Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved in certain legal actions, described below. The outcomes of these legal actions are not within the Company’s complete control and may not be known for prolonged periods of time. In some actions, the claimants seek monetary damages and other penalties that could require significant expenditures. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company records a liability in the Consolidated Financial Statements for loss contingencies when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a known or probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. If a loss is reasonably possible but not known or probable, and can be reasonably estimated, the estimated loss or range of loss is disclosed. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. Estimates of probable losses resulting from litigation and governmental proceedings involving the Company are inherently difficult to predict, particularly when the matters are in early procedural stages, with incomplete facts or legal discovery; involve unsubstantiated or indeterminate claims for damages; potentially involve penalties or fines. ADES cannot predict, with any certainty, the final outcome of any legal proceedings as described in the paragraphs below, nor can it provide any assurance that the ultimate resolution of any such matter will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Securities class action lawsuit: United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv-01243-CMA-KMT (U.S. District Court, D. Colo.)

A class action lawsuit against ADES and certain of its current and former officers is pending in the federal court in Denver, Colorado. This lawsuit and a companion case were originally filed in May 2014. On February 19, 2015, the Court consolidated these cases and appointed the United Foods and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved its selection of the law firms. The consolidated case is now captioned United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv-01243-CMA-KMT (U.S. District Court, D. Colo.).

The lead plaintiff filed “Lead Plaintiff’s Consolidated Class Action Complaint” on April 20, 2015 (the “Consolidated Complaint”). The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain current and former Company officers.

Plaintiffs allege that ADES and other defendants misrepresented to the investing public the Company’s financial condition and its financial controls to artificially inflate and maintain the market price of ADES’s common stock. The Consolidated Complaint alleges two claims for relief for: 1) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and 2) control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages together with costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting the class action, among other relief. The Consolidated Complaint alleges a class period covering all purchasers or acquirers of the common stock of ADES or its predecessor-in-interest during the proposed class period from May 12, 2011 through January 29, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on June 19, 2015, contending the Consolidated Complaint: 1) fails to meet the strict pleading standards required for Section 10(b) claims; and 2) fails to establish the primary violation required for any claim of secondary (control person) liability. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to this motion on July 2, 2015 and Defendants filed their reply brief on July 16, 2015. On March 7, 2016 the parties filed a stipulated motion to stay the case while the parties mediate the matter. On March 8, 2016, the motion to stay was granted, and the Defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice with the option to refile should mediation fail. The case is stayed until further order of the court.

The Company has not recorded an expense related to losses in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

Stockholder derivative lawsuits: In Re Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. 2014CV-30709 (District Court, Douglas County, Colorado) (consolidated actions).

Consolidated stockholder derivative claims against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors, along with the Company as a "nominal defendant", are pending in the District Court for Douglas County, Colorado, and are currently stayed.

In June and July 2014 stockholder derivative actions were filed in the Colorado District Courts for Douglas County and for the City and County of Denver. By agreement of the parties, the case in the Denver District Court was transferred to the Douglas County District Court and the cases were consolidated.

In separate complaints, the plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment against the defendants for their alleged use of improper accounting techniques and for failing to maintain effective internal controls that, together, resulted in materially inaccurate financial statements from which incentive compensation was derived and paid. Plaintiffs demand, on behalf of the Company, unspecified monetary damages, “appropriate equitable relief,” and the costs and disbursements of the action, including attorneys', accountants and expert fees, costs, expenses, and restitution, as well as certain corporate governance charges.

On August 28, 2014, the Colorado state court approved a Stipulation and proposed Order Consolidating Actions, Appointing Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel, and Staying Consolidated Action. Under that Order the consolidated derivative actions are stayed at least 30 days after a decision by the U.S. District Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the operative complaint in the securities class action described above. Any party has the right to move to lift the stay on 30-days’ written notice to the other parties.

SEC Inquiry

On April 7, 2014, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement informed the Company that it had initiated an inquiry to determine if violations of the federal securities laws have occurred (the “SEC Inquiry”), and in September 2014 the SEC issued a formal order of investigation. The SEC Inquiry generally pertains to the restatement of the Company's financial statements and internal controls processes, as described in Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company is fully cooperating with the SEC and has provided information and documents to the SEC on an ongoing basis. To date, the SEC has not asserted any formal claims. While we cannot predict the duration or outcome of the SEC Inquiry, it could result in the payment of monetary penalties and other relief.

Settlement and royalty indemnity

In August 2008, Norit International N.V. f/k/a Norit N.V. ("Norit") filed a lawsuit against the Company asserting claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims related to the Company's ADA Carbon Solutions, LLC joint venture ("Carbon Solutions"). In August 2011, the Company and Norit entered into a settlement agreement whereby the Company paid amounts related to the non-solicitation breach of contract claim and ADA was also required to pay additional damages related to certain future revenues generated from the equity method investment through Q2 2018 (the “Royalty Award”). Payments of amounts due under the Royalty Award for each quarter are payable three months after such quarter ends through the second quarter of 2018. In October 2011, an arbitration panel endorsed and confirmed the terms of the settlement agreement.

Additionally, during November 2011, the Company entered into an Indemnity Settlement Agreement whereby the Company agreed to settle certain indemnity obligations asserted against the Company related to the Norit litigation and relinquished all of its equity interest in Carbon Solutions to Carbon Solutions and amended the Intellectual Property License Agreement dated October 1, 2008 between the Company and Carbon Solutions. In the event that the Company declares or otherwise issues a dividend to any or all of its stockholders prior to January 1, 2018, other than repurchases of common stock under employee stock plans, the Company must increase its letter of credit amounts, which support the payments which must be paid to Norit, equal to 50% of the aggregate fair market value of such dividends.

As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company has recorded the components of the Settlement and royalty indemnity obligation within the following line items in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets:



	As of
(in thousands)	September 30, 2015		December 31, 2014
Settlement and royalty indemnity obligation, short-term	$	5,275	$	3,749
Litigation settlement and royalty indemnity expense, net	16,218		20,273
Total settlement and royalty indemnity	$	21,493	$	24,022

Future amounts to be paid related to the Royalty Award may differ from current estimates due to future adjusted sales of activated carbon from the Red River plant.

CCS

The Company also has certain limited obligations contingent upon future events in connection with the activities of CCS. The Company, NexGen and two entities affiliated with NexGen have provided GSFS with limited guaranties (the “CCS Party Guaranties”) related to certain losses it may suffer as a result of inaccuracies or breach of representations and covenants. The Company also is a party to a contribution agreement with NexGen under which any party called upon to pay on a CCS Party Guaranty is entitled to receive contribution from the other party equal to 50% of the amount paid. No liability or expense provision has been recorded by the Company related to this contingent obligation as the Company believes that it is not probable that a loss will occur with respect to CCS Party Guaranties.

Consultant obligation

On January 1, 2012, the Company entered into a residual payment agreement with a former consultant who was involved in the development and deployment of RC technologies. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company was required to make annual payments based upon CCS RC production from January 1, 2012 through June 30, 2015. These expenses are recorded within the Legal and professional fees line item in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and are recorded as RC production occurs. The following tables summarize the expenses under this agreement for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively:



	Three Months Ended September 30,					Nine Months Ended September 30,
(in thousands)	2015			2014		2015		2014
Consultant expense	$	(16	)	$	226	$	263	$	783

Line of Credit

In September 2013, ADA, as borrower, and ADES, as guarantor, entered into a 2013 Loan and Security Agreement with a bank for an aggregate principal amount of $10 million that is secured by certain amounts due to the Company from certain CCS RC leases (the "Line of Credit"). As amended, the Line of Credit is available until May 31, 2016.

Covenants in the Line of Credit include a borrowing base limitation that is based on a percentage of the net present value of ADA’s portion of payments due to Clean Coal from the RC leases. The Line of Credit also contains other affirmative and negative covenants and customary indemnification obligations of ADA to the lender and provides for the issuance of Letters of Credit provided that the aggregate amount of the Letters of Credit plus all advances then outstanding does not exceed the calculated borrowing base. The Company guaranteed the obligations and agreements of ADA under the Line of Credit. Amounts outstanding under the line of credit bear interest payable monthly at a rate per annum equal to the higher of 5% or the “Prime Rate” (as defined in the agreement) plus 1%. There were no outstanding balances under this agreement at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. As a result of certain covenant violations, the Company has no borrowing availability under this facility.

The Line of Credit has been amended six times (December 2, 2013, April 3, 2014, September 20, 2014, December 15, 2014, May 29, 2015 and September 30, 2015), most notably to extend the maturity date. The lender has also provided seven waivers relating to various transactions and obligations to provide financial information to the lender.

Letters of Credit

The Company has letters of credit ("LOC") with two financial institutions related to equipment projects, the Royalty Award and certain other agreements. The following tables summarize the letters of credit outstanding, collateral, by type, and the related line items within the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets where the collateral related to the letters of credit is recorded:



	As of September 30, 2015
(in thousands)	LOC Outstanding		Restricted Cash		Restricted cash, long-term		Investment securities, restricted, long-term
Contract performance - equipment systems	$	5,556	$	727	$	4,830	$	—
Royalty Award	6,150		—		6,150		—
Other	328		—		—		336
Total LOC outstanding	$	12,034	$	727	$	10,980	$	336



	As of December 31, 2014
(in thousands)	LOC Outstanding		Restricted Cash		Restricted cash, long-term		Investment securities, restricted, long-term
Contract performance - equipment systems	$	7,247	$	2,527	$	4,721	$	—
Royalty Award	4,050		—		4,050		—
Other	328		—		—		336
Total LOC outstanding	$	11,625	$	2,527	$	8,771	$	336

Restricted balances may exceed the letters of credit outstanding due to interest income earned on the restricted balances.

Performance Guarantee on Equipment Systems

In the normal course of business related to ACI and DSI systems, the Company may guarantee certain performance thresholds during a discrete performance testing period that do not extend beyond six months from the initial test date, the commencement of which is determined by the customer. Performance thresholds include such matters as the achievement of a certain level of mercury removal and other emissions based upon the injection of a specified quantity of a qualified activated carbon or other chemical at a specified rate given other plant operating conditions, availability of equipment and electric power usage. In the event the equipment fails to perform as specified during the testing period, the Company may have an obligation to correct or replace the equipment. In the event the level of mercury removal is not achieved, the Company may have a “make right” obligation within the contract limits. Prior to the third quarter of 2015, the Company had never incurred a performance guarantee claim. If incurred, guarantees are included within the Equipment sales cost of revenue line of the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. However, during the three months ended September 30, 2015, the Company began working to modify and correct two performance guarantee issues related to EC systems. Resolution of these performance guarantees is not expected to result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s operating performance or liquidity in 2015 or beyond. However, no revenue has been recognized related to these contracts as a result of these claims.