15.  Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Commitments

As of September 30, 2019, the Company had firm commitments to purchase inventories of approximately $28.6 million through Fiscal 2022. 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.

Lease Commitments

See Note 16—Leases.

 

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.

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 November 25, 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. On June 26, 2018, the Court entered an order vacating all deadlines through the end of October 2018 and temporarily staying formal discovery and other proceedings to allow the parties time to conduct a mediation. The parties participated in mediation on September 24, 2018, which did not result in a settlement. On November 16, 2018, after further settlement discussions, the parties advised the Court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the action in its entirety. The agreement in principle is subject to several conditions, including the execution of a stipulation of settlement that is satisfactory to all parties, and preliminary and final approval from the court, among other things. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on April 12, 2019, and filed supplementary declarations in support of the motion on May 2, 2019. Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted on May 17, 2019, with a final settlement approval hearing set for November 15, 2019. If the settlement is finalized and approved by the Court, the Company’s insurance carrier will fund the settlement amount. The Company has not recorded any liability as of September 30, 2019 since any potential loss is not considered material as its insurance carrier will fund the settlement amount.

Federal Individual Securities Action

An individual securities complaint was filed against the Company, its 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 the Company’s revenue, sales, and operations because of alleged improper revenue recognition and backlog calculations related to BPC. The lawsuit alleged 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 asserted 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 asserted a cause of action against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty. It demanded compensatory damages for the amount of damages allegedly suffered, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and fees.

On June 29, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for Common Law Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation.  The Amended Complaint asserted claims for common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation, against the Company, Mr. Jamison, and unidentified individual defendants. The Amended Complaint demanded damages in an unspecified amount, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and fees.  Defendants filed their answer to the Amended Complaint on August 17, 2018. The parties participated in a mediation on September 24, 2018.  The mediation did not result in a settlement.  On October 12, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint, seeking to reinstate the cause of action for violation of California Civil Code section 25401.  On November 29, 2018, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, which asserted claims for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of California Civil Code section 25401 against the Company, Mr. Jamison, and unidentified individual defendants. On December 20, 2018, defendants filed their answer to the Second Amended Complaint. On June 6, 2019, the parties reached a confidential settlement of the action and the suit was dismissed with prejudice on July 1, 2019. The Company has not recorded any liability as of September 30, 2019 as its insurance carrier will fund the settlement amount.   

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 previously scheduled for September 27, 2019 is now scheduled for December 17, 2019.

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. On March 20, 2018 the Court entered that proposed order. A status conference previously scheduled for September 27, 2019 is now scheduled for December 17, 2019.

The parties in both of the above state derivative lawsuits participated in a mediation held on September 24, 2018. On May 6, 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle regarding corporate governance reforms to be implemented in settlement of the action.  The parties have not yet formalized a settlement, however, which is subject to several conditions, including the execution of a stipulation of settlement that is satisfactory to all parties, negotiation regarding an award of attorney fees, and preliminary and final approval from the court, among other things.  Settlement discussions are ongoing. The Company has not recorded any liability as of September 30, 2019 as its insurance carrier will fund the settlement amount.   

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.

The parties in the above federal derivative lawsuits participated in a mediation held on September 24, 2018. On May 6, 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle regarding corporate governance reforms to be implemented in settlement of the action.  The parties have not yet formalized a settlement, however, which is subject to several conditions, including the execution of a stipulation of settlement that is satisfactory to all parties, negotiation regarding an award of attorney fees, and preliminary and final approval from the court, among other things.  Settlement discussions are ongoing. We have not recorded any liability as of September 30, 2019 as our insurance carrier will fund the settlement amount.

Capstone Turbine Corporation v. Regatta Solutions, Inc.

On August 23, 2018, the Company initiated arbitration proceedings against its former distributor, Regatta Solutions, Inc. (“Regatta”), with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), under the following caption: Capstone Turbine Corp. v. Regatta Solutions, Inc., Case No. 01-18-0003-0860 (the “Capstone-Regatta Arbitration”). The Company has alleged claims against Regatta for breach of contract and unjust enrichment relating to the parties’ prior distributor relationship, which terminated at the end of March of 2018, and the related wind-down agreement between the parties. As remedies for these claims, the Company is seeking compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages, along with declaratory relief and attorney’s fees, interest, and costs.

On October 18, 2018, Regatta filed its answer and cross-claims in the Capstone-Regatta Arbitration. In its cross-claims, Regatta has asserted claims for breach of contract, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, fraud, and intentional interference with contractual relations, relating to the parties’ agreement to wind-down relations and Regatta’s purported sales efforts in California. As remedies for these alleged claims, Regatta is seeking no less than $1.5 million in general and compensatory damages, along with punitive and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. The Company has filed and served an answering statement denying Regatta’s counterclaims and asserting several affirmative defenses.

Also on October 18, 2018, Regatta filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, alleging two counts of fraud, and one count of interference with contractual relations, individually against Mr. James Crouse, Executive Vice President of Sales for the Company, arising out of the same allegations made in Regatta’s counterclaim. As remedies for these alleged claims, Regatta again sought no less than $1.5 million in general and compensatory damages, along with punitive and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. The case was filed under the caption Regatta Solutions, Inc., v. Jim Crouse, et. al., Case No. 30-2018-01026571-CU-FR-CJC. On December 14, 2018, Regatta stipulated and agreed to arbitrate its claims against Mr. James Crouse and dismissed him from the Superior Court action.

On January 16, 2019, the parties participated in a mediation that did not resolve the dispute. The parties continued their settlement discussions and held a follow-on mediation on April 24, 2019 at which point the parties did come to a resolution of the matter. The parties are now currently involved in implementing the settlement. The settlement did not have a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

Capstone Turbine Corporation v. Energy Systems, Inc.

On August 17, 2018 Capstone initiated arbitration proceedings against its former distributor, Energy Systems of Caribbean, Inc. (“Energy Systems”) by seeking declaratory relief that its action in terminating the distributorship was justified under the law. The claim was filed with the AAA under the following caption: Capstone Turbine Corp. v. Energy Systems of Caribbean, Inc., Case No. 01-18-0003-1307. As remedies for these claims, we are seeking declaratory relief and attorney’s fees, interest and costs.

On August 22, 2018, Energy Systems filed a claim against us in Puerto Rico alleging Breach of Distribution Contract under Law No. 75 of June 24, 1964, as amended, 10 l.p.r.a. §§ 278-278. The case was filed under the caption Energy Systems of Caribbean, Inc., v. Capstone Turbine Corporation, CIVIL NO. SJ2018cv06543 (904). As remedies for these alleged claims, Energy Systems seeks actual damages, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and costs. This matter was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico based on diversity jurisdiction (Case No. 3:18-cv-01611). The parties have since stipulated to a stay of both the federal litigation and arbitration so that the parties may pursue settlement.

The parties entered into settlement discussions and on April 29, 2019 participated in mediation to resolve the dispute. The mediation was successful and the parties then jointly requested the dismissal of both the AAA matter and the matter before the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Based on the parties’ joint stipulation, on September 27, 2019 the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed the matter with prejudice. The resolution of this matter did not have a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements.