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

 

 

Form 10-Q

 

 

Commission File No. 1-8032

San Juan Basin Royalty Trust

(Exact name of registrant as specified in the Amended and Restated San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Indenture)

 

 

Compass Bank
2525 Ridgmar Boulevard, Suite 100
Fort Worth, Texas 76116
(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip Code)

 

(866) 809-4553
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

N/A

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

 

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 þ     No o

 

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 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes o     No o

 

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

 

 

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

 

Number of Units of beneficial interest outstanding at May 10, 2010: 46,608,796

 

 

SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST

 

PART I

 

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

 

 

The condensed financial statements included herein have been prepared without audit, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The financial statements of the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) continue to be prepared in a manner that differs from generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“GAAP”); this form of presentation is customary to other royalty trusts. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in annual financial statements have been condensed or omitted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Nonetheless, Compass Bank, the Trustee of the Trust, believes that the disclosures are adequate to make the information presented not misleading. These condensed financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and the notes thereto included in the Trust’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. In the opinion of the Trustee, all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, have been included that are necessary to fairly present the assets, liabilities and trust corpus of the Trust at March 31, 2010 and the distributable income and changes in trust corpus for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2010 and 2009. The distributable income for such interim periods is not necessarily indicative of the distributable income for the full year.

SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST

CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND TRUST CORPUS

 

 

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

CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF DISTRIBUTABLE INCOME

 

 

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

CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN TRUST CORPUS

 

 

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

SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST

NOTES TO CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)

 

 

The San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) was established as of November 1, 1980. The financial statements of the Trust are prepared on the following basis:

 

 

The financial statements of the Trust differ from financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP because revenues are not accrued in the month of production; certain cash reserves may be established for contingencies which would not be accrued in financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP; expenses are recorded when paid instead of when incurred; and amortization of the Royalty calculated on a unit-of-production basis is charged directly to the Trust corpus instead of as an expense. The basis of accounting used by the Trust is widely used by royalty trusts for financial reporting purposes.

 

In preparing the condensed interim financial statements, the Trust has evaluated, for potential recognition or disclosure, events or transactions subsequent to the end of the most recent quarterly period through the issuance date of these condensed interim financial statements. No such transactions or events resulted in additional recognition or disclosure.

 

 

For federal income tax purposes, the Trust constitutes a fixed investment trust which is taxed as a grantor trust. A grantor trust is not subject to tax at the trust level. The Unit Holders are considered to own the Trust’s income and principal as though no trust were in existence. The income of the Trust is deemed to have been received or accrued by each Unit Holder at the time such income is received or accrued by the Trust rather than when distributed by the Trust.

 

Additionally, the Trust is a widely held fixed investment trust (“WHFIT”) classified as a non-mortgage widely held fixed investment trust (“NMWHFIT”) for federal income tax purposes. The Trustee is the representative of the Trust that will provide tax information in accordance with the applicable U.S. Treasury Regulations governing the information reporting requirements of the Trust as a WHFIT and a NMWHFIT.

 

The Royalty constitutes an “economic interest” in oil and gas properties for federal income tax purposes. Unit Holders must report their share of the production revenues of the Trust as ordinary income from oil and gas royalties and are entitled to claim depletion with respect to such income. The Royalty is treated as a single property for depletion purposes. The Trust has on file technical advice memoranda confirming such tax treatment.

 

Sales of gas production from certain coal seam wells drilled prior to January 1, 1993, qualified for federal income tax credits under Section 29 (now Section 45K) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended, the “Code”) through 2002 but not thereafter. Accordingly, under present law, the Trust’s production and sale of gas from coal seam wells does not

qualify for tax credit under Section 45K of the Code (the “Section 45 Tax Credit”). Congress has at various times since 2002 considered energy legislation, including provisions to reinstate the Section 45 Tax Credit in various ways and to various extents, but no legislation that would qualify the Trust’s current production for such credit has been enacted. For example, in February 2009, new energy tax legislation was enacted which, among other things, modified the Section 45 Tax Credit in several respects, but did not extend the credit for production from coal seam wells. No prediction can be made as to what future tax legislation affecting Section 45K of the Code may be proposed or enacted or, if enacted, its impact, if any, on the Trust and the Unit Holders. Each Unit Holder should consult his or her own tax advisor regarding tax compliance matters related to such Unit Holder’s interest in the Trust.

 

The classification of the Trust’s income for purposes of the passive loss rules may be important to a Unit Holder. As a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, royalty income such as that derived through the Trust will generally be treated as portfolio income that may not be offset or reduced by passive losses.

 

 

See Part II, Item 1 — Legal Proceedings, concerning the status of litigation matters.

 

 

On March 14, 2008, BROG notified the Trust that the distribution for March would be reduced by $4,921,578. BROG described this amount as the Trust’s portion of what BROG had paid to settle claims for the underpayment of royalties in the case styled United States of America ex rel. Harrold E. (“Gene”) Wright v. AGIP Petroleum Co. et al., Civil Action No. 5:03CV264 (formerly 9:98-CV-30) (E.D. Tex.). The Trust’s consultants continue to analyze this settlement as it may apply to the Trust.

 

On April 29, 2010, the Trust entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims intended to dispose of its claims against BROG relating to the Arbitration Award in its favor issued in November 2005. In litigation styled San Juan Basin Royalty Trust vs. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, L.P., No. D1329-CV-08-751, in the District Court of Sandoval County, New Mexico, 13th Judicial District, the Trust alleged breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and sought a judgment for damages in the amount of $5,025,000, plus interest and punitive damages. The purpose of the arbitration was to resolve certain compliance audit issues. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the Trust on all five of the issues submitted to arbitration. BROG filed suit in Harris County, Texas alleging that the award should be modified or vacated and seeking to recover its attorneys’ fees. The trial court denied BROG’s motion to vacate, granted the Trust’s application to confirm and rendered a final judgment in favor of the Trust. BROG paid the award as it related to four of the five issues and appealed the award as to the fifth. In August 2007, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and vacated the award as it related to the unpaid balance.

 

With respect to that fifth issue, which was the subject of the appeal, the Trust had asked for damages based on either of two alternative claims. The appellate court ruled that the alternative claim selected by the arbitrator in awarding the Trust approximately $5,000,000 was not technically included within the scope of what the parties intended to submit to arbitration. The appellate court did not rule on whether or not the arbitrator properly decided the fifth issue in favor of the Trust. The litigation filed in New Mexico sought recovery on the claim which had been resolved in favor of the Trust by the arbitrator.

 

The appellate court also remanded the case to the District Court, where BROG pursued its claim for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of approximately $500,000. Following a trial on the merits of BROG’s claims conducted on June 3, 2009, the District Court ruled in favor of the Trust and ordered that BROG should take nothing in its claims against the Trust. BROG filed a Notice of Appeal as regards that ruling.

 

Following mediation conducted on April 8 and 23, 2010, BROG and the Trust entered into a settlement whereby BROG is to pay the Trust $2,600,000 and release its claims for attorneys’ fees. Both the Trust’s suit pending in New Mexico and BROG’s Texas litigation are to be dismissed. The settlement payment due from BROG is expected in May 2010.

 

During the first quarters of 2009 and 2010, respectively, $180,750 and $205,085 were included in calculating net proceeds paid to the Trust as a result of the ongoing compliance audit process.

 

 

Forward-Looking Information

 

Certain information included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains, and other materials filed or to be filed by the Trust with the Securities and Exchange Commission (as well as information included in oral statements or other written statements made or to be made by the Trust) may contain or include, forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements may be or may concern, among other things, capital expenditures, drilling activity, development activities, production efforts and volumes, hydrocarbon prices, estimated future net revenues, estimates of reserves, the results of the Trust’s activities, and regulatory matters. Such forward-looking statements generally are accompanied by words such as “may,” “will,” “estimate,” “expect,” “predict,” “project,” “anticipate,” “goal,” “should,” “assume,” “believe,” “plan,” “intend,” or other words that convey the uncertainty of future events or outcomes. Such statements reflect the current view of BROG, the working interest owner, with respect to future events; are based on an assessment of, and are subject to, a variety of factors deemed relevant by the Trustee and BROG; and involve risks and uncertainties. These risks and uncertainties include volatility of oil and gas prices, product supply and demand, competition, regulation or government action, litigation and uncertainties about estimates of reserves. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties occur, actual results may vary materially and adversely from those anticipated.

 

Business Overview

 

The Trust is an express trust created under the laws of the state of Texas by the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Indenture (the “Original Indenture”) entered into on November 3, 1980 between Southland Royalty Company (“Southland Royalty”) and The Fort Worth National Bank. Effective as of September 30, 2002, the Original Indenture was amended and restated (the Original Indenture, as amended and restated, the “First Restated Indenture”) and, effective as of December 12, 2007 the First Restated Indenture was amended and restated (the First Restated Indenture, as amended and restated, the “Indenture”). The Trustee of the Trust is Compass Bank.

 

On October 23, 1980, the stockholders of Southland Royalty approved and authorized that company’s conveyance of a 75% net overriding royalty interest (equivalent to a net profits interest) to the Trust for the benefit of the stockholders of Southland Royalty of record at the close of business on the date of the conveyance (the “Royalty”) carved out of that company’s oil and gas leasehold and royalty interests (the “Underlying Properties”) in properties located in the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico. Pursuant to the Net Overriding Royalty Conveyance (the “Conveyance”) the Royalty was transferred to the Trust on November 3, 1980 effective as to production from and after November 1, 1980 at 7:00 a.m.

 

The Royalty constitutes the principal asset of the Trust. The beneficial interests in the Royalty are divided into that number of Units of Beneficial Interest (the “Units”) of the Trust equal to the number of shares of the common stock of Southland Royalty outstanding as of the close of business on November 3, 1980. Each stockholder of Southland Royalty of record at the close of business on November 3, 1980 received one freely tradable Unit for each share of the common stock of Southland Royalty then held. Holders of Units are referred to herein as “Unit Holders.” Subsequent to the Conveyance of the Royalty, through a series of assignments and mergers, Southland Royalty’s successor became BROG. On March 31, 2006, a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips completed its acquisition of Burlington Resources, Inc., BROG’s parent. As a result, ConocoPhillips became the parent of Burlington Resources, Inc., which in turn, is the parent of BROG.

 

The function of the Trustee is to collect the net proceeds attributable to the Royalty (“Royalty Income”), to pay all expenses and charges of the Trust and distribute the remaining available income to the Unit Holders. The Trust does not operate the Underlying Properties and, in fact, is not empowered to carry on any business activity. The Trust has no employees, officers or directors. All administrative functions of the Trust are performed by the Trustee.

 

BROG is the principal operator of the Underlying Properties. A very high percentage of the Royalty Income is attributable to the production and sale by BROG of natural gas from the Underlying Properties. Accordingly, the market price for natural gas produced and sold from the San Juan Basin heavily influences the amount of Royalty Income distributed by the Trust and, by extension, the price of the Units.

 

Three Months Ended March 31, 2010 and 2009

 

The Trust received Royalty income of $22,002,516 and interest income of $208,313 during the first quarter of 2010. There was no change in cash reserves. After deducting administrative expenses of $681,511, distributable income for the

quarter was $21,529,318 ($0.461915 per Unit). In the first quarter of 2009, Royalty income was $9,550,576, interest income was $2,605, administrative expenses were $583,745 and distributable income was $8,969,436 ($0.192440 per Unit). Based on 46,608,796 Units outstanding, the per-Unit distributions during the first quarter of 2010 were as follows:

 

 

The Royalty income distributed in the first quarter of 2010 was higher than that distributed in the first quarter of 2009, primarily due to an increase in the average gas price from $4.04 per Mcf for the first quarter of 2009 to $5.16 per Mcf for the first quarter of 2010. Interest income was higher for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as compared to the quarter ended March 31, 2009, due to additional interest BROG paid to the Trust in January 2010 as a result of the granting of certain audit exceptions. Administrative expenses were higher in 2010 primarily as a result of differences in timing in the receipt and payment of these expenses and also due to increased costs associated with the litigation described in Part II, Item I below.

 

The capital costs attributable to the Underlying Properties for the first quarter of 2010 and deducted by BROG in calculating Royalty income were approximately $3.4 million. BROG has informed the Trust that its budget for capital expenditures for the Underlying Properties in 2010 is estimated at $17.9 million. In addition, BROG estimates that during 2010 it will incur capital expenses in the amount of approximately $6.8 million attributable to the capital budgets for 2009 and prior years. BROG reports that based on its actual capital requirements, the pace of regulatory approvals, the mix of projects and swings in the price of natural gas, the actual capital expenditures for 2010 could range from $10 million to $45 million.

 

BROG anticipates 305 projects in 2010. Approximately $7.2 million of the $17.9 million budget is allocable to 43 new wells, including 41 wells scheduled to be dually completed in the Mesaverde and Dakota formations. BROG indicates that two of the new wells are projected to be drilled to Fruitland Coal or Pictured Cliffs formations. Approximately $3.8 million will be spent on workovers and facilities projects. Of the $6.8 million attributable to the budgets for prior years, approximately $4.4 million is allocable to new wells and the $2.4 million balance will be applied to miscellaneous capital projects such as workovers and operated facility projects. BROG mentioned that the possible implementation of new air quality rules and rules requiring the minimization of surface disturbances, implementation of closed-loop systems for the disposal of drilling fluids and cuttings, and the restricted use of open reserve pits could reduce the number of projects due to increased compliance costs.

 

BROG has informed the Trust that lease operating expenses and property taxes were $7,799,804 and $213,289, respectively, for the first quarter of 2010, as compared to $8,992,827 and $276,732, respectively, for the first quarter of 2009. BROG reports that lease operating expenses were lower in the first quarter of 2010 compared to the first quarter of 2009 primarily due to weather conditions that restricted access to the well sites for maintenance and repairs. Many joint operating agreements call for the increase or decrease in rates charged for the drilling and operation of wells based upon an overhead adjustment factor published annually by the Council for Petroleum Accountants Societies. That factor was set at +1.9% effective as of April 1, 2010.

 

BROG has reported to the Trustee that during the first quarter of 2010, 15 gross (3.93 net) conventional wells were completed on the Underlying Properties. Ten gross (0.82 net) conventional wells were in progress at March 31, 2010.

 

There were 11 gross (5.18 net) coal seam wells and 27 gross (3.77 net) conventional wells completed on the Underlying Properties as of March 31, 2009. Seven gross (3.48 net) coal seam wells and 20 gross (2.58 net) conventional wells were in progress at March 31, 2009.

 

There were 3,967 gross (1,163 net) producing wells being operated subject to the Royalty as of December 31, 2009, calculated on a well bore basis and not including multiple completions as separate wells.

 

“Gross” acres or wells, for purposes of this discussion, means the entire ownership interest of all parties in such properties, and BROG’s interest therein is referred to as the “net” acres or wells. A “payadd” is the completion of an additional productive interval in an existing completed zone in a well.

Royalty income for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 is associated with actual gas and oil production during November 2009 through January 2010 from the Underlying Properties. Gas and oil sales from the Underlying Properties for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 were as follows:

 

 

During the first quarter of 2010, average gas prices were $1.12 per Mcf higher than the average prices reported during the first quarter of 2009. The average price per barrel of oil during the first quarter of 2010 was $27.16 per barrel higher than that received for the first quarter of 2009.

 

BROG entered into four contracts effective April 1, 2009, for the sale of all gas produced from the Underlying Properties other than the gas covered by a pre-existing contract with New Mexico Gas Company, Inc. (“NMGC”). The current purchasers are Chevron Natural Gas, a division of Chevron USA, Inc. (“Chevron”), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”), BP Energy Company, Macquarie Cook Energy LLC, and NMGC. All five of such contracts provide for (i) the delivery of such gas at various delivery points through March 31, 2011 and from year-to-year thereafter, until terminated by either party on 12 months’ notice; and (ii) the sale of such gas at prices which fluctuate in accordance with the published indices for gas sold in the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico.

 

In March 2010, notice of termination of each of the Chevron, BP Energy Company and Macquarie Cook Energy LLC contracts was given such that they will terminate effective March 31, 2011. Requests for proposal will be circulated to potential purchasers of those packages of gas covered by the expiring contracts with a view toward obtaining new contracts to be effective April 1, 2011. Neither BROG, PG&E, nor NMGC gave notice of termination of their contracts such that the terms of those two contracts have been automatically extended through at least March 31, 2012.

 

BROG contracts with Williams Four Corners, LLC (“WFC”) and Enterprise Field Services, LLC (“EFS”) for the gathering and processing of virtually all of the gas produced from the Underlying Properties. Four new contracts have been entered into with WFC to be effective for terms of 15 years commencing April 1, 2010. The new contracts will consolidate and replace 18 prior contracts with WFC. BROG indicates that the new contracts are anticipated to provide some modest reductions in fees and also improved services, including more rigorous line pressure controls and the right to install compression facilities as needed.

 

However, BROG reports that it has been unable to reach agreement with EFS on gathering and production contracts, and it has joined a group of 51 others in initiating an administrative proceeding before the New Mexico Public Utility Commission, complaining, inter alia, that EFS is insisting upon above-market rates and refusing to agree to essential pressure control services. Gas is currently being gathered and processed by EFS on a month-to-month basis. The Trustee will continue to monitor this matter as it may relate to the Trust.

 

Confidentiality agreements with gatherers and purchasers of gas produced from the Underlying Properties prohibit public disclosure of certain terms and conditions of gas sales contracts with those entities, including specific pricing terms and gas receipt points. Such disclosure could compromise the ability to compete effectively in the marketplace for the sale of gas produced from the Underlying Properties.

Calculation of Royalty Income

 

Royalty income received by the Trust for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, was computed as shown in the following table:

 

CALCULATION OF ROYALTY INCOME

 

 

Contractual Obligations

 

Under the Indenture governing the Trust, the Trustee is entitled to an administrative fee for its administrative services and the preparation of quarterly and annual statements of: (i) 1/20 of 1% of the first $100 million of the annual gross revenue of the Trust, and 1/30 of 1% of the annual gross revenue of the Trust in excess of $100 million and (ii) the Trustee’s standard hourly rates for time in excess of 300 hours annually, provided that the administrative fee due under items (i) and (ii) above will not be less than $36,000 per year (as adjusted annually to reflect the increase (if any) in the Producers Price Index as published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, since December 31, 2003).

 

Effects of Securities Regulation

 

As a publicly-traded trust listed on the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”), the Trust is and will continue to be subject to extensive regulation under, among others, the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which contains many of the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), and the rules and regulations of the NYSE. Issuers failing to comply with such authorities risk serious consequences, including criminal as well as civil and administrative penalties. In most instances, these laws, rules, and regulations do not specifically address their applicability to publicly-traded trusts, such as the Trust. In particular, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 provides for the adoption by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) and NYSE of certain rules and regulations that may be impossible for the Trust to literally satisfy because of its nature as a pass-through trust. It is the Trustee’s intention to follow the Commission’s and NYSE’s rulemaking closely, attempt to comply with such rules and regulations and, where appropriate, request relief from these rules and regulations. However, if the Trust is unable to comply with such rules and regulations or to obtain appropriate relief, the Trust may be required to expend presently unknown but potentially material costs to amend the Indenture that governs the Trust to allow for compliance with such rules and regulations. To date, the rules implementing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 have generally made appropriate accommodation for passive entities such as the Trust.

Critical Accounting Policies

 

In accordance with the Commission’s rules and regulations and consistent with other royalty trusts, the financial statements of the Trust are prepared on the following basis:

 

 

The financial statements of the Trust differ from financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP because revenues are not accrued in the month of production; certain cash reserves may be established for contingencies which would not be accrued in financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP; expenses are recorded when paid instead of when incurred; and amortization of the Royalty calculated on a unit-of-production basis is charged directly to the Trust corpus instead of as an expense.

 

 

The Trust invests in no derivative financial instruments, and has no foreign operations or long-term debt instruments. The Trust is a passive entity and is prohibited from engaging in a trade or business, including borrowing transactions, other than as periodically necessary to pay expenses, liabilities and obligations of the Trust that cannot be paid out of cash held by the Trust. The amount of any such borrowings is unlikely to be material to the Trust. The Trust is also permitted to hold short-term investments acquired with funds held by the Trust pending distribution to Unit Holders and funds held in reserve for the payment of Trust expenses and liabilities. Because of the short-term nature of these borrowings and investments and certain limitations upon the types of such investments which may be held by the Trust, the Trustee believes that the Trust is not subject to any material interest rate risk. The Trust is not permitted to engage in transactions in foreign currencies which could expose the Trust or Unit Holders to any foreign currency related market risk. The Trust is not permitted to market the gas, oil or natural gas liquids from the Underlying Properties; BROG is responsible for such marketing.

 

 

The Trust maintains a system of disclosure controls and procedures that is designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the Trust’s filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the Commission’s rules and forms. Due to the pass-through nature of the Trust, BROG provides much of the information disclosed in this Form 10-Q and the other periodic reports filed by the Trust with the Commission. Consequently, the Trust’s ability to timely disclose relevant information in its periodic reports is dependent upon BROG’s delivery of such information. Accordingly, the Trust maintains disclosure controls and procedures designed to ensure that BROG accurately and timely accumulates and delivers such relevant information to the Trustee and those who participate in the preparation of the Trust’s periodic reports to allow for the preparation of such periodic reports and any decisions regarding disclosure.

 

The Indenture does not require BROG to update or provide information to the Trust. However, the Conveyance transferring the Royalty to the Trust obligates BROG to provide the Trust with certain information, including information concerning calculations of net proceeds owed to the Trust. Pursuant to the settlement of litigation in 1996 between the

Trust and BROG, BROG agreed to newer, more formal financial reporting and audit procedures as compared to those provided in the Conveyance.

 

In order to help ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information required to be disclosed in the Trust’s periodic reports, the Trust employs independent public accountants, compliance auditors, marketing consultants, attorneys and petroleum engineers. These outside professionals advise the Trustee in its review and compilation of this information for inclusion in this Form 10-Q and the other periodic reports provided by the Trust to the Commission.

 

The Trustee has evaluated the Trust’s disclosure controls and procedures as of March 31, 2010 and has concluded that such disclosure controls and procedures are effective, at the “reasonable assurance” level, to ensure that material information related to the Trust is gathered on a timely basis to be included in the Trust’s periodic reports. In reaching its conclusion, the Trustee has considered the Trust’s dependence on BROG to deliver timely and accurate information to the Trust. Additionally, during the quarter ended March 31, 2010 there were no changes in the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. The Trustee has reviewed neither the Trust’s disclosure controls and procedures nor the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting in concert with management, a board of directors or an independent audit committee. The Trust does not have, nor does the Indenture provide for, officers, a board of directors or an independent audit committee.

 

PART II

 

OTHER INFORMATION

 

 

As discussed above under Part I, Item 4 — Controls and Procedures, due to the pass-through nature of the Trust, BROG provides much of the information disclosed in this Form 10-Q and the other periodic reports filed by the Trust with the Commission. Although the Trustee receives periodic updates from BROG regarding activities which may relate to the Trust, the Trust’s ability to timely report certain information required to be disclosed in the Trust’s periodic reports is dependent on BROG’s timely delivery of the information to the Trust.

 

On March 14, 2008, BROG notified the Trust that the distribution for March would be reduced by $4,921,578. BROG described this amount as the Trust’s portion of what BROG had paid to settle claims for the underpayment of royalties in the case styled United States of America ex rel. Harrold E. (“Gene”) Wright v. AGIP Petroleum Co. et al., Civil Action No. 5:03CV264 (formerly 9:98-CV-30) (E.D. Tex.). The Trust’s consultants continue to analyze this settlement as it may apply to the Trust.

 

On April 29, 2010, the Trust entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims intended to dispose of its claims against BROG relating to the Arbitration Award in its favor issued in November 2005. In litigation styled San Juan Basin Royalty Trust vs. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, L.P., No. D1329-CV-08-751, in the District Court of Sandoval County, New Mexico, 13th Judicial District, the Trust alleged breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and sought a judgment for damages in the amount of $5,025,000, plus interest and punitive damages. The purpose of the arbitration was to resolve certain compliance audit issues. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the Trust on all five of the issues submitted to arbitration. BROG filed suit in Harris County, Texas alleging that the award should be modified or vacated and seeking to recover its attorneys’ fees. The trial court denied BROG’s motion to vacate, granted the Trust’s application to confirm and rendered a final judgment in favor of the Trust. BROG paid the award as it related to four of the five issues and appealed the award as to the fifth. In August 2007, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and vacated the award as it related to the unpaid balance.

 

With respect to that fifth issue, which was the subject of the appeal, the Trust had asked for damages based on either of two alternative claims. The appellate court ruled that the alternative claim selected by the arbitrator in awarding the Trust approximately $5,000,000 was not technically included within the scope of what the parties intended to submit to arbitration. The appellate court did not rule on whether or not the arbitrator properly decided the fifth issue in favor of the Trust. The litigation filed in New Mexico sought recovery on the claim which had been resolved in favor of the Trust by the arbitrator.

The appellate court also remanded the case to the District Court, where BROG pursued its claim for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of approximately $500,000. Following a trial on the merits of BROG’s claims conducted on June 3, 2009, the District Court ruled in favor of the Trust and ordered that BROG should take nothing in its claims against the Trust. BROG filed a Notice of Appeal as regards that ruling.

 

Following mediation conducted on April 8 and 23, 2010, BROG and the Trust entered into a settlement whereby BROG is to pay the Trust $2,600,000 and release its claims for attorneys’ fees. Both the Trust’s suit pending in New Mexico and BROG’s Texas litigation are to be dismissed. The settlement payment due from BROG is expected in May 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

SIGNATURES

 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

 

COMPASS BANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE

SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST

 

Lee Ann Anderson

Vice President and Senior Trust Officer

 

Date: May 10, 2010

 

(The Trust has no directors or executive officers.)

 

INDEX TO EXHIBITS