Commitments and Contingencies Legal . The Partnership is involved in various claims, lawsuits and audits by taxing authorities incidental to its business. These claims and lawsuits in the aggregate are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Partnership s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Four putative class action lawsuits challenging the merger have been filed, two in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: (i) David Naiditch v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al. (Case No. 9015-VCL); and (ii) Robert P. Frutkin v. Edward B. Cloues II, et al. (Case No. 9020-VCL), and two in the Court of Common Pleas for Delaware County, Pennsylvania: (i) Charles Monatt v. PVR Partners, LP, et al. (Case No. 2013-10606); and [(ii) Steven Keene v. James L. Gardner, et al. (Case No. 2013-010723)]. All of the cases name PVR, PVR GP and the current directors of PVR GP, as well as the Partnership, the General Partner and RVP LLC, a subsidiary of the Partnership (collectively, the "Regency Defendants"), as defendants. Each of the lawsuits has been brought by a purported unitholder of PVR, both individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of public unitholders of PVR. The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the directors of PVR GP breached their fiduciary duties to unitholders of PVR by agreeing to a transaction with inadequate consideration and unfair terms and pursuant to an inadequate process. The lawsuits allege further that PVR GP and the Regency Defendants aided and abetted the directors of PVR GP in the alleged breach of their fiduciary duties. The Naiditch and Monatt lawsuits allege further that PVR also aided and abetted the directors of PVR GP in the alleged breach of their fiduciary duties. The lawsuits seek, in general, (i) injunctive relief enjoining the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, (ii) in the event the merger is consummated, rescission or an award of rescissory damages, (iii) an award of plaintiffs  costs, including reasonable