14.  Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments

The Company leases offices and manufacturing facilities under various non-cancelable operating leases expiring at various times through the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015. All of the leases require the Company to pay maintenance, insurance and property taxes. The lease agreements for primary office and manufacturing facilities provide for rent escalation over the lease term and renewal options for five-year periods. Rent expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. The difference between rent expense recorded and the amount paid is credited or charged to deferred rent, which is included in other long-term liabilities in the accompanying balance sheets. The balance of deferred rent was approximately $0.2 million and $0.3 million as of June 30, 2012 and March 31, 2012, respectively. Rent expense was approximately $0.5 million during the first quarter of each of Fiscal 2013 and 2012.

Purchase Commitments

As of June 30, 2012, the Company had firm commitments to purchase inventories of approximately $36.4 million through the first quarter of Fiscal 2014. Certain inventory delivery dates and related payments are not firmly scheduled; therefore, amounts under these firm purchase commitments will be payable upon the receipt of the related inventories.

Other Commitments

On April 28, 2011, the Company purchased from CPS for $2.3 million the remaining TA100 microturbine inventory that was not consumed as part of the TA100 manufacturing process and obtained title to certain TA100 manufacturing equipment.

In September 2010, the Company was awarded a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) for the research, development and testing of a more efficient microturbine Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system. Part of the improved efficiency is expected to come from an improved microturbine design, with a projected electrical efficiency of 42% (compared to 33% for the C200) and power output of 370 kW. The project was estimated to last 24 months and cost approximately $17.4 million. During Fiscal 2012 this project was extended until September 2013. The DOE will contribute $5.0 million toward the project, and the Company will incur approximately $12.4 million in research and development expense. The Company billed the DOE under the contract for this project a cumulative amount of $1.0 million through June 30, 2012.

In November 2009, the Company was awarded a grant from the DOE for the research, development and testing of a more fuel flexible microturbine capable of operating on a wider variety of biofuels. The project is estimated to last 24 months and cost approximately $3.8 million. During Fiscal 2012 this project was extended until September 2013. The DOE will contribute $2.5 million under the program, and the Company will incur approximately $1.3 million in research and development expense. The Company billed the DOE under this contract a cumulative amount of $1.3 million through June 30, 2012.

The Company has agreements with some of its distributors requiring it to replace stocked parts if the Company renders parts obsolete in inventories the distributors own and hold in support of their obligations to serve fielded microturbines without charge to the distributors. While the Company has never incurred costs or obligations for these types of replacements, it is possible that future changes in the Company’s product technology could result and yield costs to the Company if significant amounts of inventory are held at distributors. As of June 30, 2012 and March 31, 2012, no significant inventories were held at distributors.

Legal Matters

On October 9, 2007, Vanessa Simmonds, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (the “Washington District Court”) against The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and Morgan Stanley, the lead underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering in June 1999, and the Company’s secondary offering of common stock in November 2000, alleging violations of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b). The complaint sought to recover from the lead underwriters any “short swing profits” obtained by them in violation of Section 16(b). The suit names the Company as a nominal defendant, contained no claims against the Company, and sought no relief from the Company. Simmonds filed an Amended Complaint on February 27, 2008 (the “Amended Complaint”), naming as defendants Goldman Sachs & Co. and Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. and again naming Morgan Stanley. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. were no longer named as defendants. The Amended Complaint asserted substantially similar claims as those set forth in the initial complaint. On July 25, 2008, the Company joined with 29 other issuers to file the Issuer Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss. On March 12, 2009, the Washington District Court granted the Issuer Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the complaint without prejudice on the grounds that Simmonds had failed to make an adequate demand on the Company prior to filing her complaint. In its order, the Washington District Court stated that it would not permit Simmonds to amend her demand letters while pursuing her claims in the litigation. Because the Washington District Court dismissed the case on the grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, it did not specifically reach the issue of whether Simmonds’ claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. However, the Washington District Court also granted the Underwriters’ Joint Motion to Dismiss with respect to cases involving non-moving issuers, holding that the cases were barred by the applicable statute of limitations because the issuers’ stockholders had notice of the potential claims more than five years prior to filing suit. Simmonds filed a Notice of Appeal on April 10, 2009. The underwriters subsequently filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal, arguing that the dismissal of the claims involving the moving issuers should have been with prejudice because the claims were untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. On December 2, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Ninth Circuit”) affirmed the Washington District Court’s decision to dismiss the moving issuers’ cases (including the Company’s) on the grounds that plaintiff’s demand letters were insufficient to put the issuers on notice of the claims asserted against them and further ordered that the dismissals be made with prejudice.  The Ninth Circuit, however, reversed and remanded the Washington District Court’s decision on the underwriters’ motion to dismiss as to the claims arising from the non-moving issuers’ initial public offerings, finding plaintiff’s claims were not time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations.  In remanding, the Ninth Circuit advised the non-moving issuers and underwriters to file in the Washington District Court the same challenges to plaintiff’s demand letters that moving issuers had filed. On December 16, 2010, the underwriters filed a petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc.  Appellant Vanessa Simmonds also filed a petition for rehearing en banc.  On January 18, 2011, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc.  It further ordered that no further petitions for rehearing may be filed.  On January 26, 2011, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the mandate in all cases (including the Company’s and other moving issuers) was stayed for ninety days pending Simmonds’ filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.  On April 5, 2011, Simmonds filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s December 2, 2010 decision relating to the adequacy of the pre-suit demand.  On April 15, 2011, underwriter defendants filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s December 2, 2010 decision relating to the statute of limitations issue. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court denied Simmonds’ petition regarding the demand issue and granted the underwriters’ petition relating to the statute of limitations issue.  Oral arguments on underwriters’ petition were heard on November 29, 2011.  On March 26, 2012, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s holding that petitioner’s claims were not time-barred and remanded the cases to the District Court for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. On June 7, 2012, the mandate of the Ninth Circuit was formally entered.  On June 11, 2012, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice as to the adequacy-of-the-pre-suit demand issue and without prejudice as to all other issues.

From time to time, the Company may become subject to additional legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Other than the matters discussed above, the Company is not a party to any other material legal proceedings, nor is the Company aware of any other pending or threatened litigation that would have a material effect on the Company’s business, operating results, cash flows, financial position or results of operations should such litigation be resolved unfavorably.