CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

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. On May 8, 2015, the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the Court of Appeals Judgment, remanding the case to that Court for further proceedings. In its opinion, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence supports the Jury’s verdict that the individual used the Company and other entities, that it would be unjust to require Carlton to treat them separately and found that the Company was an alter ego as a matter of law.  The Supreme Court determined that the Court of Appeals erred in reinstating the jury’s verdict on damages in the amount of $66.5 million as the amount was speculative and not supported by competent evidence. The court declined to reinstate the trial court’s judgment of $31.16 million. The Supreme Court did rule that there was some evidence to support an award of actual damages and therefore remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to make a factual sufficiency determination, if possible, as to as to the amount. The defendants are still evaluating the Supreme Court’s opinion but may seek a Motion for Rehearing requesting clarification of the Supreme Court’s ruling and/or a remand to the trial court for a new trial.

Management’s preliminary analysis of these developments suggests it is reasonably possible that the claim will result in an unfavorable outcome. Management notes that in connection with the original appeal, the individual defendant deposited alternative security with the court to supersede the judgment which the court determined to have a value in excess of $56 million. Management believes that the maximum exposure would be in an amount significantly less than the amount on deposit. Accordingly, management believes that any adverse outcome is fully secured by that deposit.

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.