Litigation	12 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2012
Litigation
Litigation	Note 8 – Litigation Except as set forth below, we are not a party to any material pending legal or governmental proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business. While the ultimate outcome and impact of any proceeding cannot be predicted with certainty, our management believes that the resolution of any proceeding will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. Ballard Litigation On June 7, 2012, James Ballard, Iva Ballard, John Dein, M.D., Ginger “Gigi” Toupal, William “Bruce” Pitts, Steven R. Henson, M.D., David K. Henson and Colin Richardson filed a lawsuit in the 134th district court in Dallas County, Texas. The defendants in the lawsuit are Sun River Energy, Inc., Donal R. Schmidt, Jr., Robert B. Fields, Stephen W. Weathers, Thimothy S. Wafford, Daniel M. Cofall, Judson “Rick” Hoover, Mark Hall, Penny Schmidt, Sierra Foxtrot, LP, and Sierra Foxtrot GenPar, LLC. The Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, statutory fraud, violations of the Texas Securities Act, breach of contract, civil conspiracy, defamation, and fraudulent transfer. The Plaintiffs purport to bring a shareholder derivative action on behalf of the Company seeking damages for the Company against each of the directors and several officers. At the same time, the Plaintiffs seek to recover damages against the Company for the individual plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs failed to make demand upon the Company’s board of directors prior to filing the derivative action, and failed to comply with other legal requirements (such as making demand upon the Company’s shareholders) prior to initiating such action. The Company denies the allegations, does not believe the lawsuit is meritorious and has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The Company is also seeking to recover its attorneys’ fees from the plaintiffs, as allowed by law. BPC Litigation On June 28, 2012, BPC Corp. (“BPC”) filed a lawsuit in the County Court at Law No. 3 in Dallas, Texas against the Company and Sun River Energy I, LLC and Donal R. Schmidt, Jr. alleging that the defendants breached the terms of a written lease agreement and seeking to recover damages against the Company and the other defendants in connection with the same. BPC also alleges that the defendants committed various torts in connection with the alleged breach of the lease agreement. The defendants have filed a general denial of the allegations. Nova Leasing Litigation On March 18, 2011, Nova Leasing, LLC (“Nova”) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and Securities Transfer Corporation (“STC”) in connection with a dispute involving a series of transactions between Nova and the Company, wherein Nova received 1,200,000 shares of the Company’s stock. The stock was issued to Nova in connection with some oil and gas leases Nova assigned to the Company. In 2006, the Company issued the stock and a promissory note for approximately $6,000,000 to Nova. The Company paid approximately $1,000,000 to Nova, but couldn’t pay the remainder of the note, so the Company agreed to return all of the oil and gas leases to Nova. The Company entered into a release with Nova pursuant to advice from the Company’s previous general counsel. The Company believes that Nova agreed to return the stock to the Company, but it was never returned. In 2011, the Company discovered that its previous general counsel (who advised the Company in connection with the Nova transaction) was also a member of Nova Leasing, but this was not disclosed to the Company at the time of the transactions. The Company added the previous general counsel as a party to the lawsuit. In the lawsuit, the Company seeks the return of the 1,200,000 shares of stock, damages and attorneys’ fees from Nova based upon claims of rescission, unjust enrichment, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. In the lawsuit, Nova seeks damages, and attorneys’ fees from the Company. Coral Capital Partners, Erik Nelson, and Steve Stephens Litigation On January 1, 2011, the Company filed a lawsuit against Coral Capital Partners, Erik Nelson and Steve Stephens in Denver, Colorado. This lawsuit involves Sun River’s refusal to remove a restrictive legend from approximately 125,000 shares of restricted stock issued to the defendants in connection with consulting services they were to perform for the Company. Sun River refused to lift the legend because the defendants failed to perform the services they agreed to provide the Company and based upon insider trading by Nelson. Sun River filed the suit to seek a declaratory judgment from the court regarding its obligations to remove the restrictive legend. This lawsuit was settled on terms whereby Nelson agreed to return to the Company all shares still in his possession (approximately 25,000 shares) and Stephens agreed to return to the Company all shares in his possession, except for 40,000 shares which the Company allowed him to retain. After the defendants agreed in writing to these terms, they reneged on the settlement. Recently, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment in an attempt to resolve the case without having to proceed to trial. Cicerone Litigation On February 10, 2012, the Company filed a claim against Cicerone Corporate Development, LLC and J.H. Brech, LLC, former consultants for the Company, the C.E. McMillan Trust and Harry McMillan, (the “Defendants”) for violations of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), for profits realized by the Defendants from transactions involving the Company’s stock. The claim was filed as an adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. The Company is seeking to recover short-swing profits estimated to be equal to at least $4 million from the Defendants in connection with a number of transactions involving the Company’s stock. The Company is being represented in the litigation on a contingency basis to recover any short-swing profits from the Defendants. Under the contingent fee arrangement, the Company will not incur any out of pocket expenses or fees in connection with this matter.

Litigation

12 Months Ended

Apr. 30, 2012

Note 8 – Litigation

Except as set forth below, we are not a party to any material pending legal or governmental proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business. While the ultimate outcome and impact of any proceeding cannot be predicted with certainty, our management believes that the resolution of any proceeding will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Ballard Litigation

On June 7, 2012, James Ballard, Iva Ballard, John Dein, M.D., Ginger “Gigi” Toupal, William “Bruce” Pitts, Steven R. Henson, M.D., David K. Henson and Colin Richardson filed a lawsuit in the 134th district court in Dallas County, Texas. The defendants in the lawsuit are Sun River Energy, Inc., Donal R. Schmidt, Jr., Robert B. Fields, Stephen W. Weathers, Thimothy S. Wafford, Daniel M. Cofall, Judson “Rick” Hoover, Mark Hall, Penny Schmidt, Sierra Foxtrot, LP, and Sierra Foxtrot GenPar, LLC. The Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, statutory fraud, violations of the Texas Securities Act, breach of contract, civil conspiracy, defamation, and fraudulent transfer. The Plaintiffs purport to bring a shareholder derivative action on behalf of the Company seeking damages for the Company against each of the directors and several officers. At the same time, the Plaintiffs seek to recover damages against the Company for the individual plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs failed to make demand upon the Company’s board of directors prior to filing the derivative action, and failed to comply with other legal requirements (such as making demand upon the Company’s shareholders) prior to initiating such action. The Company denies the allegations, does not believe the lawsuit is meritorious and has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The Company is also seeking to recover its attorneys’ fees from the plaintiffs, as allowed by law.

BPC Litigation

On June 28, 2012, BPC Corp. (“BPC”) filed a lawsuit in the County Court at Law No. 3 in Dallas, Texas against the Company and Sun River Energy I, LLC and Donal R. Schmidt, Jr. alleging that the defendants breached the terms of a written lease agreement and seeking to recover damages against the Company and the other defendants in connection with the same. BPC also alleges that the defendants committed various torts in connection with the alleged breach of the lease agreement. The defendants have filed a general denial of the allegations.

Nova Leasing Litigation

On March 18, 2011, Nova Leasing, LLC (“Nova”) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and Securities Transfer Corporation (“STC”) in connection with a dispute involving a series of transactions between Nova and the Company, wherein Nova received 1,200,000 shares of the Company’s stock. The stock was issued to Nova in connection with some oil and gas leases Nova assigned to the Company. In 2006, the Company issued the stock and a promissory note for approximately $6,000,000 to Nova. The Company paid approximately $1,000,000 to Nova, but couldn’t pay the remainder of the note, so the Company agreed to return all of the oil and gas leases to Nova. The

Company entered into a release with Nova pursuant to advice from the Company’s previous general counsel. The Company believes that Nova agreed to return the stock to the Company, but it was never returned. In 2011, the Company discovered that its previous general counsel (who advised the Company in connection with the Nova transaction) was also a member of Nova Leasing, but this was not disclosed to the Company at the time of the transactions. The Company added the previous general counsel as a party to the lawsuit. In the lawsuit, the Company seeks the return of the 1,200,000 shares of stock, damages and attorneys’ fees from Nova based upon claims of rescission, unjust enrichment, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. In the lawsuit, Nova seeks damages, and attorneys’ fees from the Company.

Coral Capital Partners, Erik Nelson, and Steve Stephens Litigation

On January 1, 2011, the Company filed a lawsuit against Coral Capital Partners, Erik Nelson and Steve Stephens in Denver, Colorado. This lawsuit involves Sun River’s refusal to remove a restrictive legend from approximately 125,000 shares of restricted stock issued to the defendants in connection with consulting services they were to perform for the Company. Sun River refused to lift the legend because the defendants failed to perform the services they agreed to provide the Company and based upon insider trading by Nelson. Sun River filed the suit to seek a declaratory judgment from the court regarding its obligations to remove the restrictive legend. This lawsuit was settled on terms whereby Nelson agreed to return to the Company all shares still in his possession (approximately 25,000 shares) and Stephens agreed to return to the Company all shares in his possession, except for 40,000 shares which the Company allowed him to retain. After the defendants agreed in writing to these terms, they reneged on the settlement. Recently, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment in an attempt to resolve the case without having to proceed to trial.

Cicerone Litigation

On February 10, 2012, the Company filed a claim against Cicerone Corporate Development, LLC and J.H. Brech, LLC, former consultants for the Company, the C.E. McMillan Trust and Harry McMillan, (the “Defendants”) for violations of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), for profits realized by the Defendants from transactions involving the Company’s stock. The claim was filed as an adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. The Company is seeking to recover short-swing profits estimated to be equal to at least $4 million from the Defendants in connection with a number of transactions involving the Company’s stock. The Company is being represented in the litigation on a contingency basis to recover any short-swing profits from the Defendants. Under the contingent fee arrangement, the Company will not incur any out of pocket expenses or fees in connection with this matter.

SUN RIVER ENERGY, INC 10-K/A