12. Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Commitments

As of March 31, 2018, the Company had firm commitments to purchase inventories of approximately $26.2 million through Fiscal 2020. Certain inventory delivery dates and related payments are not scheduled; therefore amounts under these firm purchase commitments will be payable upon the receipt of the related inventories.

Lease Commitments

The Company leases offices and manufacturing facilities under various non‑cancelable operating leases expiring at various times through the fiscal year ending July 2, 2025. 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 consolidated balance sheets. The balance of deferred rent was approximately $0.4 million and $0.2 million as of March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. Rent expense was approximately $2.2 million and $2.3 million for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

On July 31, 2014, the Company and Northpark Industrial (“Northpark”) entered into a Third Amendment to Lease (the “Third Amendment”) to amend the Standard Industrial/Commercial Single-Tenant Lease - Net, dated December 1, 1999, as amended (the “Lease”), pursuant to which the Company leases the premises located at 21211 Nordhoff Street, Chatsworth, California. During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, the Company is in the process of consolidating its operations and offices into its leased premises located in Van Nuys, California. The Third Amendment extended the term of the Lease for a period of two months commencing on August 1, 2014 and ending on September 30, 2014 and set the monthly base rent payable by the Company under the Lease at $81,001 per month.

On September 30, 2014, the Company and Northpark entered into a Fourth Amendment to Lease (the “Fourth Amendment”) to amend the Lease by extending the term of the Lease for a period of five years commencing on October 1, 2014 and ending on September 30, 2019. The Fourth Amendment also adjusts the monthly base rent payable by the Company under the Lease to the following: $39,500 per month from October 1, 2014 through November 30, 2014; $79,000 per month from December 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015; $81,225 per month from October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016; $83,600 per month from October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017; $86,000 per month from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018; and $88,500 per month from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019.  The Fourth Amendment also provides the Company with an option to extend the Lease by an additional five-year term following the expiration of the term of the Lease as amended by the Fourth Amendment and provides that Northpark will perform certain capital improvements to the leased premises’ HVAC system.

On March 28, 2013, the Company and Prologis, L.P., formerly known as AMB Property, L.P., entered into a third amendment (the “Van Nuys Third Amendment”) to the Lease Agreement dated September 25, 2000, for leased premises located at 16640 Stagg Street, Van Nuys, California for use as primary office space, engineering testing and manufacturing. The Van Nuys Third Amendment extends the term of the Lease Agreement from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2017. The Van Nuys Third Amendment also adjusts the monthly base rent payable by the Company under the Lease Agreement to the following: $60,000 per month from January 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015 and $65,000 per month from July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017.

On June 7, 2017 the Company and Prologis, L.P entered into a Fourth Amendment to Lease (the “Van Nuys Fourth Amendment”) to amend the Lease by extending the term of the Lease for a period of sixty-two (62) months commencing on December 31, 2017 to February 28, 2023. The Van Nuys Fourth Amendment also adjusts the monthly base rent payable by the Company under the Lease Agreement to the following: $0 per month from January 1, 2018 through February 28, 2018; $66,846 per month from March 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018; $68,852 per month from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; $70,917 per month from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020; $73,045 per month from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021; $75,236 per month from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022; and $77,493 per month from January 1, 2023 through February 28, 2023. The Van Nuys Fourth Amendment also provides the Company with an option to extend the Lease by an additional five year term following the expiration of the term of the Lease as amended by the Lease Amendment and provides that Prologis, L.P. will contribute a tenant improvement allowance toward the Company’s approved alterations to the premises.

At March 31, 2018, the Company’s minimum commitments under non-cancelable operating leases were as follows (in thousands):

 

Other Commitments

The Company has agreements with certain of its distributors requiring that if the Company renders parts obsolete in inventories the distributors own and hold in support of their obligations to serve fielded microturbines, then the Company is required to replace the affected stock at no cost 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 March 31, 2018, no significant inventories were held at distributors.

Legal Matters

Federal Securities Class Action

Two putative securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under the following captions:  David Kinney, etc. v. Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-08914 on November 16, 2015 (the “Kinney Complaint”) and Kevin M. Grooms, etc. v. Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-09155 on December 18, 2015 (the “Grooms Complaint”).

The putative class in the Kinney Complaint is comprised of all purchasers of the Company’s securities between November 7, 2013 and November 5, 2015.  The Kinney Complaint alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding BPC and the likelihood that BPC would not be able to fulfill many legal and financial obligations to the Company.  The Kinney Complaint also alleges that the Company’s financial statements were not appropriately adjusted in light of this situation and were not maintained in accordance with GAAP, and that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over accounting.  The Kinney Complaint alleges that these public statements and accounting irregularities constituted violations by all named defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendants.  The Grooms Complaint makes allegations and claims that are substantially identical to those in the Kinney Complaint, and both complaints seek compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount.  On January 16, 2016, several shareholders filed motions to consolidate the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment as lead plaintiff.  On February 29, 2016, the Court granted the motions to consolidate, and appointed a lead plaintiff.  On May 6, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Complaint with allegations and claims substantially identical to those of the Kinney Complaint was filed in the consolidated action.  The putative class period in the Consolidated Amended Complaint is June 12, 2014 to November 5, 2015.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 17, 2016. On March 10, 2017, the Court issued an order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 28, 2017. On February 9, 2018, the Court issued an Order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On March 30, 2018, Defendants filed an answer to the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On May 17, 2018, the Court issued a scheduling order setting a trial date of March 17, 2020. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. The Company has not recorded any liability as of March 31, 2018 since any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable given the current status of the proceedings.

Federal Individual Securities Action

An individual securities complaint was filed against us, our Chief Executive Officer, and additional unidentified defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under the following caption:  FiveT Investment Management LTD, et al., v. Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:18-CV-03512 on April 25, 2018.  The lawsuit alleges material misrepresentations and omissions regarding our revenue, sales, and operations because of alleged improper revenue recognition and backlog calculations related to BPC.  The lawsuit alleges that these statements constituted violations by all named defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendants.  The complaint also asserts claims against all named defendants for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of California Civil Code sections 1709 and 1710, and California Corporations Code sections 25400 and 25401.  Additionally, the complaint asserts a cause of action against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty.  It demands compensatory damages for the amount of damages allegedly suffered, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and fees. Defendants’ response to the complaint is currently due June 29, 2018. The Company has not recorded any liability as of March 31, 2018 since any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable given the current status of the proceedings.   

State Derivative Lawsuits — California

On February 18, 2016, a purported shareholder derivative action was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in the State of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors under the following caption:  Stesiak v. Jamison, et al., No. BC610782.  The lawsuit alleges that certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors knew or should have known that BPC would be unable to fulfill its obligations to the Company, but allowed the Company to make false and misleading statements regarding BPC and the Company’s financial condition.  The complaint also alleges that the defendants failed to timely adjust the Company’s account receivables and backlog to reflect BPC’s inability to pay the Company.  The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.  It demands damages for the amount of damage sustained by the Company as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment, that the Company institute corporate governance reforms, and disgorgement from the individual defendants.  On May 5, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to stay this action until such time as the defendants’ motion(s) to dismiss the federal securities class action are either granted with prejudice or denied in whole or in part.  On May 10, 2016, the Court entered that proposed order. On March 9, 2018, following the Court’s order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss in the federal securities class action, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to stay this action until the close of fact discovery in the federal securities class action. On March 20, 2018, the Court entered that proposed order. A status conference is scheduled for June 18, 2018.

On June 8, 2016, a purported shareholder derivative action entitled Velma Kilpatrick v. Simon, et al., No. BC623167, was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in the State of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors.  The complaint alleges that certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors knew or should have known that BPC would be unable to fulfill its obligations to the Company, but allowed the Company to make false and misleading statements regarding BPC and the Company’s financial condition.  The complaint also alleges that the defendants failed to timely adjust the Company’s account receivables and backlog to reflect BPC’s inability to pay the Company.  The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty.  It demands damages for the amount of damage sustained by the Company as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duties, and that the Company institute corporate governance reforms. On August 23, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to stay this action until such time as the defendants’ motion(s) to dismiss the federal securities class action are either granted with prejudice or denied in whole or in part. On March 9, 2018, following the Court’s order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss in the federal securities class action, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to stay this action until the close of fact discovery in the federal securities class action. A status conference is scheduled for June 18, 2018.

Federal Derivative Lawsuits

On March 7, 2016, a purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors under the following caption:  Haber v. Jamison, et al., No. CV16-01569-DMG (RAOx).  The lawsuit alleges that certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors knew or should have known that BPC would be unable to fulfill its obligations to the Company, but allowed the Company to make false and misleading statements regarding BPC and the Company’s financial condition.  The complaint asserts a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.  It demands damages for the amount of damage sustained by the Company as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duties, and equitable relief, including that the Company institute appropriate corporate governance reforms.  On May 11, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to stay this action until such time as the defendants’ motion(s) to dismiss the federal securities class action are either granted with prejudice or denied in whole or in part. On May 13, 2016, the Court entered that proposed order.  

On July 12, 2016 and July 18, 2016, respectively, two additional purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, under the caption Tuttle v. Atkinson, et al., No. CV16-05127, and Boll v. Jamison, et al., No. CV16-5282, respectively.  The lawsuits allege that certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors knew or should have known that BPC would be unable to fulfill its obligations to the Company, but allowed the Company to make false and misleading statements regarding BPC and the Company’s financial condition.  The Tuttle complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment, and the Boll complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets.  Both complaints demand damages sustained by the Company as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, and equitable relief, including that the Company institute appropriate corporate governance reforms. The federal derivative actions were stayed until such time as the defendants’ motion(s) to dismiss the federal securities class action are either granted with prejudice or denied in whole or in part. On March 9, 2018, following the Court’s order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss in the federal securities class action, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to stay this action until the close of fact discovery in the federal securities class action. On March 13, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation.

 

Shareholder Demand

 

By letter dated July 7, 2017 (the “Shareholder Demand”), Andre Rosowsky demanded that the Board of Directors take action to remedy purported breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly related to the claims asserted in the above-discussed securities class action and derivative actions. On July 25, 2017, the Company acknowledged receipt of the Shareholder Demand and requested information from Mr. Rosowsky sufficient to show that he had standing to make the demand. The Board of Directors formed a committee to evaluate the Shareholder Demand in anticipation of receiving the requested information from Mr. Rosowsky. Mr. Rosowsky has failed to respond to the request for information and therefore the Company believes that Mr. Rosowsky abandoned the Shareholder Demand.