LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	3 Months Ended
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	Mar. 31, 2016
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	NOTE 12 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS From time-to-time, the Company may become subject to proceedings, lawsuits and other claims in the ordinary course of business including proceedings related to environmental and other matters. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties, and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. The Company is subject to various possible contingencies that arise primarily from interpretation of federal and state laws and regulations affecting the oil and natural gas industry. Such contingencies include differing interpretations as to the prices at which oil and natural gas sales may be made, the prices at which royalty owners may be paid for production from their leases, environmental issues and other matters. Although management believes that it has complied with the various laws and regulations, administrative rulings and interpretations thereof, adjustments could be required as new interpretations and regulations are issued. In addition, environmental matters are subject to regulation by various federal and state agencies. Lawsuit Relating to 17.23% of the Company's Common Stock Shares Approximately 17.23% of the Company common stock was interpleaded into Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Cause No. FST-CV12-6015112-S (“Interpleader Action”). These are the residual shares of common stock that belonged to the Partnerships, after the distribution of the partnerships shares. Claims related to the Interpleader Action were heard in an American Arbitration Association arbitration in 2015. The claims, counterclaims and cross claims relate to the governance, control and termination of the Partnerships, including the distribution by the Partnerships of the Company's shares of common stock to the limited partners in the Partnerships in a liquidating distribution in February 2014 as part of a “monetization” event, and other matters. On September 10, 2015, the American Arbitration Association issued an arbitration award in the Interpleader Action. Bexar County Proceedings On April 17, 2015,the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in Bexar County, Texas (the "Bexar County Proceedings") by William F. Pettinati, Jr., Nicholas Garofolo, Sigma Gas Barbastella Fund and Sigma Gas Antrozous Fund against Starboard (now Brushy), its directors, its Chief Operating Officer, Edward Shaw, its former Chief Financial Officer, Eric Alfuth, the Company's stockholder, Bradford Higgins, and Sean O’Sullivan, the managing director of the Company's stockholder, SOSventures (the “Plaintiffs”). Mr. Pettinati, Mr. Garofolo and the Sigma Gas Antrozous Fund are stockholders. Mr. Pettinati owns 145,112 shares, Mr. Garofolo owns 226,680 shares of common stock and Sigma Gas Antrozous Fund owns 44,610 shares of common stock. Combined these stockholders account for approximately 3.3% of the Company's outstanding common stock. These parties became stockholders in February 2014. The Plaintiffs allege several derivative and direct causes of action. These derivative claims include, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, concerted action and conspiracy, joint enterprise, agency, alter ego, exemplary damages, and unjust enrichment. The direct claims include, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, stockholder oppression, concerted action and conspiracy, declaratory judgment that the distribution of stock to the plaintiffs was invalid, joint enterprise, agency, alter ego, exemplary damages, concerted action and conspiracy and failure to allow for inspection of books and records. Many of the allegations relate to events that allegedly happened before the Plaintiffs became stockholders, including the distributions from the Partnerships that led to the Plaintiffs becoming stockholders in February 2014. Some similar claims involving these Plaintiffs (including the legality of the Partnerships’ liquidating distribution) were previously heard in the arbitration relating to the Partnerships referenced above. Plaintiffs were parties to that arbitration. For actions after February 2014, Plaintiffs complain that the Company's common stock still lacks a trading venue, that a books and records request was not honored, that the Company “delayed” a public offering, that SOSventures had allegedly taken steps to “foreclose” on the Company's assets under the SOSventures Credit Agreement and that the Company filed for an extension to the filing date for the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014. On October 6, 2015, Plaintiffs withdrew the claim about not honoring a books and records request. The Company's directors and officers are subject to indemnification under the Company's bylaws. Settlement of Interpleader Action and Bexar County Proceedings On February 17, 2016, the various parties to the Interpleader Action and the Bexar County Proceedings entered into a global settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) under which the parties to the proceedings issued mutual releases and the plaintiffs in all proceedings agreed to withdraw their claims. In return, the plaintiffs received a cash settlement, the majority of which was covered by the Company's insurance. $350,000 of the settlement payment will be due and payable by the Company on the first to occur of (a) consummation of the merger with Lilis and (b) July 31, 2016.

Brushy Resources, Inc. 10-Q