1 unchanged sentence
From time to time, the Company may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of commercial operations in the normal course of business.
−Removed: As of March 31, 2021, there were no pending or threatened lawsuits that could reasonably be expected to have a material effect on the results of operations.
−Removed: The Company was the target of a “short” report issued by Kerrisdale Capital in early October, 2021, and as a result of such short report there was an action commenced against the Company, James Doris and Frank Barker by or on behalf of certain shareholders of Camber in connection with losses alleged to have been suffered by the shareholders.
−Removed: The Company and Messrs.
−Removed: Doris and Barker have retained the firm of Baker Botts LLP to defend the action, and deny the allegations contained in the claim.
+Added: As of June 30, 2022, there were no pending or threatened lawsuits that could reasonably be expected to have a material effect on the results of operations.
+Added: The Company was the target of a “short” report issued by Kerrisdale Capital in early October, 2021, and as a result of such short report, on October 29, 2021, a Class Action Complaint (i.e.
+Added: C.A.No.4:21-cv-03574) was filed against the Company, its CEO and CFO by Ronald E.
+Added: Coggins, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
+Added: Camber Energy, Inc., et al .;
+Added: District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, pursuant to which the Plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by them as a result of the defendants’ violations of federal securities laws.
+Added: On or about April 18, 2022, the Company was made aware of a Shareholder Derivative Complaint filed with the District Court in Clark County, Nevada (Case No.:
+Added: A-22-848486-B) against the Company and its directors, and on or about May 4, 2022 the Company was made aware of a second Shareholder Derivative Complaint filed with the District Court in Clark County, Nevada (Case No.
+Added: A-22-852069-B) against the Company and its directors.
+Added: On July 18, 2022, the shareholder plaintiff in Case No.
+Added: A-22-848486-B voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit, leaving only Case No.
+Added: A-22-852069-B currently pending in Clark County, Nevada (the “Nevada Derivative Complaint”) to the Company’s knowledge.
+Added: The allegations contained in the Nevada Derivative Complaint involve state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and are based on allegations similar to those in the above-noted Class Action Complaint.
+Added: On or about June 30, 2022, the Company was made aware of a Shareholder Derivative Complaint filed in the U.S.
+Added: District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Case No.
+Added: 4:22-cv-2167) against the Company, its current directors, and certain of its former directors (the “Houston Derivative Complaint” and, together with the Nevada Derivative Complaint, the “Derivative Complaints”).
+Added: The allegations contained in the Houston Derivative Complaint involve state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and a federal securities claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
+Added: The defendants deny the allegations contained in the Derivative Complaints and the Class Action Complaint and have engaged Baker Botts L.L.P.
+Added: to defend the actions.
As a smaller reporting company as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Company is not required to provide the information under this item.
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.