COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Oct. 31, 2015

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Text Block]

NOTE 13: 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 $17,461. Office lease agreements expire between January 2016 to July 2018 for the United States and Canada.

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

Fiscal 2016	$	112,689
Fiscal 2017		107,822
Fiscal 2018		111,696
	$	332,207

The Company is committed to pay its key executives a total of $784,000 per year for management services.

The Company is subject to ordinary routine litigation incidental to its business. Except as disclosed below, the Company is not aware of any material legal proceedings pending or that have been threatened against the Company.

On or about March 9, 2011, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the “TCEQ”) granted the Company’s applications for a Class III Injection Well Permit, Production Area Authorization and Aquifer Exemption for its Goliad Project. On or about December 4, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) concurred with the TCEQ issuance of the Aquifer Exemption permit (the “AE”). With the receipt of this concurrence, the final authorization required for uranium extraction, the Goliad Project achieved fully-permitted status. On or about May 24, 2011, a group of petitioners, inclusive of Goliad County, appealed the TCEQ action to the 250 ^th District Court in Travis County, Texas. A motion filed by the Company to intervene in this matter was granted. The petitioners’ appeal lay dormant until on or about June 14, 2013, when the petitioners filed their initial brief in support of their position. On or about January 18, 2013, a different group of petitioners, exclusive of Goliad County, filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the United States (the “Fifth Circuit”) to appeal the EPA’s decision. On or about March 5, 2013, a motion filed by the Company to intervene in this matter was granted. The parties attempted to resolve both appeals, to facilitate discussions and avoid further legal costs. The parties jointly agreed, through mediation initially conducted through the Fifth Circuit on or about August 8, 2013, to abate the proceedings in the State District Court. On or about August 21, 2013, the State District Court agreed to abate the proceedings. The EPA subsequently filed a motion to remand without vacatur with the Fifth Circuit wherein the EPA's stated purpose was to elicit additional public input and further explain its rationale for the approval. In requesting the remand without vacatur, which would allow the AE to remain in place during the review period, the EPA denied the existence of legal error and stated that it was unaware of any additional information that would merit reversal of the AE. The Company and the TCEQ filed a request to the Fifth Circuit for the motion to remand without vacatur, and if granted, to be limited to a 60-day review period. On December 9, 2013, by way of a procedural order from a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit, the Court granted the remand without vacatur and initially limited the review period to 60 days. In March of 2014, at the EPA’s request, the Fifth Circuit extended the EPA’s time period for review and additionally, during that same period, the Company conducted a joint groundwater survey of the site, the result of which reaffirmed the Company’s previously filed groundwater direction studies. On or about June 17, 2014, the EPA reaffirmed its earlier decision to uphold the granting of the Company’s existing AE, with the exception of a northwestern portion containing less than 10% of the uranium resource which was withdrawn, but not denied, from the AE area until additional information is provided in the normal course of mine development. On or about September 9, 2014, the petitioners filed a status report with the State District Court which included a request to remove the stay agreed to in August 2013 and to set a briefing schedule (the “Status Report”). In that Status Report, the petitioners also stated that they had decided not to pursue their appeal at the Fifth Circuit. The Company continues to believe that the pending appeal is without merit and is continuing as planned towards uranium extraction at its fully-permitted Goliad Project.

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 Energy Corp. (“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 originally further alleged that the Company was contractually liable for liquidated damages arising from a pre-merger transaction which the Company previously acknowledged and recorded as an accrued liability, and which portion of the lawsuit was settled in full by a cash payment of $149,194 to the Plaintiffs and subsequently dismissed. The court dismissed several other claims set forth in the Plaintiffs’ initial complaint, but granted the Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. The court denied a subsequent motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding that the pleading met the minimal pleading requirements under the applicable procedural rules. In October 2013, the Company filed a formal response denying liability for any of the Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. The parties have exchanged disclosure statements and formal discovery has been completed. In November 2015, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss all claims against the Company and anticipates that the court will provide a ruling before the trial date which has been scheduled for April 2016. The Company continues to believe that this lawsuit is without merit, and intends to defend vigorously against the same.

On June 1, 2015, the Company received notice that Westminster Securities Corporation filed a suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging a breach of contract relating to certain four-year warrants issued by Concentric in December 2008. Although the Concentric warrants expired by their terms on December 31, 2012, Westminster bases its claim upon transactions allegedly occurring prior to UEC’s merger with Concentric. The Company believes that this claim lacks merit and intends to vigorously defend the same.

On or about June 29, 2015, Heather M. Stephens filed a class action complaint against the Company and two of its executive officers in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, with an amended class action complaint filed on November 16, 2015 (the "Securities Case"). The Securities Case seeks unspecified damages and alleges the defendants violated Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On or about September 10, 2015, John Price filed a stockholder derivative complaint on behalf of the Company against the Company's Board of Directors, executive management and three of its vice presidents in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, with an amended stockholder derivative complaint filed on December 4, 2015. On or about October 2, 2015, Marnie W. McMahon filed a stockholder derivative complaint on behalf of the Company against the Company's Board of Directors, executive management and three of its vice presidents in the District Court of Nevada (collectively, the “Derivative Cases”). The Derivative Cases seek unspecified damages on behalf of the Company against the defendants for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company with respect to the allegations in the Securities Case.

The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss for the Securities Case and Derivative Case. The Company believes that the Securities Case and Derivative Cases are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against them.

The Company’s Board of Directors received a shareholder demand letter dated September 10, 2015 relating to the allegations in the Securities Case (the “Shareholder Demand”). The letter demands that the Board of Directors initiate an action against the Company’s Board of Directors and two of its executive officers to recover damages allegedly caused to the Company. The Board of Directors is reviewing the Shareholder Demand to determine the appropriate course of action.

At any given time, the Company may enter into negotiations to settle outstanding legal proceedings and any resulting accruals will be estimated based on the relevant facts and circumstances applicable at that time. The Company does not expect that such settlements will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material effect on its financial position, results of operation.