Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

In the normal course of business, we, or our subsidiaries, are the subject of, or party to, pending or threatened legal proceedings, contingencies and commitments involving a variety of matters that seek, or may seek, among other things, compensation for alleged personal injury, breach of contract, property damage or other losses, punitive damages, fines and penalties, remediation costs, or injunctive or declaratory relief.

We accrue for currently outstanding lawsuits, claims and proceedings when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the liability can be reasonably estimated. We have not recorded any reserve balances at December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021. We also evaluate the amount of reasonably possible losses that we could incur as a result of these matters. We believe that reasonably possible losses that we could incur in excess of accruals on our balance sheet would not be material to our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

We, or our subsidiaries, or both, have indemnified various parties against specific liabilities those parties might incur in the future in connection with transactions that they have entered into with us. As of December 31, 2022, we are not aware of material indemnity claims pending or threatened against us.

Securities Litigation Matter

On November, 20, 2020, Luis Torres, individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed a securities class action lawsuit (the “Torres Lawsuit”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Berry Corp. and certain of its current and former directors and officers (collectively, the “Defendants”). The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired (i) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s 2018 IPO; or (ii) Berry Corp.'s securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020 (the “Class Period”). In particular, the complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements during the Class Period and in the offering materials for the IPO, concerning the Company’s business, operational efficiency and stability, and compliance policies, that artificially inflated the Company’s stock price, resulting in injury to the purported class members when the value of Berry Corp.’s common stock declined following release of its financial results for the third quarter of 2020 on November 3, 2020.

On November 1, 2021, the court-appointed co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims on behalf of the same putative class under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging, among other things, that the Company and the individual Defendants made false and misleading statements between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020 regarding the Company’s permits and permitting processes. The amended complaint does not quantify the alleged losses but seeks to recover all damages

sustained by the putative class as a result of these alleged securities violations, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 24, 2022 and on September 13, 2022, the Court issued an order denying that motion. The case is now in discovery.

We dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the early stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.

On October 20, 2022, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas by putative stockholder George Assad, allegedly on behalf of the Company, that piggy-backs on the securities class action referenced above and which is currently pending before the same Court. The derivative complaint names certain current and former officers and directors as defendants, and generally alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties by causing or failing to prevent the securities violations alleged in the securities class action. The derivative complaint also alleges claims for unjust enrichment as against all defendants, and claims for contribution and indemnification under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. On January 27, 2023, the court granted the parties’ joint stipulated request to stay the derivative action pending resolution of the related securities class action. The Company and the individual defendants believe the claims in the shareholder derivative action are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this matter.

On January 20, 2023, a second shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed, this time in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, by putative stockholder Molly Karp allegedly on behalf of the Company, again piggy-backing on the securities class action referenced above. This complaint, similar to the first derivative complaint, is brought against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, asserting breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and contribution claims based on the defendants allegedly having caused or failed to prevent the securities violations alleged in the securities class action. In addition, the complaint asserts a claim under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging that Berry’s 2022 Proxy Statement was false and misleading in that it suggested the Company’s internal controls were sufficient and the board of directors was adequately overseeing material risks facing the Company when, according to the derivative plaintiff, that was not the case. The defendants believe the claims in the shareholder derivative action are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this matter.

Other Commitments

In the ordinary course of our business, we enter into certain firm commitments to secure transportation of our production and third-party natural gas to market as well as processing which require a minimum monthly charge regardless of whether the contracted capacity is used or not. At December 31, 2022, future net minimum payments for non-cancelable purchase obligations (excluding oil and natural gas and other mineral leases, utilities, taxes and insurance expense) were as follows:


	2023		2024		2025		2026		2027		Thereafter		Total
	(in thousands)
Processing and transportation contracts(1)	$	11,343	$	9,553	$	8,234	$	8,082	$	8,083	$	43,521	$	88,816
Drilling commitment(2)	8,400		8,700		—		—		—		—		17,100
Total	$	19,743	$	18,253	$	8,234	$	8,082	$	8,083	$	43,521	$	105,916

__________

(1) Amounts include payments which will become due under long-term agreements to purchase goods and services used in the normal course of business to secure pipeline transportation of natural gas to market and between markets, as well as gathering and processing of natural gas.

(2) Amounts include a drilling commitment in California, for which we are required to drill 57 wells with an estimated cost and minimum commitment of $17.1 million by June 2024. In November 2022, the drilling commitment was revised to require 28 of those wells to be drilled by October 2023, with a minimum commitment of $8.4 million.