From time to time, we and our subsidiaries are involved in business disputes that may occur in the ordinary course of business. We are unable to predict the outcome of such matters when they arise. Other than disputes currently disclosed under litigation, we are unaware of any other disputes that exist and do not believe that the ultimate resolution of such matters would have a material adverse effect on our financial statements. We review the status of on-going proceedings and other contingent matters with legal counsel. Liabilities for such items are recorded if and when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and when the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. If we are able to reasonably estimate a range of possible losses, an estimated range of possible loss is disclosed for such matters in excess of the accrued liability, if any. Liabilities are periodically reviewed for adjustments based on additional information.

On April 2, 2012, a lawsuit styled as a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against us and our chief executive officer alleging that we made false and misleading statements that artificially inflated our stock prices. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that we misrepresented the prospects and progress of our drilling operations, including our drilling of the Sabu-1 well and plans to drill the Baraka-1 well off the coast of the Republic of Guinea. The lawsuit seeks damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, although the specific amount of damages is not specified. On June 1 and June 4, 2012, a number of parties made application to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff for this action, but a lead plaintiff has not yet been selected by the Court. We anticipate a consolidated amended complaint will be filed in the matter once a lead plaintiff is appointed. We have assessed the status of this matter and have concluded that although an adverse judgment is reasonably possible, it is not probable. As a result, no provision has been made in the consolidated financial statements. Given the early stage of this dispute, we are unable to estimate a range of possible loss; however, in our opinion, the outcome of this dispute will not have a material effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

On April 5, 2012, a purported derivative action was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, against all of our directors. The petition alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with positive statements about our drilling operations and the Guinea Concession and disclosures related to material weaknesses that we identified in our financial controls. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages against our directors including restitution and disgorgement of profits and advances based on asserted causes of action for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. On July 12, 2012, we and our directors filed special exceptions to the derivative lawsuit on the basis that the plaintiff failed to plead demand futility. The plaintiff did not make a demand on the Hyperdynamics Board prior to filing the derivative suit; therefore the lawsuit would be subject to dismissal unless the plaintiffs' pleadings sufficiently demonstrated that demand would be futile. In response, the plaintiff amended his petition on August 13, 2012. We have assessed the status of this matter and have concluded that although an adverse judgment is reasonably possible, it is not probable. As a result, no provision has been made in the consolidated financial statements. Given the early stage of this dispute, we are unable to estimate a range of possible loss; however, in our opinion, the outcome of this dispute will not have a material effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

On May 9, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against us and all of our directors. The plaintiffs, five hedge funds that invested in us in early 2012, allege that we breached an agreement with the plaintiffs, and that we and the directors made certain negligent misrepresentations relating to the company's drilling operations. Among other claims, the plaintiffs allege that we misrepresented the status of our drilling operations and the speed with which the drilling would be completed. The plaintiffs advance claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation and seek damages in the amount of $18.5 million plus pre-judgment interest. The plaintiffs also seek indemnity for their legal expenses On July 12, 2012, we and the directors moved to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim as to all defendants and for lack of personal jurisdiction over the director defendants. The maximum possible loss is the full amount of $18.5 million plus interest accrued thereon until judgment. We, however, have assessed the status of this matter and have concluded that although an adverse judgment is reasonably possible, it is not probable. As a result, no provision has been made in the consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the outcome of this dispute will not have a material effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

On June 21, 2012, our wholly-owned subsidiary, SCS, filed suit against AGR following unsuccessful negotiations to address the cost overruns associated with the Sabu-1 well drilled off the coast of the Republic of Guinea. The suit was filed in London, England in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court. SCS is seeking to recover damages and other relief from AGR for claims of mismanagement of the drilling of the Sabu-1 well and various breaches of contract that resulted in the cost overruns. Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that AGR mismanaged the selection, reconditioning and crew staffing for the Jasper Explorer drilling rig used to drill the Sabu-1 well, mismanaged other subcontractor relationships, failed to seek cost relief from its subcontractors, and failed to return to SCS inventory purchased by SCS but not used in the drilling of Sabu-1 well. AGR has not yet filed its defense in that matter, but has indicated it expects to file a counterclaim.

On April 9, 2001, we were named as a defendant in a lawsuit in Delaware styled Wellington, LLC vs. Hyperdynamics Corporation. The Plaintiff claimed that we did not carry out conversion of Series A preferred stock to common stock. The Delaware lawsuit was dismissed and similar litigation ensued in Georgia.

On December 30, 2010, we entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which we issued 239,437 shares of our common stock in connection with the conversion of 1,945 outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock. As part of the settlement, we were relieved of any Series A Preferred Stock dividend payments and two former officers agreed to the cancellation of an aggregate of 100,000 warrants which had an exercise price of $4.00. As a result of this agreement, we were not required to issue the full amount of convertible securities under the terms of the Series A Preferred and we did not have to pay $372,000 of dividends we previously accrued as payable. The common shares, based upon the stock price at the settlement date, had a fair market value of $1,183,000. The exchange of those common shares for the conversion of the Series A Preferred Stock, the elimination of the corresponding dividend payable, and the cancellation of 100,000 warrants was a capital transaction and no gain or loss was recorded. We recorded $1,183,000 to additional paid-in capital, with a corresponding charge to additional paid-in capital of $811,000, which represented the difference between the fair market value of the common shares issued for settlement and the elimination of the accrued dividend payable related to the Series A Preferred Stock, resulting in a net credit to additional paid-in capital of $372,000.

Trendsetter Production Company was named in two separate lawsuits, Raymond Thomas et al v. Ashley Investment et al and Wilburn L. Atkins and Malcolm L. Mason Jr. vs. BP America Production et al, Nos. 38,839 and 41,913-B, respectively, "C", 5th Judicial District Court, Parish of Richland, State of Louisiana. These cases were environmental cleanup cases involving wells operated by Trendsetter prior to our acquisition of Trendsetter. In May 2011, we entered into a settlement agreement to which we paid $20,000 to settle this claim and received a court order dismissing the case. On June 30, 2011, we sold Trendsetter Production Company to Good Day Production, LLC for $20,000. The Company does not anticipate any additional liabilities relating to Trendsetter Production Company due to this sale.

Our subsidiary, SCS, has $350,000 remaining of a contingent note payable due to the former owners of SCS Corporation's assets. It is payable in our common stock and it is payable only if SCS has net income in any given quarter. If SCS experiences net income in a quarter, 25% of the income will be paid against the note, until the contingency is satisfied.

We lease office space under long-term operating leases with varying terms. Most of the operating leases contain renewal and purchase options. We expect that in the normal course of business, the majority of operating leases will be renewed or replaced by other leases.

The following is a schedule by years of minimum future rental payments required under operating leases that have initial or remaining noncancellable lease terms in excess of one year as of June 30, 2012:

Years ending June 30: (in thousands)

2013		297
2014		326
2015		229
2016		—
2017		—

Total minimum payments required	$	852

Rent expense included in net loss from operations for the years ended June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010 was $483,000, $295,000 and $154,000, respectively.