Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

Since April 2009, Atmos Energy and two subsidiaries of AEH, Atmos Energy Marketing, LLC (AEM) and Atmos Gathering Company, LLC (AGC) (collectively, the Atmos Entities), have been involved in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Edmonson County, Kentucky related to our Park City Gathering Project. The dispute which gave rise to the litigation involves the amount of royalties due from a third party producer to landowners (who own the mineral rights) for natural gas produced from the landowners’ properties. The third party producer was operating pursuant to leases between the landowners and certain investors/working interest owners. The third party producer filed a petition in bankruptcy, which was subsequently dismissed due to the lack of meaningful assets to reorganize or liquidate.

Although certain Atmos Energy companies entered into contracts with the third party producer to gather, treat and ultimately sell natural gas produced from the landowners’ properties, no Atmos Energy company had a contractual relationship with the landowners or the investors/working interest owners. After the lawsuit was filed, the landowners were successful in terminating for non-payment of royalties the leases related to the production of natural gas from their properties. Subsequent to termination, the investors/working interest owners under such leases filed additional claims against us for the termination of the leases.

During the trial, the landowners and the investors/working interest owners requested an award of compensatory damages plus punitive damages against us. On December 17, 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the landowners and investor/working interest owners and awarded compensatory damages of $3.8 million and punitive damages of $27.5 million payable by Atmos Energy and the two AEH subsidiaries.

A hearing was held on February 28, 2011 to hear a number of motions, including a motion to dismiss the jury verdict and a motion for a new trial. The motions to dismiss the jury verdict and for a new trial were denied. However, the total punitive damages award was reduced from $27.5 million to $24.7 million. On October 17, 2011, we filed our brief of appellants with the Kentucky Court of Appeals (Court), appealing the verdict of the trial court. The appellees in this case subsequently filed their appellees’ brief with the Court on January 16, 2012, with our reply brief being filed with the Court on March 19, 2012. Oral arguments were held in the case on August 27, 2012.

In an opinion handed down on January 25, 2013, the Court of Appeals overturned the $28.5 million jury verdict returned against the Atmos Entities. In a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel, the Court of Appeals reversed the claims asserted by the landowners and investors/working interest owners. The Court of Appeals concluded that all of such claims that the Atmos Entities appealed should have been dismissed by the trial court as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals let stand the jury verdict on one claim that Atmos Energy and our subsidiaries chose not to appeal, which was a trespass claim. The jury had awarded a total of $10,000 in compensatory damages to one landowner on that claim. The Court of Appeals vacated all of the other damages awarded by the jury and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial, solely on the issue of whether punitive damages should be awarded to that landowner and, if so, in what amount.

The investors/working interest owners, on February 25, 2013, and the landowners, on March 19, 2013, each filed with the Supreme Court of Kentucky, separate motions for discretionary review of the opinion of the Court of Appeals. We filed a response to the motion filed by the investors/working owners on March 27, 2013 and to the landowners’ motion on April 17, 2013. The decision of the Court of Appeals will not become final until the appellate process is completed. We had previously accrued what we believed to be an adequate amount for the anticipated resolution of this matter and we will continue to maintain this amount in legal reserves until the appellate process in this case has been completed. We continue to believe that the final outcome will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

In addition, in a related development, on July 12, 2011, the Atmos Entities filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky, Atmos Energy Corporation et al.vs. Resource Energy Technologies, LLC and Robert Thorpe and John F. Charles, against the third party producer and its affiliates to recover all costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by the Atmos Entities, which are associated with the defense and appeal of the case discussed above as well as for all damages awarded to the plaintiffs in such case against the Atmos Entities. The total amount of damages being claimed in the lawsuit is “open-ended” since the appellate process and related costs are ongoing. This lawsuit is based upon the indemnification provisions agreed to by the third party producer in favor of Atmos Gathering that are contained in an agreement entered into between Atmos Gathering and the third party producer in May 2009. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on August 25, 2011, with Atmos Energy filing a brief in response to such motion on September 19, 2011. On March 27, 2012 the court denied the motion to dismiss. Since that time, we have been engaged in discovery activities in this case.

Tennessee Business License Tax

Atmos Energy, through its affiliate, AEM, has been involved in a dispute with the Tennessee Department of Revenue (TDOR) regarding sales business tax audits over a period of several years. AEM has challenged the assessment of the business tax. With respect to certain issues, AEM and the TDOR filed competing Partial Motions for Summary Judgment with the Chancery Court. On August 2, 2013, the Chancery Court granted the TDOR's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and denied AEM's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. The Company anticipates a decision by the Chancery Court on the remaining issues in fiscal 2014. AEM has been assessed $6.1 million in business taxes and $3.7 million in penalties and interest for the period from December 2002 through March 31, 2012. We have accrued what we believe to be an adequate amount for the anticipated resolution of this matter and we will continue to review and if appropriate adjust this reserve until this matter is resolved. We continue to believe the final outcome will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

We are a party to other litigation and claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of our business. While the results of such litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe the final outcome of such litigation and claims will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Environmental Matters

We are a party to environmental matters and claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of our business. While the ultimate results of response actions to these environmental matters and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe the final outcome of such response actions will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows because we believe that the expenditures related to such response actions will either be recovered through rates, shared with other parties or are adequately covered by insurance.

Purchase Commitments

Our natural gas distribution divisions, except for our Mid-Tex Division, maintain supply contracts with several vendors that generally cover a period of up to one year. Commitments for estimated base gas volumes are established under these contracts on a monthly basis at contractually negotiated prices. Commitments for incremental daily purchases are made as necessary during the month in accordance with the terms of the individual contract.

Our Mid-Tex Division maintains long-term supply contracts to ensure a reliable source of gas for our customers in its service area which obligate it to purchase specified volumes at market and fixed prices. At September 30, 2013, the estimated commitments under these contracts are $230.5 million for fiscal 2014.

Our nonregulated segment has commitments to purchase physical quantities of natural gas under contracts indexed to the forward NYMEX strip or fixed price contracts. At September 30, 2013, we were committed to purchase 78.0 Bcf within one year, 21.9 Bcf within one to three years and 1.0 Bcf after three years under indexed contracts. We are committed to purchase 6.1 Bcf within one year and 0.2 Bcf within one to three years under fixed price contracts with prices ranging from $3.32 to $6.36 per Mcf. Purchases under these contracts totaled $1,246.1 million, $978.8 million and $1,498.6 million for 2013, 2012 and 2011.

In addition, our nonregulated segment maintains long-term contracts related to storage and transportation. The estimated contractual demand fees for contracted storage and transportation under these contracts as of September 30, 2013 are as follows (in thousands):



2014	$	12,662
2015	5,113
2016	743
2017	170
2018	142
Thereafter	356
	$	19,186

Other Contingencies

In December 2007, the Company received data requests from the Division of Investigations of the Office of Enforcement of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the “Commission”) in connection with its investigation into possible violations of the Commission’s posting and competitive bidding regulations for pre-arranged released firm capacity on natural gas pipelines.

The Company and the Commission entered into a stipulation and consent agreement, which was approved by the Commission on December 9, 2011, thereby resolving this investigation. The Commission’s findings of violations were limited to the nonregulated operations of the Company. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company paid to the United States Treasury a total civil penalty of approximately $6.4 million and to energy assistance programs approximately $5.6 million in disgorgement of unjust profits plus interest for violations identified during the investigation. The resolution of this matter did not have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows and none of the payments were charged to any of the Company’s customers. In addition, none of the services the Company provides to any of its regulated or nonregulated customers were affected by the agreement.

In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted, representing an extensive overhaul of the framework for regulation of U.S. financial markets. The Dodd-Frank Act required various regulatory agencies, including the SEC and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, to establish regulations for implementation of many of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. A number of those regulations have been adopted; we have enacted new procedures and modified existing business practices and contractual arrangements to comply with such regulations. We expect additional regulations to be issued, which should provide additional clarity regarding the extent of the impact of this legislation on us. The costs of participating in financial markets for hedging certain risks inherent in our business may be further increased when these expected additional regulations are adopted. We also anticipate that the Commodities Futures Trading Commission will issue additional related reporting and disclosure obligations.