The Company is involved in various claims, litigation and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. The Company records an accrual for a loss contingency when its occurrence is probable and damages can be reasonably estimated based on the anticipated most likely outcome or the minimum amount within a range of possible outcomes. The Company makes such estimates based on information known about the claims and experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar claims. Disclosures are also provided for reasonably possible losses that could have a material effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On September 29, 2014, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release with HP A&M (“Settlement Agreement”). The Settlement Agreement settles the lawsuit filed by HP A&M against the Company in the District Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado on February 27, 2012, alleging breaches of representations and warranties made in connection with the Arkansas River Agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and a joint stipulated motion to dismiss filed with the court following execution of the Settlement Agreement, HP A&M released all claims asserted against the Company in its 2012 lawsuit, and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.

The Company filed a lawsuit against HP A&M in the District Court, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado on April 4, 2014, alleging HP A&M breached the Arkansas River Agreement, Seller Pledge Agreement and Property Management Agreement, among other ways, by failing to (i) pay, perform and discharge its obligations when due or otherwise pursuant to the Excluded Indebtedness, (ii) cure defaults under the Notes and Deeds of Trust applicable to the Excluded Indebtedness, and (iii) use Net Revenue, pursuant to the Property Management Agreement, to pay Excluded Indebtedness. As a result of these breaches, the Company is claiming damages to be proven at trial, which are estimated as of the date of the lawsuit to be not less than $8 million. HP A&M filed its answer on May 30, 2014, asserting affirmative defenses and counterclaims, including, among others, breach of contract and breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and requesting damages in an amount to be proven at trial. This lawsuit involves complex legal issues and uncertainties, and the Company has not recorded accruals for losses related to the lawsuit because losses are not probable or reasonably estimable and reasonably possible losses could not be estimated as of November 30, 2014.

During the three months ended November 30, 2014 and the fiscal years ended August 31, 2014 and 2013, foreclosure proceedings were commenced against 40 of the properties acquired by the Company from HP A&M that are subject to promissory notes defaulted upon by HP A&M and secured by deeds of trust on the Company’s land and water rights. The proceedings were filed on various dates from January 9, 2013 through March 12, 2014, with the Public Trustees of Bent, Otero and Prowers Counties in Colorado and involve claims against HP A&M for its failure to pay the notes. In addition one proceeding was commenced in 2013 and a second proceeding was commenced on May 5, 2014, pursuant to the Colorado Uniform Commercial Code, in each case to foreclose on one FLCC certificate representing water rights only. As of the date of this filing, PCY Holdings, LLC (“PCY Holdings”), the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary has been the successful bidder in foreclosure sales of 38 of the properties and water rights acquired by the Company from HP A&M. The Company terminated one foreclosure proceeding by curing HP A&M’s default. One of the Company’s properties remains subject to foreclosure proceedings. This property represents less than 3% of the Company’s FLLC shares and approximately 2% of the Company’s Arkansas River land acquired from HP A&M.

Foreclosure sales that were conducted on three of the Company’s farm properties on August 28, 2013, and on a fourth property on September 4, 2013 are currently the subject of litigation. PCY Holdings, was the successful bidder in the foreclosure sales. On September 16, 2013, HP A&M filed a complaint against PCY Holdings and the Public Trustee for the County of Bent, Colorado, in the District Court, County of Bent, Colorado seeking (i) a declaratory judgment that it is entitled to redeem the four properties from the foreclosure sales by paying the amount of the outstanding debt, plus fees, which is the amount PCY Holdings bid in the sales, and (ii) preliminary and permanent injunctions against the Public Trustee preventing the Public Trustee from issuing confirmation deeds for the foreclosure sales to PCY Holdings or anyone other than HP A&M. On November 20, 2013 the complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and judgment was entered in favor of the Public Trustee and PCY Holdings. Responses to motions filed by both PCY Holdings and HP A&M regarding attorney’s fees awards have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal discussed below.

On January 3, 2014 HP A&M filed a notice of appeal of the judgment with the Colorado Court of Appeals. If HP A&M wins on appeal, the Company could lose these four properties, subject to its remedies under the Arkansas River Agreement. The Company intends to vigorously defend any appeal of this ruling and to pursue the remedies against HP A&M for the defaults. The timing and outcome of the appeal is uncertain, and the Company has not recorded accruals for losses related to the appeal because losses are not probable or reasonably estimable and reasonably possible losses could not be estimated at this time.