UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

Commission File Number: 01-13515

SABINE OIL & GAS CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒  No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ☒  No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ☐  No ☒

211,660,875 shares of our $0.10 par value common stock were outstanding on May 10, 2016.

Table of Contents

Certain Terms Used in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

Unless the context otherwise requires, references in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to the following terms have the meanings set forth below:

Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation (Debtors-in-possession)

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited)

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation (Debtors-in-possession)

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited)

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation (Debtors-in-possession)

Condensed Consolidated Statement of Shareholders’ Deficit (Unaudited)

(in thousands)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation (Debtors-in-possession)

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (Unaudited)

(in thousands)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation (Debtors-in-possession)

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)

Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation (“Sabine” or the “Company”) is an independent oil and natural gas company engaged in the acquisition, development, exploitation and exploration of oil and natural gas properties in North America. Sabine was incorporated in New York in 1924, as the successor to a company formed in 1916, and has been a publicly held company since 1969.

Voluntary Reorganization Under Chapter 11

On July 15, 2015, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including Giant Gas Gathering LLC, Sabine Bear Paw Basin LLC, Sabine East Texas Basin LLC, Sabine Mid-Continent Gathering LLC, Sabine Mid-Continent LLC, Sabine Oil & Gas Finance Corporation, Sabine South Texas Gathering LLC, Sabine South Texas LLC and Sabine Williston Basin LLC (collectively, the “Filing Subsidiaries” and, together with the Company, the “Debtors”), filed voluntary petitions (the “Bankruptcy Petitions”) for reorganization under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”). The Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases (the “Chapter 11 Cases”) are being jointly administered under the case styled In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation, et al, No. 15-11835. The Debtors will continue to operate their businesses as “debtors-in-possession” under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and orders of the Bankruptcy Court. The Company has applied ASC 852, Reorganizations, in preparing its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

By certain “first day” motions filed in the Chapter 11 Cases, the Company obtained Bankruptcy Court approval (on an interim basis) to, among other things and subject to the terms of the orders entered by the Bankruptcy Court pay pre-petition employee wages, health benefits and certain other employee obligations, pay certain lienholders and forward funds to third parties, including royalty holders and other partners, as well as expenses incurred post-petition to these and additional ordinary course creditors.

Appointment of Creditors Committee. On July 28, 2015, The United States Trustee for the Southern District of New York appointed the official committee for unsecured creditors (the “Creditors Committee”). The Creditors Committee and its legal representatives have a right to be heard on all matters that come before the Bankruptcy Court with respect to the Debtors. Disagreements between the Debtors and the Creditors Committee has protracted and will likely continue to protract the Chapter 11 proceedings, negatively impact the Debtors’ ability to operate, and delay the Debtors’ emergence from the Chapter 11 proceedings.

Rejection of Executory Contracts. Subject to certain exceptions, under the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtors may assume, assign, or reject certain executory contracts and unexpired leases subject to the approval of the Bankruptcy Court and certain other conditions. The rejection of an executory contract or unexpired lease is generally treated as a pre-petition breach of such executory contract or unexpired lease and, subject to certain exceptions, relieves the Debtors of performing their future obligations under such executory contract or unexpired lease but entitles the contract counterparty or lessor to a pre-petition general unsecured claim for damages caused by such deemed breach. Counterparties to such rejected contracts of leases may assert claims against the applicable Debtors’ estate for such damages. The assumption of an executory contract or unexpired lease generally requires the Debtors to cure existing monetary defaults under such executory contract or unexpired lease and provide adequate assurance of future performance. Accordingly, any description of an executory contract or unexpired lease with the Debtors in this Quarterly Report, including where applicable a quantification of our obligations under any such executory contract or unexpired lease with the Debtors, is qualified by any overriding rejection rights we have under the Bankruptcy Code. Further, nothing herein is or shall be deemed an admission with respect to any claim amounts or calculations arising from the

rejection of any executory contract or unexpired lease and the Debtors expressly preserve all of their rights with respect thereto.

The Debtors’ condensed consolidated financial statements include amounts classified as Liabilities Subject to Compromise (as defined below) that the Debtors believe the Bankruptcy Court will allow as claim amounts resulting from the Debtors’ rejection of various executory contracts and unexpired leases and defaults under the debt agreements. Additional amounts may be included in Liabilities Subject to Compromise in future periods if additional executory contracts and unexpired leases are rejected. Conversely, the Debtors expect that the assumption of certain executory contracts and unexpired leases may convert certain liabilities shown in future financial statements as subject to compromise to post-petition liabilities. Due to the uncertain nature of many of the potential claims, the magnitude of such claims is not reasonably estimable at this time. Such claims may be material (see “Liabilities Subject to Compromise” below).

Magnitude of Potential Claims. On August 28, 2015, the Debtors filed with the Bankruptcy Court schedules and statements setting forth, among other things, the assets and liabilities of the Debtors, subject to the assumptions filed in connection therewith (the “Schedules and Statements”). The Debtors amended their Schedules and Statements on October 14, 2015, and may subsequently decide to further amend or modify their Schedules and Statements.

Certain holders of pre-petition claims were required to file proofs of claim by the Bar Date. As of May 5, 2016, approximately 1,516 claims totaling approximately $4.90 billion had been filed with the Bankruptcy Court against the Debtors. It is possible that claimants will file amended claims in the future, including claims amended to assign values to claims originally filed with no designated value. Through the claims resolution process, we have identified, and we expect to continue to identify, claims that we believe should be disallowed by the Bankruptcy Court because they are duplicative, have been later amended or superseded, are without merit, are overstated or for other reasons. We will file objections with the Bankruptcy Court as necessary for claims we believe should be disallowed. Claims we believe are allowable are reflected in “Liabilities Subject to Compromise” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Through the claims resolution process, differences in amounts scheduled by the Debtors and claims filed by creditors will be investigated and resolved, including through the filing of objections with the Bankruptcy Court where appropriate. In light of the number of claims filed, the claims resolution process will take additional time to complete, and it may continue after our emergence from bankruptcy. Accordingly, the ultimate number and amount of allowed claims is not presently known, nor can the ultimate recovery with respect to allowed claims be presently ascertained. 

Costs of Reorganization. The Debtors have incurred and will continue to incur significant costs associated with the reorganization. The amount of these costs, which are being expensed as incurred, are expected to significantly affect our results of operations. For additional information, see “Reorganization Items, net” below.

Effect of Filing on Creditors and Shareholders. Under the priority scheme established by the Bankruptcy Code, unless creditors agree otherwise, pre-petition liabilities and post-petition liabilities must be satisfied in full before the holders of our existing common stock are entitled to receive any distribution or retain any property under a plan of reorganization. The ultimate recovery to creditors and/or shareholders, if any, will not be determined until confirmation and implementation of a plan or plans of reorganization. No assurance can be given as to what values, if any, will be ascribed in the Chapter 11 proceedings to each of these constituencies or what types or amounts of distributions, if any, they would receive. A plan of reorganization could result in holders of Debtors’ liabilities and/or securities, including our common stock, receiving no distribution on account of their interests and cancellation of their holdings. As discussed below, if certain requirements of the Bankruptcy Code are met, a plan of reorganization can be confirmed notwithstanding its rejection by the holders of our common stock and notwithstanding the fact that such holders do not receive or retain any property on account of their equity interests under the plan. Because of such possibilities, the value of our securities, including our common stock, is highly speculative.

Subject to certain exceptions, under the Bankruptcy Code, the filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions automatically enjoined, or stayed, the continuation of most judicial or administrative proceedings or filing of other actions against the Debtors or their property to recover, collect or secure a claim arising prior to the date of the Bankruptcy Petitions. Accordingly, although the filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions triggered defaults on the Debtors’ debt obligations, creditors are stayed from taking any actions against the Debtors as a result of such defaults, subject to certain limited exceptions

permitted by the Bankruptcy Code. Absent an order of the Bankruptcy Court, substantially all of the Debtors’ prepetition liabilities are subject to settlement under the Bankruptcy Code.

Notice and Hearing Procedures for Trading in Claims and Equity Securities. The Bankruptcy Court issued a final order pursuant to Sections 105(a), 362(a)(3) and 541 of the Bankruptcy Code to enable the Debtors to avoid limitations on the use of their tax net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes by imposing certain notice procedures and transfer restrictions on the trading of our equity securities.

In general, the order applies to any person or entity that, directly or indirectly, beneficially owns (or would beneficially own as a result of a proposed transfer) at least 4.75% of our outstanding equity securities. Substantial Equityholders are required to file with the Bankruptcy Court and serve us with notice of such status. In addition, the order provides that a person or entity that would become a Substantial Equityholder by reason of a proposed acquisition of our equity securities is also required to comply with the notice and service provisions before effecting that transaction. The order gives the Debtors the right to seek an injunction from the Bankruptcy Court to prevent certain acquisitions or sales of our equity securities if the acquisition or sale might adversely affect our ability to utilize such tax attributes.

Under the order, prior to any proposed acquisition of equity securities that would result in an increase in the amount of our equity securities owned by a Substantial Equityholder, or that would result in a person or entity becoming a Substantial Equityholder, such person, entity or Substantial Equityholder is required to file with the Bankruptcy Court, and serve on the Company, a Notice of Intent to Purchase, Acquire or Otherwise Accumulate an Equity Security. In addition, prior to effecting any disposition of our equity securities that would result in a decrease in the amount of our equity securities beneficially owned by a Substantial Equityholder, such Substantial Equityholder is required to file with the Bankruptcy Court, and serve on the Company, a Notice of Intent to Sell, Trade or Otherwise Transfer Equity Securities. Lastly, prior to filing any federal or state tax return or any amendment to such return that claims any deduction for worthlessness regarding our equity securities for a tax year ending before our emergence from Chapter 11, certain shareholders must file with the Bankruptcy Court, and serve on the Company, a Declaration of Intent to Claim a Worthless Stock Deduction, which the Debtors may object to if the claim might adversely affect our ability to utilize our tax attributes.

Any purchase, sale or other transfer of our equity securities in violation of the restrictions of the order would be null and void ab initio as an act in violation of such order and would therefore confer no rights on a proposed transferee.

Plan of Reorganization. A Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, among other things, determines the rights and satisfaction of claims of various creditors and security holders of an entity operating under the protection of the Bankruptcy Court and is subject to the ultimate outcome of stakeholder negotiations and Bankruptcy Court decisions ongoing through the date on which the Chapter 11 plan is confirmed. In order for the Debtors to emerge successfully from the Chapter 11 Cases as reorganized companies, they must obtain approval from the Bankruptcy Court and certain of their respective creditors for a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. On January 26, 2016, the Debtors filed with the Bankruptcy Court the Disclosure Statement for Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation and its Debtor Affiliates (as further amended, modified, or supplemented from time to time and including all exhibits and supplements thereto, the “Disclosure Statement”) filed in support of the Join Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation and its Debtor Affiliates (as further amended, modified, or supplemented from time to time and including all exhibits and supplements thereto, the “Plan of Reorganization”) subsequently amended on March 31, 2016 and on April 27, 2016. If the Plan of Reorganization currently on file is confirmed it would significantly reduce our outstanding long-term debt and annual interest payments. On April 29, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court approved the adequacy of the Disclosure Statement. On May 2, 2016, the Debtors filed the solicitation versions of the Plan of Reorganization and the Disclosure Statement. The hearing to consider confirmation of the Plan of Reorganization is expected to commence on June 13, 2016. Although the Debtors currently have the exclusive right to file a plan and solicit the appropriate votes thereon, such rights expire on June 9, 2016 and August 9, 2016, respectively. There can be no assurances regarding our ability to successfully develop, confirm or consummate the Plan of Reorganization, an alternative plan of reorganization or alternative restructuring transaction, including a sale of all or substantially all of our assets.

In addition to being voted on by holders of impaired claims and equity interests, a plan of reorganization must satisfy certain requirements of the Bankruptcy Code and must be approved, or confirmed, by the Bankruptcy Court in

order to become effective. A plan of reorganization would be accepted by holders of claims against and equity interests in the Debtors if (i) at least one-half in number and two-thirds in dollar amount of claims actually voting in each class of claims impaired by the plan have voted to accept the plan and (ii) at least two-thirds in amount of equity interests actually voting in each class of equity interests impaired by the plan has voted to accept the plan. A class of claims or equity interests that does not receive or retain any property under the plan on account of such claims or interests is deemed to have voted to reject the plan.

Under certain circumstances set forth in Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court may confirm a plan even if such plan has not been accepted by all impaired classes of claims and equity interests. The precise requirements and evidentiary showing for confirming a plan notwithstanding its rejection by one or more impaired classes of claims or equity interests depends upon a number of factors, including the status and seniority of the claims or equity interests in the rejecting class (i.e., secured claims or unsecured claims, subordinated or senior claims, preferred or common stock). Generally, with respect to common stock interests, a plan may be “crammed down” even if the shareowners receive no recovery if the proponent of the plan demonstrates that (1) no class junior to the common stock is receiving or retaining property under the plan and (2) no class of claims or interests senior to the common stock is being paid more than in full.

For the duration of the Company’s Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company’s operations and ability to develop and execute its business plan are subject to the risks and uncertainties associated with the Chapter 11 process as described in Item 1A, “Risk Factors.” As a result of these risks and uncertainties, the number of the Company’s outstanding shares and shareholders, assets, liabilities, officers and/or directors could be significantly different following the outcome of the Chapter 11 proceedings, and the description of the Company’s operations, properties and capital plans included in this quarterly report may not accurately reflect its operations, properties and capital plans following the Chapter 11 process.

Liquidity and Ability to Continue as a Going Concern

The Company’s filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions described in Note 2 herein constituted an event of default that accelerated the Company’s obligations under the New Revolving Credit Facility, the Term Loan Facility, the 2017 Notes and the Legacy Forest Notes. The Company has classified all debt as long term as “Liabilities Subject to Compromise” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2016 (see Note 3). If the Company cannot continue as a going concern, adjustments to the carrying values and classification of its assets and liabilities and the reported income and expenses could be required and could be material. For additional description of the defaults present under the Company’s debt obligations, please see Note 6 herein.

On February 25, 2015, the Company borrowed approximately $356 million under its New Revolving Credit Facility which represented the remaining undrawn amount under the New Revolving Credit Facility. As of March 31, 2016, the Company did not have credit extensions available under the New Revolving Credit Facility due to the going concern qualification in the Company’s 2015 and 2014 audited financial statements and certain other defaults described below. As of March 31, 2016, the total outstanding principal amount of the Company’s debt obligations was $2.8 billion, consisting of approximately $902 million of borrowings under the New Revolving Credit Facility, $350 million of the 2017 Notes, $800 million of the Legacy Forest Notes, and a $700 million Term Loan Facility. Additionally, the Company’s cash balance at March 31, 2016 was approximately $170.4 million. For additional detail on each of the debt obligations, including definitions of the terms “New Revolving Credit Facility,” “2017 Notes,” “Term Loan Facility” and “Legacy Forest Notes,” please see Note 6 herein.

Events of default, including cross-defaults, are present due to the failure to make interest payments, the failure to make the borrowing base deficiency payments, the “going concern” qualification in the Company’s 2015 and 2014 audited financial statements and other matters. For additional detail regarding the Company’s other defaults under its debt obligations please see Note 6 herein.

We are making adequate protection payments to the lenders under the New Revolving Credit Facility in an amount equal to the non-default rate of interest, fees and costs due and payable on a monthly basis under the New Revolving Credit Facility, in accordance with the cash collateral order filed with the Bankruptcy Court. Additionally, cash generated by the Company deemed to be proceeds of the oil and gas properties that represent prepetition collateral is

deposited into a segregated account, which is reflected as Cash in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2016, and it is used solely to pay for the operations of the prepetition collateral properties.

Given uncertainty surrounding Chapter 11 proceedings, recurring losses from operations and shareholders’ deficit, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

The number of our outstanding shares and shareholders, assets, liabilities, officers and/or directors could be significantly different following the outcome of the Chapter 11 proceedings.

The condensed consolidated financial statements included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q have been prepared on a going concern basis of accounting, which contemplates continuity of operations, realization of assets, and satisfaction of liabilities and commitments in the normal course of business. The condensed consolidated financial statements do not reflect any adjustments that might result from the outcome of the uncertainties as discussed above.

3.Significant Accounting Policies

The Company presents its condensed consolidated financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements include Sabine and its wholly owned subsidiaries. All intercompany transactions have been eliminated. In the opinion of management, all adjustments, which are of a normal recurring nature, have been made that are necessary for a fair presentation of the financial position of the Company at March 31, 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the periods presented. Interim results are not necessarily indicative of expected future results because of various factors including the impact of fluctuations in the prices of oil, natural gas, and NGLs and the impact the prices have on the Company’s revenues and the fair values of its derivative instruments.

For a more complete understanding of the Company’s operations, financial position, and accounting policies, reference is made to the consolidated financial statements of the Company, and related notes thereto, included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 24, 2016.

As a result of sustained losses and our Chapter 11 proceedings, the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities, without substantial adjustments and/or changes in ownership, are subject to uncertainty.

The accompanying condensed consolidated interim financial statements do not purport to reflect or provide for the consequences of our Chapter 11 proceedings. In particular, the condensed consolidated financial statements do not purport to show (i) as to assets, their realizable value on a liquidation basis or their availability to satisfy liabilities; (ii) as to pre-petition liabilities, the amounts that may be allowed for claims or contingencies, or the status and priority thereof; (iii) as to shareholders’ equity accounts, the effect of any changes that may be made in our capitalization; or (iv) as to operations, the effect of any changes that may be made to our business.

We have applied ASC 852 “Reorganizations,” in preparing our condensed consolidated interim financial statements. ASC 852 requires that the financial statements, for periods subsequent to the Chapter 11 filing, distinguish transactions and events that are directly associated with the reorganization from the ongoing operations of the business. Accordingly, certain revenues, expenses, realized gains and losses and provisions for losses that are realized or incurred in the bankruptcy proceedings are recorded in “Reorganization Items, net” in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. In addition, pre-petition obligations that may be impacted by the bankruptcy reorganization process have been classified in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at March 31, 2016 in “Liabilities Subject to Compromise”. These liabilities include unsecured and under secured obligations which are reported at the amounts expected to be allowed as claims by the Bankruptcy Court, even if they may be settled for lesser amounts.

While operating as debtors in possession under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtors may sell or otherwise dispose of or liquidate assets or settle liabilities in amounts other than those reflected in our condensed consolidated interim financial statements, subject to the approval of the Bankruptcy Court or otherwise as permitted in the ordinary course of business.

Liabilities Subject to Compromise

The following table summarizes the components of liabilities subject to compromise (herein referred to as the “Liabilities Subject to Compromise”) included in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015:

Liabilities Subject to Compromise refers to pre-petition obligations that may be impacted by the Chapter 11 reorganization process. The amounts represent our current estimate of known or potential obligations to be resolved in connection with our Chapter 11 proceedings.

Differences between liabilities we have estimated and the claims filed, or to be filed, will be investigated and resolved in connection with the claims resolution process. We will continue to evaluate these liabilities throughout the Chapter 11 process and adjust amounts prospectively as necessary. Such adjustments may be material.

Reorganization Items, net

The following table summarizes the components included in “Reorganization Items, net” in our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three months ended March 31, 2016:

The Company uses this category to reflect the net revenues, expenses, gains and losses that are the result of the reorganization and restructuring of the business.

Professional fees included in Reorganization items, net represent professional fees for post-petition expenses.

During the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings, the Company will operate their businesses as “debtors-in-possession” under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. ASC 852-10 applies to entities that have filed a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The guidance requires that transactions and events directly associated with the reorganization be distinguished from the ongoing operations of the business. In addition, the guidance provides for changes in the accounting and presentation of liabilities, as well as expenses and income directly associated with the Chapter 11 Cases.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

All highly liquid investments purchased with an initial maturity of three months or less are considered to be cash equivalents.

Concentration of Credit Risk

The Company’s significant receivables are comprised of oil and natural gas revenue receivables. The amounts are due from a limited number of entities; therefore, the collectability is dependent upon the general economic conditions of a few purchasers. The Company regularly reviews collectability and establishes the allowance for doubtful accounts as necessary using the specific identification method. The receivables are not collateralized.

For the three months ended March 31, 2016, the Company recognized an impairment of $86.0 million for the carrying value of oil and natural gas properties. For the three months ended March 31, 2015, the Company recognized an impairment of $236.5 million for the carrying value of proved oil and natural gas properties. The impairments in 2016 are primarily related to a significant drop in commodity prices for oil and natural gas. The average of the historical unweighted first day of the month prices for the prior twelve month periods ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 were $2.39 and $3.88, respectively, for natural gas. The average of the historical unweighted first day of the month prices for the prior twelve month periods ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 were $46.26 and $82.72, respectively, for oil. The Company could experience additional reductions in the carrying value of its oil and natural gas properties if the average of the unweighted first day of the month oil and natural gas prices for the prior twelve month periods continue to decline.

The Company’s depletion expense on oil and natural gas properties is calculated each quarter utilizing period end proved reserve quantities. The Company recorded $19.1 million and $53.2 million of depletion on oil and natural gas properties for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. As a rate of production, depletion was $0.90 per Mcfe and $1.94 per Mcfe for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Financial Instruments

The Company’s financial instruments including cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, and accounts payable are carried at cost, which approximates fair value due to the short-term maturity of these instruments. The New Revolving Credit Facility, The Term Loan Facility, 2017 Notes, 2019 Notes and 2020 Notes are carried at face value as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015. See Note 11 for fair value measurements related to these instruments. Since considerable judgment is required to develop estimates of fair value, the estimates provided are not necessarily indicative of the amounts the Company could realize upon the purchase or refinancing of such instruments.

The preparation of the condensed consolidated financial statements for the Company in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

The Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements are based on a number of significant estimates, including acquisition purchase price allocations, fair value of derivative instruments, oil, natural gas liquids and natural gas reserve quantities that are the basis for the calculation of Depreciation, Depletion and Amortization (“DD&A”) and impairment of oil, natural gas liquids and natural gas properties, assumptions for timing and costs associated with its asset retirement obligations and estimates for certain damages that may be accepted in the Chapter 11 process.

No potential common shares are included in the computation of any diluted per share amount when a net loss exists because they would be deemed antidilutive, as was the case for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) (“ASU 2016-02”). ASU 2016-02 requires lessees to record the assets and liabilities arising from leases in the balance sheet. This guidance also requires additional qualitative disclosures along with specific quantitative disclosures to enable users of financial statements to assess the amount, timing, and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. ASU 2016-02 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those years. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the new guidance and has not determined the impact this standard may have on its financial statements.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements – Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern (“ASU 2014-15”). ASU 2014-15 provides guidance about management’s responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern and sets rules for how this information should be disclosed in the financial statements. ASU 2014-15 is effective for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016 and interim periods thereafter. The Company plans to adopt ASU 2014-15 prospectively for the annual period ending December 31, 2016. Pursuant to ASU 2014-15, the Company is required to consider whether there are adverse conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued and the probability that management’s plans will mitigate the adverse conditions or events (if any). Adverse conditions or events would include, but not be limited to, negative financial trends (such as recurring operating losses, working capital deficiencies, or insufficient liquidity), a need to restructure outstanding debt to avoid default, and industry developments (for example commodity price declines and regulatory changes).

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014‑09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASU 2014-09”), which supersedes nearly all existing revenue recognition guidance under existing generally accepted accounting principles. This new standard is based upon the principal that revenue is recognized to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. ASU 2014-09 also requires additional disclosure about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from customer contracts. In July 2015, the FASB elected to defer the effective date of ASU 2014-09 until annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2017. Entities have the option of using either a retrospective or modified approach to adopt ASU 2014-09. The Company is currently evaluating the new guidance and has not determined the impact this standard may have on its financial statements or decided upon the method of adoption.

During the three months ended March 31, 2016 purchases by Enbridge Pipeline (East Texas) LP, Laclede Energy, NGL Crude Logistics LLC and Eastex Crude Company accounted for approximately 35%, 24%, 13% and 13%, respectively, of oil, natural gas liquids and natural gas sales. During the three months ended March 31, 2015 purchases by Enbridge Pipeline (East Texas) LP, NGL Crude Logistics LLC and Laclede Energy accounted for approximately 22%, 15% and 12%, respectively, of oil, natural gas liquids and natural gas sales.

Effective Tax Rate

For the three months ended March 31, 2016 and March 31, 2015, we recorded no income tax expense or benefit, resulting in an effective tax rate of 0%.  The significant difference between our effective tax rate and the federal statutory income tax rate of 35% is due to a full valuation allowance recorded on net deferred tax assets in excess of deferred tax liabilities.  A valuation allowance is established to reduce deferred tax assets when it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax asset will not be realized.  As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Company believes it is more likely than not that the overall deferred tax asset will not be realized. As of March 31, 2016, the Company did not have any uncertain tax positions requiring adjustments to its liability.

2017 Notes

The Company and the Company’s subsidiary Sabine Oil & Gas Finance Corporation, formerly NFR Energy Finance Corporation, have $350 million in 9.75% senior unsecured notes due 2017 (the “2017 Notes”) currently outstanding. The 2017 Notes are unsecured obligations that bear interest at a rate of 9.75% per annum, payable semi-annually on February 15 and August 15 each year. No interest expense has been recognized subsequent to the petition date.

As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 the 2017 Notes are presented as “Liabilities Subject to Compromise,” whereas the carrying value equals the face value. As of the petition date, the Company had accrued $14.1 million of interest related to the 2017 notes, reflected in “Liabilities Subject to Compromise”.

The 2017 Notes were issued under, and are governed by, an indenture dated February 12, 2010 by and among Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation, Sabine Oil & Gas Finance Corporation, the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. as trustee, and guarantors party thereto.  The Company’s filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions described in Note 2 herein constitutes an event of default that accelerated the Company’s obligations under the 2017 Notes.

Under the Bankruptcy Code, the creditors under these debt agreements are stayed from taking any action against the Debtors as a result of the defaults.

2019 Notes

The Company has $577.9 million in 7¼% senior notes due 2019 (the “2019 Notes”). Interest on the 2019 Notes is payable semiannually on June 15 and December 15. No interest expense has been recognized subsequent to the petition date.

Certain subsidiaries of the Company are guarantors to the 2019 Notes. See Note 14 for additional details.

As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the 2019 Notes are presented as “Liabilities Subject to Compromise,” whereas the carrying value equals the face value. As of the petition date the Company had accrued $24.3 million of interest related to the 2019 notes, reflected in “Liabilities Subject to Compromise”.

On February 25, 2015, the Company received notice that Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB was appointed as successor trustee under the indenture governing the 2019 Notes. The Company’s filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions described in Note 2 herein constitutes an event of default that accelerated the Company’s obligations under the 2019 Notes.

Under the Bankruptcy Code, the creditors under these debt agreements are stayed from taking any action against the Debtors as a result of the default.

2020 Notes

The Company has $222.1 million in 7½% senior notes due 2020 (the “2020 Notes”, and collectively with the 2019 Notes, the “Legacy Forest Notes”). Interest on the 2020 Notes is payable semiannually on March 15 and September 15. No interest expense has been recognized subsequent to the petition date.

Certain subsidiaries of the Company are guarantors to the 2020 Notes. See Note 14 for additional details.

As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the 2020 Notes are presented as “Liabilities Subject to Compromise,” whereas the carrying value equals the face value. As of the petition date the Company had accrued $5.5 million of interest related to the 2020 notes, reflected in “Liabilities Subject to Compromise”.

On May 14, 2015, the Company received notice that Delaware Trust Company was appointed as successor trustee under the indenture governing the 2020 Notes. The Company’s filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions described in Note 2 herein constitutes an event of default that accelerated the Company’s obligations under the 2020 Notes.

Under the Bankruptcy Code, the creditors under these debt agreements are stayed from taking any action against the Debtors as a result of the default.

The New Revolving Credit Facility provides for a $2 billion revolving credit facility, with an initial borrowing base of $1 billion. The New Revolving Credit Facility includes a sub-limit permitting up to $100 million of letters of credit. On April 27, 2015 the borrowing base for the New Revolving Credit Facility was reduced to $750 million.  The New Revolving Credit Facility matured on April 7, 2016; however, as a result of the filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions, the obligations are subject to the Bankruptcy Court automatic stay.

The Company’s filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions described in Note 2 herein constituted an event of default that accelerated the Company’s obligations under the New Revolving Credit Facility.  Additionally other events of default, including cross-defaults, are present due to the failure to make interest payments, the failure to make the borrowing base deficiency payments, the “going concern” qualification in the Company’s 2015 and 2014 audited financial statements and other matters.

Under the Bankruptcy Code, the creditors under these debt agreements are stayed from taking any action against the Debtors as a result of the default.

The Company is making adequate protection payments to the lenders under the New Revolving Credit Facility in an amount equal to the non-default rate of interest, fees and costs due and payable on a monthly basis under the New Revolving Credit Facility, in accordance with the cash collateral order filed with the Bankruptcy Court. Additionally, cash generated by the Company deemed to be proceeds of the oil and gas properties that represent prepetition collateral is deposited into a segregated account, which is reflected as Cash in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2016, and it is used solely to pay for the operations of the prepetition collateral properties.

Prior to May 29, 2015, loans under the New Revolving Credit Facility bore interest at the Company’s option at either:

Beginning in May 29, 2015 and thereafter during the occurrence of an event of default under the New Revolving Credit Facility, the loans under the New Revolving Credit Facility bear interest at the Revolving Base Rate.

Borrowings outstanding under the New Revolving Credit Facility totaled approximately $902 million at both March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015. Additionally, borrowings outstanding under the New Revolving Credit Facility had a weighted average interest rate of 5.1% and 2.6% for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

The New Revolving Credit Facility provides that all such obligations and the guarantees will be secured by a lien on at least 80% of the PV-9 of the borrowing base properties evaluated in the most recent reserve report delivered to the administrative agent and a pledge of all of the capital stock of the Company’s restricted subsidiaries, subject to certain customary grace periods and exceptions.

As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 the New Revolving Credit Facility is presented as “Liabilities Subject to Compromise,” whereas the carrying value equals the face value. Interest expense continues to be recognized on the New Revolving Credit Facility subsequent to the petition date.

Term Loan Facility

The Company has a $700 million second lien term loan agreement (“Term Loan Facility”) with a maturity date of December 31, 2018 (provided that if the 2017 Notes are not refinanced to mature at least 91 days thereafter, the maturity date shall be 91 days prior to the February 15, 2017 maturity date of the 2017 Notes).

The Term Loan Facility, including with respect to interest and, in the case of eurodollar borrowings, bears interest at the Adjusted Eurodollar Rate plus 7.50%, with an interest rate floor of 1.25%, and, in the case of alternate base rate borrowings, bears interest at the Alternate Base Rate plus 6.50%, with an interest rate floor of 2.25%. Any time an interest period for loans expires during an event of default under the Term Loan Facility, such loans will bear interest at the Term Base Rate. The weighted average interest rate incurred on this indebtedness for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, was zero and 8.8%, respectively.

The Company’s filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions described above in Note 2 constituted an event of default that accelerated the Company’s obligations under the Term Loan Facility. Additionally other events of default are present due to the failure to make interest payments, the “going concern” qualification in the Company’s 2015 and 2014 audited financial statements and other matters. Under the Bankruptcy Code, the creditors under these debt agreements are stayed from taking any action against the Debtors as a result of the default.

As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 the Term Loan is presented as “Liabilities Subject to Compromise,” whereas the carrying value equals the face value. As of the petition date the Company had accrued $30.2 million of interest related to the Term Loan Facility, reflected in “Liabilities Subject to Compromise”. No interest expense has been recognized subsequent to the petition date.

All of the Company’s guarantees for its New Revolving Credit Facility have guaranteed the Term Loan Facility.  The obligations under the Term Loan Facility are secured by the same collateral that secures the New Revolving Credit Facility, but the liens securing such obligations are second priority liens to the liens securing the New Revolving Credit Facility. However, the validity of certain liens securing the Term Loan Facility are currently in dispute pursuant to the lawsuit filed by the Company against the Term Loan Facility administrative agent, Wilmington Trust, N.A.

At March 31, 2016, the Company had 650.0 million Common Shares, par value $0.10 per share, authorized and 202.8 million shares issued and outstanding.

Approximately 0.7 million shares of service-based restricted stock were awarded in the three months ended March 31, 2015. No additional shares of service-based restricted stock were awarded subsequent to March 31, 2015. Refer to Note 8.

The Company has a significant amount of indebtedness that is senior to its existing common stock in its capital structure. As a result, the Company believes that it is highly likely that the shares of its existing common stock will be cancelled in its Chapter 11 proceedings and will be entitled to a limited recovery, if any.  Additionally, as a result of the filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions, the Company’s common stock can no longer be traded on the OTCQB Marketplace and is now trading on the OTC Pink Marketplace.

At March 31, 2016, the Company had 10.0 million Series A Preferred Shares, par value $0.01, authorized and 2.5 million shares issued and outstanding.

The Series A Preferred Shares are convertible into Sabine Common Shares at the option of Legacy Sabine Investors if (1) the Legacy Sabine Investors are able to convert a portion of the Series A Preferred Shares into Common Shares and, as a result of such conversion, would not, together with affiliates, hold more than 50% of the Company’s voting power and (2) Sabine’s board of directors (the “Board”) approves such conversion (such approval not to be unreasonably withheld). In addition, Series A Preferred Shares will convert automatically if the Legacy Sabine Investors transfer such shares to a third party and such third party would not, together with its affiliates, hold more than 50% of the Company’s voting power upon receipt of such shares as voting securities.

The Series A Preferred Shares are non-voting. Initially, in connection with a conversion of Series A Preferred Shares into Common Shares as described in the preceding paragraph, each Series A Preferred Share will be convertible into 100 Common Shares.

The Company has a significant amount of indebtedness that is senior to its existing preferred stock in its capital structure. As a result, the Company believes that it is highly likely that the shares of its existing preferred stock will be cancelled in its Chapter 11 proceedings and will be entitled to a limited recovery, if any.

The Incentive Units represent the equivalent of stock appreciation rights redeemable for an applicable number of common shares of the Company (based on the value of the common shares) awarded to certain employees and directors of the Company on or before December 16, 2014. The Incentive Units were considered to be equity-based awards with a total grant date fair value of approximately $2.1 million, of which compensation expense will be recognized on a straight line basis over the requisite derived service period. The compensation expense recognized during the three months ended March 31, 2016 was approximately $0.1 million.

The Company has a significant amount of indebtedness that is senior to its existing Incentive Units in its capital structure. As a result, the Company believes that it is highly likely that the shares of its existing Incentive Units will be cancelled in its Chapter 11 proceedings and will be entitled to a limited recovery, if any.

The Company’s 2014 LTIP includes non-statutory options, incentive stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units, bonus stock, dividend equivalents, and other stock-based awards which may be granted to employees, directors and consultants of the Company. The aggregate number of shares of common stock that the Company may issue under the 2014 LTIP may not exceed 40 million shares. As of March 31, 2016, the Company had 4.4 million shares available for issuance under the 2014 LTIP.

The following table summarizes the restricted stock activity in the 2014 LTIP for the year ended March 31, 2016.

The grant date fair value of restricted stock is determined by averaging the high and low stock price of a share of Sabine common stock as published by the OTC Bulletin Board on the date of grant. Of the unvested restricted stock as of March 31, 2016, 8,019,175 shares vest as follows: (i) two-thirds will vest in one-fourth increments on each of the first four anniversaries of the date of grant and (ii) one-third will vest in full on the fourth anniversary of the date of grant; 465,467 shares vest ratably over three years and 450,000 shares vest ratably over four years. Restricted stock may vest earlier upon a qualifying disability, death, certain involuntary terminations, or a change in control of the Company in accordance with the terms of the underlying agreement.

The Company has a significant amount of indebtedness that is senior to its existing common stock in its capital structure. As a result, the Company believes that it is highly likely that the shares of its existing restricted stock will be cancelled in its Chapter 11 proceedings and will be entitled to a limited recovery, if any. 

During the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company recognized approximately $0.6 million, and $0.4 million, respectively, in stock based compensation expense which is included in General and Administrative expense in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations.

The Company paid $11.2 million and $42.8 million for interest during the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, net of capitalized interest. During the three months ended March 31, 2016 the Company paid $21.7 million for reorganization items.

During the three months ended March 31, 2016, Sabine’s noncash investing and financing activities consisted primarily of the following transactions:

During the three months ended March 31, 2015, Sabine’s noncash investing and financing activities consisted primarily of the following transactions:

The Company’s Bankruptcy Petition in July 2015 represented an event of default under Sabine’s existing derivative agreements resulting in a termination right by counterparties on all derivative positions at July 15, 2015. Additionally, certain of the Company’s derivative positions were terminated prior to July 15, 2015 as a result of defaults under Sabine’s derivate agreements that occurred prior to the filing of the Bankruptcy Petition. As a result, the Company no longer has any derivatives beyond July 2015.

The table below presents the Company’s “Gain on derivative instruments” located in Other income (expenses) in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations:

Sabine received zero and $46.0 million on settlements of derivatives in three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (exit price). The Company utilizes market data or assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk and the risks inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique. These inputs can be readily observable, market corroborated, or generally unobservable. The Company classifies fair value balances based on the observability of those inputs.

The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurement) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurement).

The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are as follows:

Level 1 – Quoted prices are available in active markets for identical assets or liabilities as of the reporting date. Active markets are those in which transactions for the asset or liability occur in sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis. Level 1 primarily consists of financial instruments such as exchange-traded derivatives, marketable securities and listed equities.

Level 2 – Pricing inputs are other than quoted prices in active markets included in Level 1, which are either directly or indirectly observable as of the reported date. Level 2 includes those financial instruments that are valued using models or other valuation methodologies. These models are primarily industry-standard models that consider various assumptions, including quoted forward prices for commodities, time value, volatility factors, and current market and contractual prices for the underlying instruments, as well as other relevant economic measures. Substantially all of these assumptions are observable in the marketplace throughout the full term of the instrument, can be derived from observable data, or are supported by observable levels at which transactions are executed in the marketplace. Instruments in this category generally include non-exchange-traded derivatives such as commodity swaps, basis swaps, options, and collars.

Level 3 – Pricing inputs include significant inputs that are generally less observable from objective sources. These inputs may be used with internally developed methodologies that result in management’s best estimate of fair value.

The Company measures fair value of its debt based on recent trade activity for fixed rate obligations, 2017 Notes, 2019 Notes and 2020 Notes, on a Level 2 methodology using quoted market prices which include consideration of the Company’s credit risk. The value of the New Revolving Credit Facility and Term Loan Facility were stated at the carrying value, as a basis for fair value is indeterminable. The following table outlines the fair value of the 2017 Notes, 2019 Notes and 2020 Notes as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015:

(1) The value of the New Revolving Credit Facility and Term Loan Facility were stated at the carrying value, as a basis for fair value is indeterminable.

(2) The carrying value equals the face value and are presented as a long term liability in “Liabilities Subject to Compromise”.

Assets and liabilities acquired in business combinations were recorded at their fair value as of the date of acquisition. The inputs used to determine such fair value were primarily based upon internally developed cash flow models and would generally be classified as Level 3. Additionally, the Company uses fair value to determine the inception value of the Company’s asset retirement obligations. The inputs used to determine such fair value are primarily based upon costs incurred historically for similar work, as well as estimates for costs that would be incurred to restore leased property to the contractually stipulated condition, and would generally be classified as Level 3.

Legal and Regulatory

From time to time, the Company may be a plaintiff or defendant in a pending or threatened legal proceeding arising in the normal course of its business. All known liabilities are accrued when probable and reasonably estimable based on the Company’s best estimate of the potential loss. The Company has recognized $29.0 million of accrued liabilities in relation to legal proceedings, of which $27.0 million is classified within “Other long-term liabilities” and $2 million is classified within “Liabilities Subject to Compromise” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2016. As of December 31, 2015 the Company recognized $28.7 million of accrued liabilities in relation to legal proceedings, of which $26.7 million was classified within “Other long-term liabilities” and $2 million was classified within “Liabilities Subject to Compromise” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. Additionally, as of March 31, 2016, the Company had Asset Retirement Obligations (“ARO”) of approximately $50.8 million, of which

$9.4 million was reported in “Liabilities Subject to Compromise” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had AROs of approximately $50.3 million, of which $9.4 million was reported in “Liabilities Subject to Compromise” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet attributable to the plugging of abandoned wells. There have been no updates to significant legal cases in the three months ended March 31, 2016 other than that all pre-petition litigation (with the exception of Forest Oil Corporation v. El Rucio Land and Cattle Company, Inc., et al., discussed below) has been stayed due to the filing of Sabine’s voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Forest Oil Corporation v. El Rucio Land and Cattle Company, Inc., et al.

On February 29, 2012, two members of a three-member arbitration panel reached a decision adverse to the Company in the proceeding styled Forest Oil Corp. et al. v. El Rucio Land & Cattle Co. et al. The third member of the arbitration panel dissented. The proceeding was initiated in January 2005 and involves claims asserted by the landowner-claimant based on the diminution in value of its land and related damages allegedly resulting from operational and reclamation practices employed by Forest Oil in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s. The arbitration decision awarded the claimant $23 million in damages and attorneys’ fees and additional injunctive relief regarding future surface-use issues. On October 9, 2012, after vacating a portion of the decision imposing a future bonding requirement on the Company, the trial court for the 55th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas, reduced the arbitration decision to a judgment. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas on July 24, 2014, and a motion for rehearing was denied on August 8, 2014.  The Company filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court on January 5, 2015. On May 1, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court requested full briefing on the merits. On July 15, 2015, the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On September 15, 2015, the bankruptcy court granted an unopposed motion to lift the automatic stay thereby allowing the appeal currently pending in the Texas Supreme Court to move forward.  All briefing in the matter is now completed.

Stourbridge Investments, LLC v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Raul v. Carroll, et al., Rothenberg v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Gawlikowski v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Edwards v. Carroll, et al., Jabri v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al.

Following the May 6, 2014 announcement of the proposed Combination, six putative class action lawsuits were filed by Forest Oil shareholder in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those breaches of fiduciary duty by Sabine entities in connection with the proposed Combination. By order dated July 8, 2014, the six New York cases were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re Forest Oil Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 651418/2014.  On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated New York action filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”). The Consolidated Complaint seeks to certify a plaintiff class consisting of all holders of Forest Oil common stock other than the defendants and their affiliates. The defendants named in these actions include the directors of Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I. Wilcox), as well as Sabine and certain of its affiliates (specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II LLC).  The Consolidated Complaint also purports to identify FR XI Onshore AIV, L.L.C. as a defendant, but no causes of action are alleged against that entity.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the proposed Combination arises out of a series of unlawful actions by the board of directors of Forest Oil seeking to ensure that Sabine and affiliates of First Reserve Corporation (“First Reserve”) acquire the assets of, and take control over, Forest Oil through an alleged “three-step merger transaction” that allegedly does not represent a value-maximizing transaction for the shareholders of Forest Oil. The Consolidated Complaint also complains that the proposed Combination has been improperly restructured to require only a majority vote of current Forest Oil shareholders to approve the Combination with Sabine, rather than a two-thirds majority as would have been required under the original transaction structure.  The Consolidated Complaint additionally alleges that members of Forest Oil’s board, as well as Forest Oil’s financial adviser for the proposed Combination, are subject to conflicts of interest that compromise their loyalty to Forest Oil’s shareholders, that the defendants have improperly sought to “lock up” the proposed Combination with certain inappropriate “deal protection devices” that impede Forest Oil from pursuing superior potential transactions with other bidders.

The Consolidated Complaint asserts causes of action against the directors of Forest Oil for breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of the New York Business Corporation Law, as well as a cause of action against the Sabine defendants for aiding and abetting the directors’ breaches of duty and violations of law, and it seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin consummation of the proposed Combination or, in the alternative, rescission and/or rescissory and other damages in the event that the proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is resolved.

In addition to these New York proceedings, one putative class action lawsuit has been filed by Forest Oil shareholders in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. That action, captioned Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corp., No. 1:14-cv-01409-MSK-CBS, was commenced on May 19, 2014, and plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (the “Olinatz Complaint”) on June 13, 2014. The Olinatz Complaint also alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those breaches of fiduciary duty by the Sabine defendants in connection with the proposed Combination, as well as related claims alleging violations of Section 14 (a) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged misstatements in a Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by Forest Oil on May 29, 2014, which recommends that Forest Oil shareholders approve the proposed Combination. The Olinatz Complaint names as defendants Forest Oil and certain of its affiliates (specifically, Forest Oil Corporation, New Forest Oil Inc., and Forest Oil Merger Sub Inc.), the directors of Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I. Wilcox), and Sabine and certain of its affiliates (specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II LLC), and seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin consummation of the proposed Combination or, in the alternative, rescission in the event the proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is resolved, as well as imposition of a constructive trust on any alleged benefits improperly received by defendants.

On October 14, 2014, on motion by the Colorado plaintiffs, the Court in the Colorado action entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to administratively close the action, subject to reopening on good cause shown.

On November 11, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in the New York action regarding a settlement of that action, and that agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding executed by the parties on that date. The settlement, if consummated, will also resolve the Colorado action. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Forest Oil agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed transaction with Sabine, which are contained in Forest Oil’s November 12, 2014 Form 8-K, and Sabine agreed that, within 120 days after the closing of the proposed combination transaction, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC will designate for a period of no less than three (3) years at least one additional independent director, as defined in Section 303A.02 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, as a Sabine Nominee (as defined in Section 1.4 of the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger). The total number of Sabine Nominees will remain unchanged, but at least one of the remaining two Sabine Nominees that had not yet been determined was required to be independent. In connection with the closing of the Combination, Thomas Chewning, an independent director as defined in Section 303A.02 of the New York Exchange Listed Company Manual, was appointed as a Sabine Nominee. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement.

On March 13, 2015, plaintiffs informed Sabine that they believed Sabine had materially violated the terms of the memorandum of understanding by (i) failing to replace or create a mechanism to replace an independent director who resigned from the board of directors in January of 2015, and (ii) making changes to the terms of the merger agreement that were not necessary or required to facilitate the consummation of the proposed transaction without first disclosing and permitting shareholders to vote on the changes. Sabine disagrees with plaintiffs’ position and believes it has fully complied with the memorandum of understanding. In an attempt to facilitate a resolution, however, Sabine offered to: (i) appoint an independent director if an additional director was added to the Board of Directors (bringing the total number of directors eight in the next twelve months, and (ii) remove or waive the “Reincorporation Penalty” provision.  Plaintiffs accepted the offer on April 22, 2015, contingent upon the Parties’ reaching agreement on a stipulation of settlement, which they are presently negotiating.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval.  In the event the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the New York Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  If the settlement is finally approved by the Court, it will resolve and release all claims or actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed

combination transaction, the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, the merger agreement originally entered into by Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Forest Oil, New Forest Oil Inc. and certain of their affiliated entities on May 5, 2014, any disclosure made in connection therewith, including the Definitive Proxy Statement, and all other matters that were the subject of the complaint in the New York action, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement.  In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that the parties will negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorney’s fees and expenses that shall be paid to plaintiffs’ counsel in connection with the Actions.  There can be no assurances that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the New York Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.  The parties are presently negotiating the stipulation of settlement.  At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the potential outcome of this litigation or the ultimate exposure.

On July 15, 2015, Sabine filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.  As a result of the pending bankruptcy, this matter is currently stayed.

HPIP-Gonzales Holdings, LLC v. Forest Oil Corporation

On November 11, 2014, HPIP-Gonzales Holdings, LLC (“HPIP”) initiated arbitration against the Company alleging that the Company breached various provisions, along with its duty of good faith and fair dealing, of the Gathering, Treating and Processing Agreement with HPIP entered into in May 2013 (the “HPIP Gathering Agreement”) and the Acid Gas Handling Agreement with HPIP entered into in May 2014 (together with the HPIP Gathering Agreement, the “HPIP Agreements”).  HPIP also sought to exercise a contractual provision requiring Sabine to purchase the facilities governed by the HPIP Agreements in the event the related drilling program terminates.  On December 19, 2014, the Company filed its Answering Statement and Notice of Counterclaim, denying HPIP’s claims and asserting generally that HPIP breached various provisions of the agreements, resulting in damages to the Company.  The Company further alleged that its drilling program had not terminated. On July 15, 2015, the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.  As a result of the pending bankruptcy, the arbitration is currently stayed. On May 11, 2016 the Bankruptcy Court issued an order authorizing rejection of the Company’s midstream gathering agreements with HPIP Gonzales Holdings, LLC (the “HPIP Gathering Agreement”) effective September 30, 2015.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Forest Oil Corporation

On February 26, 2015, the Company was served with a complaint concerning the indenture governing its 2019 Notes. The complaint is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and generally alleges that certain events of default occurred with respect to the 2019 Notes due to the business combination between Forest Oil Corporation and Sabine Oil & Gas LLC. The Company also received a notice of default and acceleration from the trustee with respect to the 2019 Notes containing similar allegations. If the Company is not successful in their defense of this complaint, the Company may be required to redeem the holders of the 2019 Notes at 101% of the outstanding principal, plus accrued and outstanding interest of the notes. The Company filed its Answer to the complaint on April 17, 2015. The Company believes the allegations against it are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against such claims and pursue any and all defenses available. However, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of such matter, and the proceedings may have a negative impact on the Company’s liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

While the Company intends to vigorously defend the claims against it and believe they are without merit, an adverse ruling could cause the Company’s indebtedness to become immediately due and payable.

Additional claims, lawsuits, or proceedings may be filed or commenced arising out of the indentures to which we are a party and with respect to the business combination.

On July 15, 2015, the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.  As a result of the pending bankruptcy, this matter is currently stayed.

Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation v. Wilmington Trust, N.A.

On July 15, 2015, the Company filed an adversary proceeding asserting, on its behalf, a constructive fraudulent transfer claim against the Term Loan Facility administrative agent Wilmington Trust, N.A.  Specifically, the complaint

(the “Complaint”) states that at the time of the Business Combination between Sabine Oil & Gas LLC and Forest Oil Corporation, Forest Oil Corporation was insolvent from a balance-sheet standpoint. The Complaint also alleges that Forest Oil Corporation did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for pledging hundreds of millions of dollars of oil and gas assets to secure the Term Loan Facility debt that Sabine Oil & Gas LLC had previously incurred.  Accordingly, pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 551, Sabine is seeking to avoid and preserve, for the benefit of the Company’s unsecured creditors, the liens imposed on legacy Forest Oil Corporation assets that secured the $650 million in preexisting Sabine Oil & Gas LLC debt under the Term Loan Facility. In August 2015, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which is now fully briefed, and the Court heard oral argument on October 15, 2015, but did not rule.

On December 30, 2015, the official committee for unsecured creditors (the “Creditors Committee”) and counsel for the Forest Notes Trustees filed motions to intervene in the adversary proceeding.  On January 5, 2016, the Creditors Committee also filed an objection to Wilmington Trust, N.A.’s motion to dismiss the complaint.  The Court held a second hearing on the motion to dismiss on January 12, 2016, but has yet to rule.

Drilling and Completion

On August 10, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued orders allowing the Company to reject its rig and servicing contracts with Nabors effective July 15, 2015 and the total estimated allowable claim has been included in “Liabilities Subject to Compromise” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. The rejections impacted and eliminated approximately $29 million due over the life of the secured contracts as of the date the contracts were rejected.

On May 11, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order authorizing the rejection of the Company’s midstream gathering agreements with HPIP Gonzales Holdings, LLC (the “HPIP Gathering Agreement”) effective September 30, 2015. The rejection of the HPIP Gathering Agreement eliminates the Company’s obligation to drill at least one well per year on the relevant acreage and avoids triggering the agreement’s “put” provision, which would require the Company to purchase the gathering and processing facilities at a contractually mandated price if the drilling program terminated prior to May 2, 2017. On May 3, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court also issued an opinion finding that certain covenants contained in the HPIP Gathering Agreement do not “run with the land” as real covenants or as equitable servitudes. Due to the uncertainty of any appeals that may be filed by HPIP and the uncertainties surrounding the claims reconciliation process as well as the pending arbitration between HPIP and the Company (which is currently subject to the automatic stay) and HPIP’s pending claims against the Company in bankruptcy court, the Company is not currently able to estimate an allowable claim in relation to this matter.  The Company has not recognized any amounts related to the HPIP Gathering Agreements as of March 31, 2016 or December 31, 2015.

As is customary in the oil and natural gas industry, the Company may at times have commitments in place to reserve or earn certain acreage positions or wells. If the Company does not pay such commitments, the acreage positions or wells may be lost.

Other Commitments

The Company’s filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions described in Note 2 herein constituted an event of default that accelerated the Company’s obligations under the New Revolving Credit Facility, the Term Loan Facility, the 2017 Notes and the Legacy Forest Notes.  As a result, the Company has classified all debt as long term as “Liabilities Subject to Compromise” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015. For additional description of the defaults present under the Company’s debt obligations, please see Note 6 herein.

The Bankruptcy Court also issued orders allowing the Company to reject certain office leases effective September 1, 2015 and the total estimated allowable claim of approximately $3.6 million has been included in “Liabilities Subject to Compromise” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015.

On May 11, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the rejection of the Company’s midstream gathering agreements with Nordheim Eagle Ford Gathering, LLC (“Nordheim”) effective December 31, 2015. During 2014, the Company had executed ten-year gas and condensate gathering agreements with Nordheim for the transportation and processing of natural gas and condensate, covering certain properties in South Texas with contractually obligated annual minimum volume commitments to deliver a cumulative 88.5 Bcfe of gas and 5,150 MBbl

of condensate by September 22, 2024 (the “Nordheim Gathering Agreements”).  Under the terms of the Nordheim Gathering Agreements, the Company was required to make annual deficiency payments for any shortfalls in delivering the minimum annual volumes under these commitments beginning in the third quarter of 2015, which would be partially offset by then-existing credit balances for production in excess of minimum commitments, if any. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had not delivered the minimum volumes required for the prior contract year, resulting in a deficiency of approximately $3.0 million, which was recognized as “Liabilities subject to compromise” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2015. No additional shortfalls have been recognized subsequent to the effective date of the rejection of the Nordheim Gathering Agreements. As of March 31, 2016, the Company has not made the deficiency payment.  The Company believes that rejection of the Nordheim Gathering Agreements eliminates any future obligation under the agreements to deliver minimum volumes of gas or condensate, or to make deficiency payments in the event minimum volumes are not delivered. Due to the uncertainty of any appeals that may be filed by Nordheim and the uncertainties surrounding the claims reconciliation process, the Company is not currently able to estimate an allowable claim in relation to this matter.  The Company has not recognized any additional amounts related to the rejection of the Nordheim Gathering Agreements as of March 31, 2016.

The Company has executed additional gas gathering agreements for the transportation and processing of natural gas, covering certain properties in our core operating areas and contractually obligated minimum volume commitments to deliver a cumulative 6.8 Bcfe of gas by August 2018.  Under the terms of these agreements, the Company is required to make deficiency payments at the end of the contractual term for any shortfalls in delivering the minimum volumes under these commitments. Based on the current development plan for these oil and gas assets, the Company does not anticipate that future production from the applicable assets and dedicated area will satisfy the future volume commitments, resulting in deficiency payments over the life of the agreements. The Company has recognized an estimated deficiency of approximately $1.6 million and $1.3 million as “Liabilities subject to compromise” in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015.

There have been no other material changes to commitments and contingencies in the three months ended March 31, 2016.

13. Subsequent Events

See Note 2, “Chapter 11 Proceedings, Liquidity and Ability to Continue as a Going Concern,” for information on the Company’s Voluntary Reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

14. Condensed Consolidating Financial Information

In connection with the consummation of the Combination, Forest entered into that certain (a) First Supplemental Indenture (the “2019 Forest Supplemental Indenture”) to the Indenture, dated as of June 6, 2007, (the “2019 Forest Indenture”), by and among Forest, Sabine East Texas Basin LLC, Sabine Oil & Gas Finance Corporation, Sabine Williston Basin LLC, Sabine Bear Paw Basin LLC, Redrock Drilling, LLC, Sabine South Texas LLC, Giant Gas Gathering LLC, Sabine Mid-Continent Gathering LLC, Sabine South Texas Gathering LLC and Sabine Mid-Continent LLC (collectively, the “New Guarantors”), and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), relating to the 7.25% Senior Notes due 2019 (the “2019 Notes”) and (b) First Supplemental Indenture (the “2020 Forest Supplemental Indenture” and, together with the 2019 Forest Supplemental Indenture, the “Forest Supplemental Indentures”) to the Indenture, dated as of September 17, 2012 (the “2020 Forest Indenture” and, together with the 2019 Forest Indenture, the “Forest Indentures”), by and among Forest, the New Guarantors and the Trustee, relating to the 7.50% Senior Notes due 2020 (the “2020 Notes” and, together with the 2019 Notes, the “Legacy Forest Notes”). Pursuant to the Forest Supplemental Indentures, each of the New Guarantors is 100% owned by the Parent Company Issuer, the guarantees are full and unconditional and joint and several.

The assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the Combination were recognized in the Consolidated Balance Sheet at their preliminary fair value as of December 16, 2014 and the operating results of the acquired properties are included in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Information for the period beginning thereafter.

As of March 31, 2016, the majority of the Company’s subsidiaries were guarantors under the indentures governing the Legacy Forest Notes. All of our non-guarantor subsidiaries were considered minor unrestricted subsidiaries under the

indenture governing the Legacy Forest Notes. As such, the financial information for minor non-guarantor subsidiaries has been combined with the Parent Company Issuer.

Set forth below is condensed consolidating financial information of the Parent Company Issuer, the subsidiary guarantors on a combined basis, and consolidating adjustments. The Legacy Forest Notes, which were issued by Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation, are guaranteed by some of our subsidiaries (referred to as Guarantor Subsidiaries). For purposes of this footnote, Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation is referred to as the Parent Company Issuer to distinguish it from the Guarantor Subsidiaries. Each of the Guarantor Subsidiaries is 100% owned by the Parent Company Issuer.

The following financial information presents consolidating financial statements, which include:

The elimination entries primarily eliminate investments in subsidiaries and intercompany balances and transactions. Cash is primarily managed by the Parent Company.

The condensed consolidating Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 and condensed consolidating Statements of Operations and Cash Flows for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 are presented below. The financial information set forth below is restated for the previously omitted reporting period ended March 31, 2015.