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 September 30, 2025, there were no pending or threatened lawsuits that could reasonably be expected to have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations.
−Removed: Merger-Related Litigation
−Removed: On February 9, 2024, plaintiff Lawrence Rowe, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated former public minority shareholders of Viking, filed against the Company and its CEO a putative Class Action Complaint (i.e.
−Removed: No.4:24-cv-00489) styled Lawrence Rowe, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
−Removed: Doris and Camber Energy, Inc.
−Removed: , in the U.S.
−Removed: District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
−Removed: The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the merger between Viking and the Company and seeks to recover damages for the alleged breaches.
−Removed: The defendants deny the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss (“MTD”) the case on April 26, 2024.
−Removed: The MTD hearing was held on August 30, 2024.
−Removed: On March 31 2025, the U.S.
−Removed: District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, granted a motion by the Company to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
−Removed: The deadline for the Plaintiff to appeal the Court’s decision expired on April 30, 2025.
−Removed: Maranatha Oil Matter
−Removed: In November 2015, Randy L.
−Removed: Robinson, d/b/a Maranatha Oil Co.
−Removed: sued the Company in Gonzales County, Texas (Cause No.
−Removed: The plaintiff alleged that it assigned oil and gas leases to the Company in April 2010, retaining a 4% overriding royalty interest and 50% working interest and that the Company failed to pay such overriding royalty interest or royalty interest.
−Removed: The interests relate to certain oil and gas properties which the Company subsequently sold to Nordic Oil USA in April 2013.
−Removed: The petition alleges causes of actions for breach of contract, failure to pay royalties, non-payment of working interest, fraud, fraud in the inducement of contract, money had and received, constructive trust, violation of theft liability act, continuing tort and fraudulent concealment.
−Removed: The suit seeks approximately $100,000 in amounts alleged owed, plus pre-and post-judgment interest.
−Removed: The Company has filed a denial to the claims and intends to vehemently defend itself against the allegations.
+Added: As of March 31, 2026, other than the matter described below, there were no pending or threatened lawsuits that could reasonably be expected to have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations.
+Added: On June 15, 2022, a Petition for Damages ( Danny Paul Gastal and Ignatius Hoffpauir v.
+Added: Petrodome Operating, LLC, et.
+Added: ) was filed in The 15th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Acadia in the State of Louisiana against a wholly-owned subsidiary of Petrodome Energy, LLC (“Petrodome”) and two other parties (collectively, the “Defendants”) related to a flowline leak on a salt-water disposal well owned by a third party and operated by Petrodome.
+Added: The owner of the property where the leak occurred and his tenant farmer (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) alleged environmental damage as a result of the leak and sought damages for the cost of remediation, loss of use and loss of income.
+Added: Subsequently, the suit was amended to name the insurers of both Petrodome and the well owner.
+Added: Petrodome and the well owner made a “limited admission” of liability for environmental damage under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1563 and La.
+Added: 30:29 and presented a “most feasible plan” to remediate the property to the Louisiana Department of Conservation & Energy (“LDCE”) at a January 6, 2026 public hearing.
+Added: The LDCE approved the plan which is expected to cost approximately $286,000 to implement.
+Added: On or about April 24, 2026, the parties reached a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Defendants agreed to pay the Plaintiffs approximately $10.3 million for damages and to fund and implement the LDCE-approved remediation plan and to diligently perform whatever remediation, restoration, clean-ups, investigation(s), evaluation(s), testing, and/or other work, if any, that the LDCE deems necessary in order to obtain the required no further action letter for the limited admission area.
+Added: The Company believes that the settlement amount will be fully funded by applicable insurance policies maintained by Petrodome and the well owner.
+Added: The settlement liability and the insurance proceeds receivable have been recorded in the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements at and for the three months ended March 31, 2026.
+Added: The settlement of this claim did not have any impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or net cash flows.
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.
UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS
−Removed: During the three months ended September 30, 2025, the Company did not issue any unregistered equity securities.
+Added: During the three months ended March 31, 2026, the Company did not issue any unregistered equity securities.
DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES
1 unchanged sentence
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.