Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies

We have employment contracts with five executive officers which provide for annual base salaries, eligibility for bonus compensation and various benefits. The contracts provide for a lump sum payment as a multiple of base salary in the event of termination of employment without cause. In addition, these contracts provide for payments as a multiple of base salary and bonus, excise tax reimbursement, outplacement services and a continuation of benefits in the event of termination without cause following a change in control. By providing one year notice, these agreements may be terminated by either party on or after May 31, 2013.

We have regional/technical offices in Singapore and field offices in Jakarta, Indonesia and Port Gentil, Gabon to support field operations in those areas. At December 31, 2013 we had the following lease commitments for office space (in thousands):


	Payments Due by Period
	Total		Less than 1 Year		1-2 Years		3-4 Years		After 4 Years
	Total		Less than 1 Year		1-2 Years		3-4 Years		After 4 Years
Office leases	$	583	$	521	$	62	$	0	$	0

We have various contractual commitments pertaining to exploration, development and production activities. We entered the third exploration phase of the Dussafu PSC on May 28, 2012. In January 2013, the Budong PSC partners were granted a four year extension of the initial six year exploration term of the Budong PSC to January 15, 2017. The extension of the initial exploration term includes an exploration well, which if not drilled by January 2016, results in the termination of the Budong PSC. If we do not drill an exploration well before October 2014, our partner has the right to give us notice that the consideration for the additional 7.1 percent participating interest must be paid in cash for $3.2 million. See Note 9 – Indonesia. These work commitments are non-discretionary; however, we do have the ability to control the pace of expenditures.

Kensho Sone, et al. v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. On July 24, 2013, 70 individuals, all alleged to be citizens of Taiwan, filed an original complaint and application for injunctive relief relating to the Company’s interest in the WAB-21 area of the South China Sea. The complaint alleges that the area belongs to the people of Taiwan and seeks damages in excess of $2.9 million and preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent the Company from exploring, developing plans to extract hydrocarbons from, conducting future operations in, and extracting hydrocarbons from, the WAB-21 area. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss and intends to vigorously defend these allegations.

The following related class action lawsuits were filed on the dates specified in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas: John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013) (“Phillips case”); Sang Kim v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston, Stephen C. Haynes, Stephen D. Chesebro’, Igor Effimoff, H. H. Hardee, Robert E. Irelan, Patrick M. Murray and J. Michael Stinson (April 3, 2013); Chris Kean v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 11, 2013); Prastitis v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 17, 2013); Alan Myers v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 22, 2013); and Edward W. Walbridge and the Edward W. Walbridge Trust v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 26, 2013). The complaints allege that the Company made certain false or misleading public statements and demand that the defendants pay unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs based on stock price declines. All of these actions have been consolidated into the Phillips case. The Company and the other named defendants have filed a motion to dismiss and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated lawsuits.

In June 2012, the operator of the Budong PSC received notice of a claim related to the ownership of part of the land comprising the Karama-1 (“KD-1”) drilling site. The claim asserts that the land on which the drill site is located is partly owned by the claimant. The operator purchased the site from local landowners in January 2010, and the purchase was approved by BPMIGAS, Indonesia’s oil and gas regulatory authority. The claimant is seeking compensation of 16 billion Indonesia Rupiah (approximately $1.4 million, $1.0 million net to our 71.61 percent cost sharing interest) for land that was purchased at a cost of $4,100 in January 2010. On March 8, 2013, the court ruled to dismiss the claim because the claim had not been filed against the proper parties to the claim. On March 19, 2013, the claimant filed an appeal against the judgment. We dispute the claim and plan to vigorously defend against it.

In May 2012, Newfield Production Company (“Newfield”) filed notice pursuant to the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Harvest (US) Holdings, Inc. (“Harvest US”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Harvest, and Newfield dated March 21, 2011 (the “PSA”) of a potential environmental claim involving certain wells drilled on the Antelope Project. The claim asserts that locations constructed by Harvest US were built on, within, or otherwise impact or potentially impact wetlands and other water bodies. The notice asserts that, to the extent of potential penalties or other obligations that might result from potential violations, Harvest US must indemnify Newfield pursuant to the PSA. In June 2012, we provided Newfield with notice pursuant to the PSA (1) denying that Newfield has any right to indemnification from us, (2) alleging that any potential environmental claim related to Newfield’s notice would be an assumed liability under the PSA and (3) asserting that Newfield indemnify us pursuant to the PSA. We dispute Newfield’s claims and plan to vigorously defend against them.

On May 31, 2011, the United Kingdom branch of our subsidiary, Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. (UK), initiated a wire transfer of approximately $1.1 million ($0.7 million net to our 66.667 percent interest) intending to pay Libya Oil Gabon S.A. (“LOGSA”) for fuel that LOGSA supplied to our subsidiary in the Netherlands, Harvest Dussafu, B.V., for the company’s drilling operations in Gabon. On June 1, 2011, our bank notified us that it had been required to block the payment in accordance with the U.S. sanctions against Libya as set forth in Executive Order 13566 of February 25, 2011, and administered by OFAC, because the payee, LOGSA, may be a blocked party under the sanctions. The bank further advised us that it could not release the funds to the payee or return the funds to us unless we obtain authorization from OFAC. On October 26, 2011, we filed an application with OFAC for return of the blocked funds to us. Until that application is approved, the funds will remain in the blocked account, and we can give no assurance when OFAC will permit the funds to be released. Our October 26, 2011 application for the return of the blocked funds remains pending with OFAC.

Robert C. Bonnet and Bobby Bonnet Land Services vs. Harvest (US) Holdings, Inc., Branta Exploration & Production, LLC, Ute Energy LLC, Cameron Cuch, Paula Black, Johnna Blackhair, and Elton Blackhair in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. This suit was served in April 2010 on Harvest and Elton Blackhair, a Harvest employee, alleging that the defendants, among other things, intentionally interfered with plaintiffs’ employment agreement with the Ute Indian Tribe – Energy & Minerals Department and intentionally interfered with plaintiffs’ prospective economic relationships. Plaintiffs seek actual damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney’s fees. We dispute plaintiffs’ claims and plan to vigorously defend against them. On October 29, 2013, we learned that the court administratively closed the case. The case was recently reopened as a result of the Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling against Plaintiffs’ discovery request. We dispute Plaintiffs’ claims and plan to vigorously defend against them.

Uracoa Municipality Tax Assessments. Harvest Vinccler S.C.A., a subsidiary of Harvest Holding (“Harvest Vinccler”), has received nine assessments from a tax inspector for the Uracoa municipality in which part of the Uracoa, Tucupita and Bombal fields are located as follows:

•

Three claims were filed in July 2004 and allege a failure to withhold for technical service payments and a failure to pay taxes on the capital fee reimbursement and related interest paid by PDVSA under the Operating Service Agreement (“OSA”). Harvest Vinccler has filed a motion with the Tax Court in Barcelona, Venezuela, to enjoin and dismiss one of the claims and has protested with the municipality the remaining claims.

•

Two claims were filed in July 2006 alleging the failure to pay taxes at a new rate set by the municipality. Harvest Vinccler has filed a protest with the Tax Court in Barcelona, Venezuela, on these claims.

•

Two claims were filed in August 2006 alleging a failure to pay taxes on estimated revenues for the second quarter of 2006 and a withholding error with respect to certain vendor payments. Harvest Holding has filed a protest with the Tax Court in Barcelona, Venezuela, on one claim and filed a protest with the municipality on the other claim.

•

Two claims were filed in March 2007 alleging a failure to pay taxes on estimated revenues for the third and fourth quarters of 2006. Harvest Vinccler has filed a protest with the municipality on these claims.

Harvest Vinccler disputes the Uracoa tax assessments and believes it has a substantial basis for its positions based on the interpretation of the tax code by SENIAT (the Venezuelan income tax authority), as it applies to operating service agreements, Harvest Holding has filed claims in the Tax Court in Caracas against the Uracoa Municipality for the refund of all municipal taxes paid since 1997.

Libertador Municipality Tax Assessments. Harvest Vinccler has received five assessments from a tax inspector for the Libertador municipality in which part of the Uracoa, Tucupita and Bombal fields are located as follows:

•

One claim was filed in April 2005 alleging the failure to pay taxes at a new rate set by the municipality. Harvest Vinccler has filed a protest with the Mayor’s Office and a motion with the Tax Court in Barcelona, Venezuela, to enjoin and dismiss the claim. On April 10, 2008, the Tax Court suspended the case pending a response from the Mayor’s Office to the protest. If the municipality’s response is to confirm the assessment, Harvest Holding will defer to the Tax Court to enjoin and dismiss the claim.

•

Two claims were filed in June 2007. One claim relates to the period 2003 through 2006 and seeks to impose a tax on interest paid by PDVSA under the OSA. The second claim alleges a failure to pay taxes on estimated revenues for the third and fourth quarters of 2006. Harvest Vinccler has filed a motion with the Tax Court in Barcelona, Venezuela, to enjoin and dismiss both claims.

•

Two claims were filed in July 2007 seeking to impose penalties on tax assessments filed and settled in 2004. Harvest Vinccler has filed a motion with the Tax Court in Barcelona, Venezuela, to enjoin and dismiss both claims.

Harvest Vinccler disputes the Libertador allegations set forth in the assessments and believes it has a substantial basis for its position. As a result of the SENIAT’s interpretation of the tax code as it applies to operating service agreements, Harvest Vinccler has filed claims in the Tax Court in Caracas against the Libertador Municipality for the refund of all municipal taxes paid since 2002.

On May 4, 2012, Harvest Vinccler learned that the Political Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued a decision dismissing one of Harvest Vinccler’s claims against the Libertador Municipality. Harvest Vinccler continues to believe that it has sufficient arguments to maintain its position in accordance with the Venezuelan Constitution. Harvest Vinccler plans to present a request of Constitutional Revision to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice once it is notified officially of the decision. Harvest Vinccler has not received official notification of the decision. Harvest Vinccler is unable to predict the effect of this decision on the remaining outstanding municipality claims and assessments.

On February 21, 2014, Tecnica Vial and Flamingo, our partners in Colombia on Blocks VSM14 and VSM15, respectively, filed for arbitration of claims related to the farmout agreements for each block. We had received notices of default from our partners for failing to comply with certain terms of the farmout agreements, followed by notices of termination on November 27, 2013. We determined that it was appropriate to fully impair the costs associated with these interests, and we recorded an impairment charge of $3.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2013 which includes an accrual of $2 million related to this matter. We intend to vigorously defend the arbitration.

We are a defendant in or otherwise involved in other litigation incidental to our business. In the opinion of management, there is no such litigation that will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.