XML 16 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings On April 5, 2011, Wesley West Minerals, Ltd. and Longfellow Ranch Partners, LP filed suit against the Company and SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC (collectively, the “SandRidge Entities”) in the 83rd District Court of Pecos County, Texas. The plaintiffs, who have leased mineral rights to the SandRidge Entities in Pecos County, allege that the SandRidge Entities have not properly paid royalties on all volumes of natural gas and CO 2 produced from the acreage leased from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also allege that the SandRidge Entities have inappropriately failed to pay royalties on CO 2 produced from the plaintiffs' acreage that results from the treatment of natural gas at the Century Plant. The plaintiffs seek approximately $45.5 million in actual damages for the period of time between January 2004 and December 2011, punitive damages and a declaration that the SandRidge Entities must pay royalties on CO 2 produced from the plaintiffs' acreage that results from treatment of natural gas at the Century Plant. The Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas (“GLO”) is named as an additional defendant in the lawsuit as some of the affected oil and natural gas leases described in the plaintiffs' allegations cover mineral classified lands in which the GLO is entitled to one-half of the royalties attributable to such leases. The GLO has filed a cross-claim against the SandRidge Entities asserting the same claims as the plaintiffs with respect to the leases covering mineral classified lands and seeking approximately $13.0 million in actual damages, inclusive of penalties and interest. On February 5, 2013, the Company received a favorable summary judgment ruling that effectively removes a majority of the plaintiffs' and GLO's claims. On April 29, 2013, the court entered an order allowing for an interlocutory appeal of its summary judgment ruling. The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining issues in this lawsuit as well as any appellate proceedings. At the time of the ruling on summary judgment, the lawsuit was still in the discovery stage and, accordingly, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with the remaining causes of action, if any, cannot be made until all of the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to such claims and the Company's defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action. On August 4, 2011, Patriot Exploration, LLC, Jonathan Feldman, Redwing Drilling Partners, Mapleleaf Drilling Partners, Avalanche Drilling Partners, Penguin Drilling Partners and Gramax Insurance Company Ltd. filed a lawsuit against the Company, SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC (“SandRidge E&P”) and certain current and former directors and senior executive officers of the Company (collectively, the “defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging substantially the same allegations as those contained in the original complaint. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements to U.S. Drilling Capital Management LLC and to the plaintiffs prior to the entry into a participation agreement among Patriot Exploration, LLC, U.S. Drilling Capital Management LLC and SandRidge E&P, which provided for the investment by the plaintiffs in certain of SandRidge E&P's oil and natural gas properties. To date, the plaintiffs have invested approximately $16.0 million under the participation agreement. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and rescission of the participation agreement. On November 28, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 29, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion. The Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously and believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the Company's defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action. Between December 2012 and March 2013, seven putative shareholder derivative actions were filed in state and federal court in Oklahoma:
• | Arthur I. Levine v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on December 19, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
• | Deborah Depuy v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on January 22, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
• | Paul Elliot, on Behalf of the Paul Elliot IRA R/O, v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on January 29, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
• | Dale Hefner v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on January 4, 2013 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
• | Rocky Romano v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on January 22, 2013 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
• | Joan Brothers v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on February 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
• | Lisa Ezell, Jefferson L. Mangus, and Tyler D. Mangus v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on March 22, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
Each lawsuit identified above was filed derivatively on behalf of the Company and names as defendants current and past directors of the Company. The Hefner lawsuit also names as defendants certain current and former directors and senior executive officers of the Company. All seven lawsuits assert overlapping claims - generally that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, mismanaged the Company, wasted corporate assets, and engaged in, facilitated or approved self-dealing transactions in breach of their fiduciary obligations. The Depuy lawsuit also alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with the Company allegedly filing and distributing certain misleading proxy statements. The lawsuits seek, among other relief, injunctive relief related to the Company's corporate governance and unspecified damages. On April 10, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma consolidated the Levine, Depuy, Elliot, Brothers, and Ezell actions (the “Federal Shareholder Derivative Litigation”) under the caption “In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation,” appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and ordered the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint by May 1, 2013. On June 3, 2013, the Company and the individual defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On September 11, 2013, the court granted the defendants’ respective motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint without prejudice, and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on October 9, 2013, in which plaintiffs allege that: (i) the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Tom Ward, breached his fiduciary duties by usurping corporate opportunities, (ii) certain of the Company’s current and former directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, (iii) Mr. Ward and certain of the Company’s current and former directors wasted corporate assets, (iv) certain entities allegedly affiliated with Mr. Ward aided and abetted Mr. Ward’s breaches of fiduciary duties, (v) Mr. Ward and entities allegedly affiliated with Mr. Ward misappropriated the Company’s confidential and proprietary information, and (vi) entities allegedly affiliated with Mr. Ward were unjustly enriched. The Company and the individual defendants in the Hefner and Romano actions (the “State Shareholder Derivative Litigation”) moved to stay each of those actions in favor of the Federal Shareholder Derivative Litigation, in order to avoid duplicative proceedings, and also requested, in the alternative, the dismissal of the State Shareholder Derivative Litigation. On May 8, 2013, the court stayed the Romano action pending further order of the court. On June 19, 2013, the court stayed the Hefner action until at least November 29, 2013. The court subsequently lifted its stay for purposes of hearing and deciding the defendants’ respective motions to dismiss. On September 18, 2013, the court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Because the lawsuits comprising the State Shareholder Derivative Litigation and the Federal Shareholder Derivative Litigation have only been recently filed, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with each of them, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to the claims asserted and available defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to these actions. On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain current and former executive officers of the Company. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a substantially similar putative class action complaint in the same court and against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption “In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation” (the “Securities Litigation”) and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. By order dated April 10, 2013, the court granted the lead plaintiff until July 23, 2013 to file a consolidated amended complaint in the action. The consolidated amended complaint asserts a variety of federal securities claims against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during the period from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 12, 2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust II (together with the Mississippian Trust I, the “Mississippian Trusts”) in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 23, 2012. The claims are based on allegations that the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants, are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and natural gas reserves, the Company's capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered into by companies allegedly affiliated with the Company's former CEO Tom Ward. On October 7, 2013, the defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Because the Securities Litigation has only been recently filed, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with it, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and available defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation. Each of the Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company indemnify it for any losses it may incur in connection with the Securities Litigation. On January 7, 2013, Gerald Kallick, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against SandRidge Energy, Inc., and certain current and former directors of the Company. On January 31, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. In his amended complaint, the plaintiff sought: (i) declaratory relief that certain change-in-control provisions in the Company's indentures and senior credit facility agreement are invalid and unenforceable, (ii) declaratory relief that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to approve the slate of directors proposed by TPG-Axon in its consent solicitation in order to disable the change-in-control provisions described above, (iii) a mandatory injunction requiring the directors to approve nominees for the Board of Directors (the “Board”) submitted by TPG-Axon, (iv) a mandatory injunction prohibiting the Company from paying the then current Chairman and CEO his change-in-control benefits under his employment agreement if the CEO were removed as a director, but remained employed as the Company’s CEO, (v) a mandatory injunction enjoining the defendants from impeding or interfering with TPG-Axon's consent solicitation, (vi) a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to disclose all material information related to the change-in-control provisions in the Company's indentures and senior credit facility agreement; and (vii) an order requiring the Company's current directors to account to the plaintiff and the putative class for alleged damages. On March 8, 2013, the court granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the Board, unless and until it approved the TPG-Axon nominees for purposes of the change-in-control provisions of the Company's outstanding debt agreements, from (i) soliciting any further consent revocations in opposition to TPG-Axon's consent solicitation, (ii) relying upon or otherwise giving effect to any consent revocations received by the Company as of March 11, 2013, and (iii) impeding TPG-Axon's consent solicitation in any way. On March 9, 2013, the Board approved TPG-Axon's nominees for purposes of the change-in-control provisions in the Company's debt instruments. On March 13, 2013, TPG-Axon and the Board entered into a settlement agreement under which TPG-Axon's consent solicitation was withdrawn. As a result of these actions, the Company believes that many of the original claims asserted by the plaintiff in the Kallick action have been rendered moot. On August 28, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order dismissing the action as moot and requesting an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $5.0 million. On October 30, 2013, the Court entered a stipulation and order regarding dismissal of the action as moot (the “Order”). As required by the Order, the Company is notifying stockholders that the action is moot and the Company has agreed to pay plaintiff’s counsel $2.5 million in full satisfaction of plaintiff’s pending request for attorneys’ fees and expenses in the Action; the Company expects to be reimbursed by its insurance carrier for the full amounts of such payment. The Order provides that the action will be dismissed as moot without further action of the Court unless another stockholder of the Company submits a written objection to the Court within thirty days of this notice. On July 15, 2013, James Hart and fifteen other named plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in an action undertaken individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge Energy, Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC, SandRidge Midstream, Inc., and Lariat Services, Inc. In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to properly calculate overtime pay for the plaintiffs and for other similarly situated current and former employees. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants required the plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former employees to engage in work-related activities without pay. The plaintiffs assert claims against the defendants for (i) violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (ii) violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act, (iii) breach of contract, and (iv) fraud, and seek to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, economic damages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and both pre- and post-judgment interest. On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to Class and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October 11, 2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. All of these motions are pending before the Court. The Company and the other defendants intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the defendants’ defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action. In addition to the litigation described above, the Company is a defendant in lawsuits from time to time in the normal course of business. While the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes the reasonably possible losses of such matters, individually and in the aggregate, are not material. Additionally, the Company believes the probable final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity. Treating Agreement Commitment In conjunction with the Century Plant construction agreement, the Company entered into a 30-year treating agreement with Occidental for the removal of CO 2 from the Company’s delivered production volumes of natural gas. Under the agreement, the Company must deliver a total of approximately 3,200 Bcf of CO 2 during the agreement period; it is expected that after 2013 approximately 3,000 Bcf of CO 2 will remain to be delivered. The Company pays Occidental $0.25 per Mcf to the extent minimum annual CO 2 volume requirements are not met, and, at the end of 2042, the Company is required to pay Occidental $0.70 per Mcf for total undelivered CO 2 volumes, net of any CO 2 delivered in excess of any given year’s applicable minimum volumes. Based on current projected natural gas production levels, the Company expects to accrue between approximately $29.5 million and $36.0 million at December 31, 2013 for amounts related to the Company’s anticipated shortfall in meeting its 2013 annual CO 2 delivery obligation. Due to the sensitivity of drilling activity to market prices for natural gas, the Company is unable to estimate additional amounts it may be required to pay under the agreement in subsequent periods; however, if natural gas prices remain low, drilling activity will likely also remain low, which would result in additional shortfall payments in future periods.

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration