COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2012

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Text Block]

NOTE 15: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company is renting or leasing various office or storage space located in the United States, Canada and Paraguay with total monthly payments of $19,732. Office lease agreements expire between October 2012 and August 2013 for the United States and Canada. The Company also has various consulting agreements which will expire in less than one year.

The aggregate minimum payments over the next five years are as follows:

July 31, 2013	$	433,339
July 31, 2014		134,035
July 31, 2015		13,010
	$	580,384

The Company is committed to pay its key executives a total of $803,386 per year for management services.

The Company entered into a multi-year uranium sales contract in June 2011, as amended in January 2012, requiring the delivery of a total 320,000 pounds of U ₃ O ₈ by the Company over a three-year period starting in August 2011. The sales price will be based on published market price indicators at the time of delivery. During Fiscal 2012, the Company fulfilled its first-year delivery obligations under this contract.

On or about February 23, 2011, the Company received notification of a lawsuit filed in the State of Texas, in the County Court of Law No. 4 for Nueces County, against the Company by Everest Exploration, Inc. (“Everest”) for an unspecified amount relating to the Asset Purchase Agreement dated November 23, 2009 and effective December 18, 2009 (the “Purchase Agreement”) for the acquisition of South Texas Mining Venture, L.L.P. (“STMV”). Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, should actual reclamation costs incurred by the Company on the Mt. Lucas Property, a prior producing project, be less than $2.2 million in total, Everest alleges that it would be entitled to the difference as a cash payment, subject to the prior receipt by STMV of a clearance certificate from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”). The Company believes it has complied with all of the terms under the Purchase Agreement and that no such cash payment is required as the actual reclamation costs associated with the Mt. Lucas Property and incurred by the Company are greater than $2.2 million. Furthermore, the clearance certificate to be provided from the TCEQ has not been issued. On August 12, 2011, a written discovery request was filed by Everest to which the Company responded in full and to which no further response from Everest has been received. The Company intends to vigorously defend against any and all claims under this lawsuit. Any potential judgment against the Company and awarded to the claimant is expected to be immaterial.

On or about May 25, 2012, the Company filed a lawsuit in the State of Texas, in the 94 ^th Judicial District Court for Nueces County, against Everest, Everest Resource Company, Thomas M. Crain, Jr. and James T. Clark (collectively, the “Everest Group”) for an unspecified amount of damages as a result of claimed material breaches of their representations, warranties and covenants under the Purchase Agreement. On or about June 19, 2012, the Company received notification of a counterclaim filed by the Everest Group disputing the Company’s claims and asserting certain claims for an unspecified amount of damages as a result of claimed material breaches of the Company’s representations, warranties and covenants under the Purchase Agreement. The Company intends to vigorously defend against any and all claims under this lawsuit. Any potential judgment against the Company and awarded to the claimant is expected to be immaterial.

On or about April 3, 2012, the Company received notification of a lawsuit filed in the State of Arizona, in the Superior Court for the County of Yavapai, by certain Petitioners (the “Plaintiffs”) against a group of defendants, including the Company and former management and board members of Concentric. The lawsuit asserts certain claims relating to the Plaintiffs’ equity investments in Concentric, including allegations that the former management and board members of Concentric engaged in various wrongful acts prior to and/or in conjunction with the merger of Concentric. The lawsuit further alleges that the Company is contractually liable for liquidated damages arising from a pre-merger transaction which the Company previously acknowledged and recorded as an accrued liability. Subsequent to July 31, 2012, the Company paid the liquidated damages portion of the lawsuit in full by a cash payment of $149,194 to the Plaintiffs. The Company intends to vigorously defend against any and all remaining claims asserted under this lawsuit. Any potential judgment against the Company and awarded to the claimant is expected to be immaterial.

On or about May 17, 2012, the Company received notification of a lawsuit filed in the State of Texas, in the 229 ^th District Court of Duval County, by an employee of a contractor hired by the Company against a group of defendants, including the Company and the contractor, for unspecified damages as a result of injuries suffered by the plaintiff while on the Company's premises. The contractor’s general liability insurer has confirmed that it will defend and indemnify the Company against this lawsuit subject to available limits under the contractor’s policy.