7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

LITIGATION AND OTHER LEGAL MATTERS

From time to time, we and our subsidiaries are involved in disputes. We are unable to predict the outcome of such matters when they arise. 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.

Shareholder Lawsuits

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. Although several lead plaintiffs were appointed by the Court and then withdrew from the matter, a lead plaintiff has now been appointed and a scheduling order governing briefing on a motion to dismiss has been entered by the Court. Pursuant to that order, an amended consolidated complaint in the matter must be filed by May 12, 2014. Briefing on a motion to dismiss will follow that filing. We have assessed the status of this matter and have concluded that an adverse judgment remains reasonably possible, but 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.

Beginning on March 13, 2014, several lawsuits styled as class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against us and several officers of the Company alleging that we made false and misleading statements that artificially inflated our stock prices. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that we misrepresented our compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and anti-money laundering statutes and that we lacked adequate internal controls. The lawsuits seek damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, although the specific amount of damages is not specified. No party has yet made application for lead plaintiff and no lead plaintiff has been selected, nor have the matters yet been consolidated. In addition to these lawsuits, we have received demands from stockholders to inspect our books and records; however, no proceedings have been instituted. We have assessed the status of this matter and have concluded that an adverse judgment remains reasonably possible, but not probable. As a result, no provision has been made in the consolidated financial statements. Given the early stage of these disputes, 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 6, 2014, a purported shareholder derivative petition was filed against all of our directors and our current and former chief financial officer in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. The petition alleges breaches of their fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, waste and unjust enrichment in connection with potential violations by us of the FCPA. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages against these persons and does not request any damages from us. The plaintiff did not make a demand on our Board of Directors prior to filing the suit.

Iroquois Lawsuit

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 our 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. 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. On June 19, 2013, the court dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim but declined to dismiss the breach of contract claim. The negligent misrepresentation claim was dismissed without prejudice, meaning plaintiffs could attempt to refile it. On August 12, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. That complaint names only us and seeks recovery for alleged breaches of contract. We filed an answer to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint on September 9, 2013, and the court has entered a scheduling order governing pre-trial proceedings in the matter. 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.

AGR Lawsuit

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. On October 1, 2012, AGR filed a defense denying SCS’s allegations and asserting a counterclaim for $22.2 million which AGR alleges to be the outstanding amount owed on the Sabu-1 drilling project, and seeking other unspecified damages and relief, including damages for loss of management time and associated expenses, a full indemnity for a claim brought by Jasper against AGR, and interest on any damages awarded. SCS filed a reply to AGR’s defense on December 3, 2012 and responded by denying AGR’s counterclaim. At a hearing on May 24, 2013, the Court consolidated this matter with a pending matter between Jasper Drilling Private Limited, the owner of the Jasper Explorer drilling rig, and AGR, and established a pretrial schedule contemplating one trial for both matters in June 2014. Amended pleadings have been filed by all parties to the consolidated matter. The trial is scheduled to begin on June 9, 2014.

As of March 31, 2014 $19.2 million remains in an escrow account established to fund the well drilling project. As described above, our claim against AGR seeks recovery of monies paid out as a result of AGR’s mismanagement of the project. In addition to the amounts paid, to comply with relevant accounting rules, we have accrued an additional $21.5 million of costs on a gross basis for costs AGR claims are associated with the drilling of the Sabu-1 well. We have not paid these funds to AGR and dispute AGR’s entitlement to these funds. Additionally, AGR holds $8.8 million on a gross basis of excess materials acquired during the drilling of the Sabu-1 well. We dispute AGR’s entitlement to these assets. Finally, an additional amount of $9.5 million on a gross basis or $7.3 million based on the 77% interest we then held is sought by AGR. Because of our claim, and because we dispute the validity of these charges, we have not accrued for this amount. We have assessed the status of AGR’s claims and have concluded that although an adverse judgment is reasonably possible, it is not probable. As a result, no provision for the $9.5 million has been made in the consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the outcome of this dispute will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. We incurred approximately $4.8 million in legal and other professional fees associated with the dispute with AGR in the nine month period ended March 31, 2014, and it is likely that we will continue to incur significant expenses in the next several months.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Investigations

During September 2013, we received a subpoena from the United States Department of Justice. Subsequently, in January 2014 we received a subpoena from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Both subpoenas request that the Company produce documents relating to its business in Guinea. We understand that the DOJ and SEC are investigating whether our activities in obtaining and retaining the Concession rights and our relationships with charitable organizations potentially violate the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or U.S. anti-money laundering statutes. We have retained legal counsel to represent us in these matters, initiated an internal investigation, and we are cooperating fully with the government.

If violations of the FCPA occurred, we could be subject to fines, civil and criminal penalties, equitable remedies, and injunctive relief. We could also face fines, sanctions and other penalties from authorities in other jurisdictions that could affect our ability to conduct business operations in those jurisdictions. In addition, disclosure and the pendency of the investigation could adversely affect our reputation and our ability to obtain new business or retain existing business or implement our business plans, to attract and retain employees and to access the capital markets. No amounts have been accrued related to any potential fines, sanctions or other penalties. We cannot currently predict what, if any, actions may be taken by the DOJ, the SEC, the applicable government or other authorities or the effect the actions may have on our results of operations, financial condition, on our financial statements or on our business in Guinea and other jurisdictions. We are unable to predict when the investigations will be completed, what outcome will result or what total costs we will incur in the course of the investigations. We incurred approximately $5.6 million in legal and other professional fees associated with the FCPA investigations in the nine month period ended March 31, 2014, and it is likely that we will continue to incur significant expenses in the next several months.

COMMITMENTS

Operating Leases

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 March 31, 2014:

Years ending June 30: (in thousands)
2014	$	99
2015	328
2016	386
2017	392
2018	399
Total minimum payments required	$	1,604

Rent expense included in net loss from operations for the three and nine month periods ended March 31, 2014 was $0.1 million and $0.3 million respectively, compared to $0.1 million and $0.3 million for the three and nine month periods ended March 31, 2013.