14.Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, the Company may be a plaintiff or defendant in a pending or threatened legal proceeding arising in the normal course of its business. All known liabilities are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable based on the Company’s best estimate of the potential loss. The Company has recognized $26.7 million of accrued liabilities in relation to legal proceedings which is classified within “Other long-term liabilities” and $2 million is classified within “Liabilities Subject to Compromise” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2015. As of December 31, 2014 the Company recognized $27.4 million of accrued liabilities in relation to legal proceedings which is classified within “Other long-term liabilities” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Additionally, as of December 31, 2015, the Company had AROs of approximately $40.9 million, of which $9.4 million was reported in “Liabilities Subject to Compromise” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. As of December 31, 2014 Company had AROs of approximately $48.8 million, of which $9.4 million was reported in “Other short-term liabilities” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet attributable to the plugging of abandoned wells.

Forest Oil Corporation v. El Rucio Land and Cattle Company, Inc., et al.

On February 29, 2012, two members of a three-member arbitration panel reached a decision adverse to the Company in the proceeding styled Forest Oil Corp. et al. v. El Rucio Land & Cattle Co. et al. The third member of the arbitration panel dissented. The proceeding was initiated in January 2005 and involves claims asserted by the landowner-claimant based on the diminution in value of its land and related damages allegedly resulting from operational and reclamation practices employed by Forest Oil in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s. The arbitration decision awarded the claimant $23 million in damages and attorneys’ fees and additional injunctive relief regarding future surface-use issues. On October 9, 2012, after vacating a portion of the decision imposing a future bonding requirement on the Company, the trial court for the 55th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas, reduced the arbitration decision to a judgment. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas on July 24, 2014, and a motion for rehearing was denied on August 8, 2014. The Company filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court on January 5, 2015. On May 1, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court requested full briefing on the merits. On July 15, 2015, the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On September 15, 2015, the bankruptcy court granted an unopposed motion to lift the automatic stay thereby allowing the appeal currently pending in the Texas Supreme Court to move forward. All briefing in the matter is now completed.

Stourbridge Investments, LLC v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Raul v. Carroll, et al., Rothenberg v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Gawlikowski v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Edwards v. Carroll, et al., Jabri v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al.

Following the May 6, 2014 announcement of the proposed Combination, six putative class action lawsuits were filed by Forest Oil shareholder in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those breaches of fiduciary duty by Sabine entities in connection with the proposed Combination. By order dated July 8, 2014, the six New York cases were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re Forest Oil Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 651418/2014. On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated New York action filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”). The Consolidated Complaint seeks to certify a plaintiff class consisting of all holders of Forest Oil common stock other than the defendants and their affiliates. The defendants named in these actions include the directors of Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I. Wilcox), as well as Sabine and certain of its affiliates (specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II LLC). The Consolidated Complaint also purports to identify FR XI Onshore AIV, L.L.C. as a defendant, but no causes of action are alleged against that entity.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the proposed Combination arises out of a series of unlawful actions by the board of directors of Forest Oil seeking to ensure that Sabine and affiliates of First Reserve Corporation (“First Reserve”) acquire the assets of, and take control over, Forest Oil through an alleged “three-step merger transaction” that allegedly does not represent a value-maximizing transaction for the shareholders of Forest Oil. The Consolidated Complaint also complains that the proposed Combination has been improperly restructured to require only a majority vote of current Forest Oil shareholders to approve the Combination with Sabine, rather than a two-thirds majority as would have been required under the original transaction structure. The Consolidated Complaint additionally alleges that members of Forest Oil’s board, as well as Forest Oil’s financial adviser for the proposed Combination, are subject to conflicts of interest that compromise their loyalty to Forest Oil’s shareholders, that the defendants have improperly sought to “lock up” the proposed Combination with certain inappropriate “deal protection devices” that impede Forest Oil from pursuing superior potential transactions with other bidders.

The Consolidated Complaint asserts causes of action against the directors of Forest Oil for breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of the New York Business Corporation Law, as well as a cause of action against the Sabine defendants for aiding and abetting the directors’ breaches of duty and violations of law, and it seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin consummation of the proposed Combination or, in the alternative, rescission and/or rescissory and other damages in the event that the proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is resolved.

In addition to these New York proceedings, one putative class action lawsuit has been filed by Forest Oil shareholders in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. That action, captioned Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corp., No. 1:14-cv-01409-MSK-CBS, was commenced on May 19, 2014, and plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (the “Olinatz Complaint”) on June 13, 2014. The Olinatz Complaint also alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those breaches of fiduciary duty by the Sabine defendants in connection with the proposed Combination, as well as related claims alleging violations of Section 14 (a) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged misstatements in a Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by Forest Oil on May 29, 2014, which recommends that Forest Oil shareholders approve the proposed Combination. The Olinatz Complaint names as defendants Forest Oil and certain of its affiliates (specifically, Forest Oil Corporation, New Forest Oil Inc., and Forest Oil Merger Sub Inc.), the directors of Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I. Wilcox), and Sabine and certain of its affiliates (specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II LLC), and seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin consummation of the proposed Combination or, in the alternative, rescission in the event the proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is resolved, as well as imposition of a constructive trust on any alleged benefits improperly received by defendants.

On October 14, 2014, on motion by the Colorado plaintiffs, the Court in the Colorado action entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to administratively close the action, subject to reopening on good cause shown.

On November 11, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in the New York action regarding a settlement of that action, and that agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding executed by the parties on that date. The settlement, if consummated, would also resolve the Colorado action. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Forest Oil agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed transaction with Sabine, which are contained in Forest Oil’s November 12, 2014 Form 8-K, and Sabine agreed that, within 120 days after the closing of the proposed combination transaction, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC will designate for a period of no less than three (3) years at least one additional independent director, as defined in Section 303A.02 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, as a Sabine Nominee (as defined in Section 1.4 of the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger). The total number of Sabine Nominees will remain unchanged, but at least one of the remaining two Sabine Nominees that had not yet been determined was required to be independent. In connection with the closing of the Combination, Thomas Chewning, an independent director as defined in Section 303A.02 of the New York Exchange Listed Company Manual, was appointed as a Sabine Nominee. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement.

On March 13, 2015, plaintiffs informed Sabine that they believed Sabine had materially violated the terms of the memorandum of understanding by (i) failing to replace or create a mechanism to replace an independent director who resigned from the board of directors in January of 2015, and (ii) making changes to the terms of the merger agreement that were not necessary or required to facilitate the consummation of the proposed transaction without first disclosing and permitting shareholders to vote on the changes. Sabine disagrees with plaintiffs’ position and believes it has fully complied with the memorandum of understanding. In an attempt to facilitate a resolution, however, Sabine offered to: (i) appoint an independent director if an additional director was added to the Board of Directors (bringing the total number of directors to eight) in the next twelve months, and (ii) remove or waive the “Reincorporation Penalty” provision. Plaintiffs accepted the offer on April 22, 2015, contingent upon the Parties’ reaching agreement on a stipulation of settlement, which they are presently negotiating.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval. In the event the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the New York Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims or actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed combination transaction, the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, the merger agreement originally entered into by Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Forest Oil, New Forest Oil Inc. and certain of their affiliated entities on May 5, 2014, any disclosure made in connection therewith, including the Definitive Proxy Statement, and all other matters that were the subject of the complaint in the New York action, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that the parties will negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorney’s fees and expenses that shall be paid to plaintiffs’ counsel in connection with the Actions. There can be no assurances that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the New York Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. The parties are presently negotiating the stipulation of settlement. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the potential outcome of this litigation or the ultimate exposure.

On July 15, 2015, the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. As a result of the pending bankruptcy, this matter is currently stayed.

HPIP-Gonzales Holdings, LLC v. Forest Oil Corporation

On November 11, 2014, HPIP-Gonzales Holdings, LLC (“HPIP”) initiated arbitration against the Company alleging that the Company breached various provisions, along with its duty of good faith and fair dealing, of the Gathering, Treating and Processing Agreement with HPIP entered into in May 2013 and the Acid Gas Handling Agreement with HPIP entered into in May 2014 (collectively, the “HPIP Agreements”). HPIP also sought to exercise a contractual provision requiring Sabine to purchase the facilities governed by the HPIP agreements in the event the related drilling program terminates. On December 19, 2014, the Company filed its Answering Statement and Notice of Counterclaim, denying HPIP’s claims and asserting generally that HPIP breached various provisions of the agreements, resulting in damages to the Company. The Company further alleged that its drilling program had not terminated. On July 15, 2015, the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. As a result of the pending bankruptcy, the arbitration is currently stayed.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Forest Oil Corporation

On February 26, 2015, the Company was served with a complaint concerning the indenture governing its 2019 Notes. The complaint is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and generally alleges that certain events of default occurred with respect to the 2019 Notes due to the business combination between Forest Oil Corporation and Sabine Oil & Gas LLC. The Company also received a notice of default and acceleration from the trustee with respect to the 2019 Notes containing similar allegations. If the Company is not successful in their defense of this complaint, the Company may be required to redeem the holders of the 2019 Notes at 101% of the outstanding principal, plus accrued and outstanding interest of the notes. The Company filed its Answer to the complaint on April 17, 2015. The Company believes the allegations against it are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against such claims and pursue any and all defenses available. However, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of such matter, and the proceedings may have a negative impact on the Company’s liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company is separately evaluating potential claims that it may assert against the trustee for the 2019 Notes for any and all losses the Company may suffer as a result of the complaint or notice. The Company can provide no guarantee that any such claims, if brought by the Company, will be successful or, if successful, that the responsible parties will have the financial resources to address any such claims. While the Company intends to vigorously defend the claims against it and believe they are without merit, an adverse ruling could cause the Company’s indebtedness to become immediately due and payable.

Additional claims, lawsuits, or proceedings may be filed or commenced arising out of the indentures to which we are a party and with respect to the business combination.

On July 15, 2015, the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. As a result of the pending bankruptcy, this matter is currently stayed.

Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation v. Wilmington Trust, N.A.

On July 15, 2015, the Company filed an adversary proceeding asserting, on its behalf, a constructive fraudulent transfer claim against the Term Loan Facility administrative agent Wilmington Trust, N.A. Specifically, the complaint states that immediately before the Combination between Sabine Oil & Gas LLC and Forest Oil Corporation, both Forest Oil Corporation and Sabine Oil & Gas LLC were insolvent from a balance-sheet standpoint. The complaint likewise alleges that immediately after the Combination, the combined company was insolvent. The complaint also alleges that Forest Oil Corporation and its creditors did not receive reasonably equivalent value in the Combination and financing transactions that occurred simultaneously on December 16, 2014. Specifically the complaint alleges that Forest Oil Corporation’s creditors did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for pledging hundreds of millions of previously unencumbered dollars of oil and gas assets to secure the Term Loan Facility debt that was under-secured, and that Sabine Oil & Gas LLC had previously incurred. Accordingly, pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 551, the Company is seeking to avoid and preserve, for the benefit of the Company’s unsecured creditors, the liens imposed on legacy Forest Oil Corporation assets that were pledged to secure the preexisting Sabine Oil & Gas LLC’s Term Loan Facility. In August 2015, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which is not fully briefed. The court first heard oral argument on October 15, 2015, but did not rule.

On December 30, 2015, the official committee for unsecured creditors (the “Creditors Committee”) and counsel for the Forest Notes Trustees filed motions to intervene in the adversary proceeding. On January 5, 2016, the Creditors Committee also filed an objection to Wilmington Trust, N.A.’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The court held a second hearing on the motion to dismiss on January 12, 2016, but has yet to rule.

Drilling & Completion

On August 10, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued orders allowing the Company to reject its rig and servicing contracts with Nabors effective July 15, 2015 and the total estimated allowable claim has been included in “Liabilities Subject to Compromise” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet” and “Reorganization Items, net” in the Consolidated Statements of Operations” as appropriate. The rejections impacted the Company’s rigs and servicing and eliminated approximately $29 million due over the life of the secured contracts as of the date the contracts were rejected.

On March 8, 2016, the bankruptcy court announced that it would approve rejection of the HPIP Agreements, effective retroactively to September 30, 2015 (but an order has not yet been entered). This rejection eliminates the obligation to drill at least one well per year on the relevant acreage in order to avoid triggering the agreement’s put provision, which would require the Company to purchase the gathering and processing facilities at a contractually mandated price if the drilling program terminated prior to May 2, 2017.

As is customary in the oil and natural gas industry, the Company may at times have commitments in place to reserve or earn certain acreage positions or wells. If the Company does not pay such commitments, the acreage positions or wells may be lost.

Other Commitments

The Company’s filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions described in Note 2 herein constituted an event of default that accelerated the Company’s obligations under the New Revolving Credit Facility, the Term Loan Facility, the 2017 Notes and the Legacy Forest Notes. As a result, the Company has classified all debt as “Liabilities Subject to Compromise” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2015. For additional description of the defaults present under the Company’s debt obligations, please see Note 8 herein.

The Bankruptcy Court also issued orders allowing the Company to reject certain office leases effective September 1, 2015 and the total estimated allowable claim of approximately $3.6 million has been included in “Liabilities Subject to Compromise” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2015 and “Reorganization Items, net” in the Consolidated Statements of Operations for year ended December 31, 2015, as appropriate.

During 2014, the Company executed ten year gas and condensate gathering agreements for the transportation and processing of natural gas and condensate, covering certain properties in South Texas with contractually obligated annual minimum volume commitments to deliver a cumulative 88.5 Bcfe of gas and 5,150 MBbl of condensate by September 22, 2024 (“the South Texas Agreements”). Under the terms of the South Texas Agreements, the Company is required to make annual deficiency payments for any shortfalls in delivering the minimum annual volumes under these commitments beginning in the third quarter of 2015, which shall be partially offset by then-existing credit balances for production in excess of minimum commitments, if any. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had not delivered the minimum volumes required for the prior contract year, resulting in a deficiency of approximately $3.0 million which was recognized as “Other operating expenses” in the Consolidated Statement of Operations and as “Liabilities subject to compromise” in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of December 31, 2015, the Company has not made the deficiency payment. Based on the current development plan for these oil and gas assets, the Company does not anticipate that future production from the applicable assets and dedicated area will satisfy the future volume commitments, resulting in substantial deficiency payments over the life of the agreements. In order to avoid these substantial future deficiency payments, the Company filed a motion in the bankruptcy court to reject the South Texas Agreements. On March 8, 2016, the bankruptcy court announced that it would approve rejection of the South Texas Agreements, but an order has yet to be entered. The Company believes that rejection will eliminate any future obligation under the agreements to deliver minimum volumes of gas or condensate, or to make deficiency payments in the event minimum volumes are not delivered. The future contractual obligations of the South Texas Agreements total approximately $30.2 million as of December 31, 2015.

The Company has executed additional gas gathering agreements for the transportation and processing of natural gas, covering certain properties in our core operating areas and contractually obligated minimum volume commitments to deliver a cumulative 6.8 Bcfe of gas by August 2018. Under the terms of these agreements, the Company is required to make deficiency payments at the end of the contractual term for any shortfalls in delivering the minimum volumes under these commitments. Based on the current development plan for these oil and gas assets, the Company does not anticipate that future production from the applicable assets and dedicated area will satisfy the future volume commitments, resulting in deficiency payments over the life of the agreements. As of December 31, 2015, the Company has recognized an estimated deficiency of approximately $1.3 million which was recognized as Other operating expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and as Liabilities subject to compromise in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The future contractual obligations of the agreements total approximately $6.3 as of December 31, 2015.

The Company leases approximately 73,000 square feet of office space in downtown Houston, Texas, under a lease, which was amended effective January 1, 2014 to terminate on April 30, 2016. The average rent for this space over the life of the lease is approximately $1.6 million per year. As of December 31, 2015, total future commitments are $0.8 million.

Rent expense was approximately $6.3 million, $2.6 million and $1.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

The Company leases various office and production equipment. As of December 31, 2015, total future commitments are $0.7 million. The majority of Sabine’s operating leases continue with a month to month lease term after initial contractual obligations have expired.

A summary of Sabine’s contractual obligations as of December 31, 2015 is provided in the following table:

Payments due by period


	For the Year Ending December 31,
	2016		2017		2018		2019		2020		Thereafter		Total
Senior secured revolving credit facility (1)	$	902.1	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	902.1
Term Loan Facility (2)		700.0		—		—		—		—		—		700.0
2017 Senior Notes (2)		350.0		—		—		—		—		—		350.0
2019 Senior Notes (2)		577.9		—		—		—		—		—		577.9
2020 Senior Notes (2)		222.1		—		—		—		—		—		222.1
Office and equipment leases		1.4		0.1		—		—		—		—		1.5
Operating commitments (3)		8.8		9.8		4.7		3.2		2.6		7.4		36.5
Other (4)		14.0		4.3		4.1		4.0		3.8		59.8		90.0
Total	$	2,776.3	$	14.2	$	8.8	$	7.2	$	6.4	$	67.2	$	2,880.1

(1)

Includes outstanding principal amounts that were accelerated during 2015. As of December 31, 2015, the New Revolving Credit Facility is presented as “Liabilities Subject to Compromise,” whereas the carrying value equals the face value. Interest expense continues to be recognized on the New Revolving Credit Facility subsequent to the petition date. This table does not include future commitment fees, interest expense or other fees on these facilities because they are floating rate instruments and Sabine cannot determine with accuracy the timing of future loan advances, repayments or future interest rates to be charged. As of December 31, 2015, the New Revolving Credit Facility had a weighted average interest rate of 4.02%. For more information on the classification of debt, please see Note 2 herein.

(2)

As of December 31, 2015, the 2017 Notes, the 2019 Notes, the 2020 Notes and the Term Loan Facility are presented as “Liabilities Subject to Compromise,” whereas the carrying value equals the face value. Accrued interest through the petition date was approximately $74.2 million. No interest expense has been recognized subsequent to the petition date. For more information on the classification of debt, please see Note 2 herein.

(3)

The Company is party to gas and condensate gathering agreements for the transportation and processing of natural gas and condensate for certain properties which provided for contractually obligated annual minimum volume commitments of gas and condensate. Under the terms of the agreements, the Company is required to make annual deficiency payments for any shortfalls in delivering the minimum volumes under these commitments.

(4)

Other is comprised primarily of pension and other postretirement benefit obligations, asset retirement obligations and future settlements of deferred service charges, for which neither the ultimate settlement amounts nor the timing of settlement can be precisely determined in advance. See “Critical Accounting Policies, Estimates, Judgments, and Assumptions” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a more detailed discussion of the nature of the accounting estimates involved in estimating asset retirement obligations.