CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2013

CONTINGENCIES

CONTINGENCIES

NOTE F: CONTINGENCIES

Carlton Energy Group, LLC

In December 2006, Carlton Energy Group, LLC (“Carlton”) instituted litigation against an individual, EurEnergy Resources Corporation (“EurEnergy”) and several other entities including New Concept Energy, Inc., which was then known as CabelTel International Corporation (the “Company”) alleging tortuous conduct, breach of contract and other matters and as to the Company that it was the alter ego of EurEnergy. The Carlton claims were based upon an alleged tortuous interference with a contract by the individual and EurEnergy related to the right to explore a coal bed methane concession in Bulgaria which had never (and has not to this day) produced any hydrocarbons. At no time during the pendency of this project or since did the company or any of its officers or directors have any interest whatsoever in the success or failure of the so-called “Bulgaria Project”. However, in the litigation, Carlton alleged that the Company was the alter-ego of certain of the other Defendants including EurEnergy.

Following a jury trial in 2009, the Trial Court (295th District Court of Harris County, Texas) reduced the actual damages found by the jury of $66.5 million and entered judgment against EurEnergy and The individual jointly and severally for $31.16 million in actual damages on its tortuous-interference claim and the Court further assessed exemplary damages against The individual and EurEnergy in the amount of $8.5 million each. The Court granted a judgment for the Company that it was not the alter ego of any of the other parties and thereby would not incur any damages.

Cross appeals were filed by Carlton, the individual and EurEnergy to the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas (the “Court of Appeals”) which rendered its opinion on February 14, 2012.  The Court of Appeals opinion, among other things, reinstated the jury award of actual damages jointly and severely against the individual and EurEnergy in the amount of $66.5 million and overturned the Trial Court’s ruling favorable to the Company rendering a judgment for that amount plus exemplary damages against the Company as the “alter ego” of EurEnergy.

 The Company, and the other defendants, filed a Petition for Review of the Court of Appeals Opinion with the Supreme Court of the State of Texas. After requesting a response from the Plaintiff the Supreme Court requested full briefing on the merits. In March 2013 the Supreme Court granted the Petition for Review and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the matter in September 2013. The parties are awaiting the ruling by the Supreme Court.

The Company vigorously denies that it is the “alter ego” of any other entity; further the Company strongly believes that the Court of Appeals opinion is erroneous in concluding that the Company is an “alter ego” of any other entity which is contrary to Nevada substantive law. There are also questions regarding the underlying liability of EurEnergy and if EurEnergy is successful in its petition for review or, even if unsuccessful if the Company is successful on its positions described above, the Trial Court’s judgment could be reinstated and the Company would have no liability on this claim.

Chesapeake Exploration Limited Partnership and Chesapeake Operating, Inc. (“Chesapeake”)

 In January 2006, the Company entered into a joint operating agreement evidencing its acquisition of a 5% interest in two gas wells being drilled and ultimately operated by Chesapeake.  The Company relied on the cost projections provided by Chesapeake to make its investment decision.  Subsequent to its investment, the Company received an invoice from Chesapeake for $556,217 which, according to Chesapeake, represents the Company’s 5% share of additional costs incurred by Chesapeake in drilling the wells.  The Company believes that these additional costs far exceed any reasonable expense that should have been incurred in drilling the two wells and were incurred without notifying the Company of such expenses.  The Company has requested an accounting of the additional expenses and a reconciliation of the final costs to the cost estimates previously presented.  In April 2007, Chesapeake filed a lawsuit against the Company and others in District Court of Tarrant County, Texas.

In March 2011, Chesapeake received a summary judgment award including prejudgment interest for $686,874 plus $65,000 in legal fees. The judgment did however acknowledge that the plaintiff did not pay the company for it’s pro rata share of the gas produced by the two wells.

The Company appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals which reduced the judgment by approximately $16,000 but otherwise affirmed the lower court ruling. The company filed an appeal with the Texas Supreme Court however on February 15, 2013 the Supreme Court denied the petition.

The Company is pursuing its legal remedies to offset the revenue for gas that has been previously produced and held by Chesapeake against the amount due Chesapeake. The Company has recorded a liability due Chesapeake which it believes is sufficient to provide for the net obligation to Chesapeake.

Other

The Company has been named as a defendant in other lawsuits in the ordinary course of business.  Management is of the opinion that these lawsuits will not have a material effect on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.