalen, and on that same date, the Court granted the Motion. Accordingly, Jaimie Davis’s claims have been severed and stayed, and are now pending under Cause of Action No. DC-13-00527 in the Dallas County District Court. Additionally, Robert Phalen’s claims have been severed and are now pending under Cause of Action No. DC-13-00528. As to the remaining Plaintiffs in the Stevenson matter, trial has been set for July 14, 2014. The Defendants intend to vigorously defend against these claims.

No accrual has been recorded as of March 31, 2014 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 April 11, 2014, judgment was rendered in favor of the Reef Defendants and other defendants in regard to all claims made by the plaintiffs in the case of TEPCO, LLC et al. v. Reef Exploration, L.P. et al. by the 127th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. Reef Exploration, L.P., RCWI, L.P., Reef Global Energy V, L.P., Reef Global Energy VI, L.P. and Reef Global Energy VII, L.P. are collectively referred to as the “Reef Defendants.” The Court also found that the Reef Defendants were entitled to recover attorneys’ fees from the Plaintiffs. This lawsuit, which is styled as 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, was brought on December 22, 2011. After extensive summary judgment briefing in which the Reef Defendants prevailed on their motion in March 2013, the court tried the remaining issues on January 21, 22 and March 11, 2014. In their petition, Plaintiffs asserted claims for alleged breaches of contract in regard to the drilling and operation of an oil and gas well located in Galveston County, Texas. Plaintiffs sought 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. However, we have determined that the Partnership’s interest is a leasehold interest that should not be subject to the claims stated in this case. The interests owned by the other defendants consist partly or entirely of non-consent interests under the Joint Operating Agreement with the Plaintiffs and represents leasehold interests owned by the Plaintiffs for which the plaintiffs declined to participate in the well in question. If the Plaintiffs were successful on appeal, and if we were not successful in getting the Partnership dismissed from the case due to the nature of its ownership interest in the well, the Partnership could be required to contribute its pro rata share to satisfy any judgment the Plaintiffs might receive. The Reef Defendants have requested the Court to modify certain language in the judgment, after the resolution of which the Plaintiffs’ thirty day period to file a notice of appeal will commence. The Reef Defendants expect the Plaintiffs to appeal the court’s decision.

A reasonable estimate of a possible range of loss cannot be made. No loss accrual has been recorded as of March 31, 2014 as a loss is not believed to be probable. Due to our determination of the nature of the Partnership’s leasehold interest, the Partnership has not been charged attorney fees related to this case, and would not be entitled to any portion of attorney fees which might ultimately be recovered from Plaintiffs.