NOTE 15: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

We are renting or leasing various office or storage space located in the United States, Canada and Paraguay with total monthly payments of $18,496. Office lease agreements expire between May 2017 and March 2021 for the United States and Canada.

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

Fiscal 2017	$	55,344
Fiscal 2018		216,444
Fiscal 2019		83,127
Fiscal 2020		83,711
Fiscal 2021		55,807
	$	494,433

We are committed to pay our key executives a total of $701,000 per year for various 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, our 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 court set the case for a four-week jury trial that was to take place in Yavapai County, Arizona, in April 2016. In November 2015, after the completion of discovery, the Company and the remaining defendants filed motions for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. While those motions were pending, the parties reached a settlement agreement with respect to all claims asserted by the Plaintiffs in that lawsuit. A formal settlement and release agreement was subsequently executed, pursuant to which all of the Plaintiffs’ claims in the Arizona lawsuit were dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Defendants collectively paid $500,000 to the Plaintiffs, of which $50,000 was paid by the Company.

On June 1, 2015, the Company received notice that Westminster Securities Corporation (“Westminster”) 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”), seeking unspecified damages and alleging 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. The Company filed a motion to dismiss and on July 15, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered a final judgement dismissing the case in its entirety with prejudice. On September 22, 2016, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal of the district court’s judgment and on September 26, 2016 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Securities Case pursuant to the plaintiffs’ motion. As a result, the judgment in favor of the Company is final. No settlement payments or any other consideration was paid by the Company to the plaintiffs in connection with the Securities Case’s dismissal.

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 (the “Federal Derivative Case”), seeking 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 filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff ultimately decided to abandon his case, which the court dismissed on or about November 17, 2016. No settlement payments or any other consideration was paid by the Company to the plaintiff in connection with the plaintiff’s abandonment of his case.

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 (the “Nevada Derivative Case”) (collectively, with the Federal Derivative Case, the “Derivative Cases”) seeking 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. On January 21, 2016, the court granted the Company’s motion to stay the Nevada Derivative Case pending the outcome of the Federal Derivative Case. Following the voluntary dismissal of the Federal Derivative Case, Ms. McMahon filed an amended complaint on February 10, 2017, which again asserted that the Company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties relating to the factual allegations in the Securities Case. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss and believes that the Nevada Derivative Case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the same.

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 appointed a committee of independent directors to evaluate the allegations in the demand letter. Subsequently, the federal district court dismissed the Securities Case, which was based on similar factual allegations, and the Federal Derivative Case was abandoned. The committee of independent directors has now completed its evaluation and recommended that the Board reject the demand. After considering the committee’s recommendation and all other material information relevant to the investigation, the Board voted to reject the demand letter.

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 or results of operation.