XML 61 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies | 13. Commitments and Contingencies Commitments Purchase Commitments The Company periodically enters into non-cancelable purchase contracts in order to ensure the availability of materials to support production of its products. Purchase commitments represent enforceable and legally binding agreements with suppliers to purchase goods or services. The Company periodically assesses the need to provide for impairment on these purchase contracts and record a loss on purchase commitments when required. As of June 30, 2014, the Company reported a liability for adverse purchase commitments of $0.4 million. During the three months ended June 30, 2014 there was no material change to the accrual for adverse purchase commitments. Legal Contingencies From time to time, the Company is involved in legal and administrative proceedings and claims of various types. The Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for these matters when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company reviews these estimates each accounting period as additional information is known and adjusts the loss provision when appropriate. If a matter is both probable to result in a liability and the amounts of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company estimates and discloses the possible loss or range of loss. If the loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, a liability is not recorded in its consolidated financial statements. Between April 6, 2011 and May 12, 2011, seven putative securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “Court”); one complaint additionally asserted claims against the underwriters who participated in its November 12, 2010 securities offering. On June 7, 2011, the Court consolidated these actions under the caption Lenartz v. American Superconductor Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY. On August 31, 2011, Lead Plaintiff, the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint against the Company, its officers and directors, and the underwriters who participated in its November 12, 2010 securities offering, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, as well as under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint alleged that during the relevant class period, the Company and its officers omitted to state material facts and made materially false and misleading statements relating to, among other things, its projected and recognized revenues and earnings, as well as its relationship with Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. that artificially inflated the value of the Company’s stock price. The complaint further alleged that the Company’s November 12, 2010 securities offering contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, rescindment of the Company’s November 12, 2010 securities offering, and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On December 16, 2011, the Court issued a summary order declining to dismiss the Securities Act claims against the Company and its officers, and taking under advisement the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims against the Company and its officers and the motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims made against the underwriters. On July 26, 2012, the district court dismissed the Exchange Act claims against the Company and its officers and denied the motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims made against the underwriters. On May 17, 2013, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a settlement in principle, and requested a 30-day stay of the proceedings while the specific terms of the settlement continue to be negotiated. On November 19, 2013, the Company entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Stipulation”), which resolved the claims asserted against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters. The terms of the Stipulation provided, among other things, a settlement payment by the Company of $10.0 million, $8.2 million of which was to be funded by the Company’s insurers and $1.8 million of which was paid through the issuance of 944,882 shares of its common stock (the “Settlement Shares”). In the event that the value of the Settlement Shares (as calculated under the Stipulation) decreased as of the effective date of the settlement, the Company was required to make a cash payment for the difference in value. By a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice entered on May 5, 2014, the Court approved the terms of the Stipulation and dismissed this private securities class action litigation. In addition, the Court found that (i) the terms and conditions of the proposed issuance of the Settlement Shares are fair to those who receive these securities, and (ii) the terms and conditions of, and the procedures for, the proposed issuance of the Settlement Shares are fair. The effective date of the Stipulation was June 5, 2014 (the “Effective Date”). Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, (i) on June 11, 2014, the Company made a cash payment of approximately $0.5 million for the decrease in value of the Settlement Shares (as calculated under the Stipulation) as of the Effective Date, and (ii) on June 18, 2014, the Company issued the Settlement Shares. The issuance of the Settlement Shares was exempt from registration pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act. The aforementioned payments by the Company represented the final amounts to be paid to the plaintiffs under the Stipulation. Between May 4, 2011 and June 17, 2011, four putative shareholder derivative complaints were filed against the Company (as a nominal defendant) and certain of its directors in the Court. On July 5, 2011, the Court consolidated three of these actions under the caption In re American Superconductor Corporation Derivative Litigation, Docket No. 1:11-cv-10784-WGY. On June 1, 2011, the plaintiff in the fourth action, Marlborough Family Revocable Trust v. Yurek, et al., moved to voluntarily dismiss its complaint and refiled its complaint in Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Middlesex County. On September 7, 2011, the Marlborough action and another putative shareholder derivative complaint filed in Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts were consolidated. That consolidated matter was captioned In re American Superconductor Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Docket No. 11-1961. On January 12, 2012, an additional shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware. That matter was captioned Krasnoff v. Budhraja, et al., Docket No. 7171. The allegations of the derivative complaints mirrored the allegations made in the putative class action complaints described above. The plaintiffs purported to assert claims against the director defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. On February 4, 2014, the Company entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Derivative Stipulation”) to settle In re American Superconductor Corporation Derivative Litigation, In re American Superconductor Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, and Krasnoff v. Budhraja, et al., (together, the “Derivative Actions”). The Derivative Actions named certain current and former directors and officers of the Company as defendants. The current and former directors and officers named as individual defendants have denied expressly and continue to deny each and all of the claims and contentions alleged against them, and neither the individual defendants nor the Company have admitted any fault, wrongdoing or concession of liability in connection with the terms of the Derivative Stipulation. The Derivative Stipulation provided for, among other things, (a) a release of all claims relating to the Derivative Actions for the Company, the individual defendants, who are all current or former officers and directors of the Company, and the plaintiffs; (b) a requirement that the Company pay to plaintiffs’ counsel $475,000 for fees and expenses, which was fully funded by the Company’s insurers; and (c) certain additions to the Company’s corporate governance policies. The terms of the Derivative Stipulation were subject to approval by the Court following notice to stockholders. By order entered May 8, 2014, the Court approved the terms of the Derivative Stipulation and issued a final judgment dismissing In re American Superconductor Corporation Derivative Litigation. Pursuant to the terms of the Derivative Stipulation, the Company and the plaintiffs subsequently jointly sought and obtained dismissal of In re American Superconductor Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, and Krasnoff v. Budhraja, et al. The effective date of the settlement was June 10, 2014. On September 13, 2011, the Company commenced a series of legal actions in China against Sinovel Wind Group Co. Ltd. (“Sinovel”). The Company’s Chinese subsidiary, Suzhou AMSC Superconductor Co. Ltd., filed a claim for arbitration with the Beijing Arbitration Commission in accordance with the terms of the Company’s supply contracts with Sinovel. The case is captioned (2011) Jing Zhong An Zi No. 0963. On March 31, 2011, Sinovel refused to accept contracted shipments of 1.5 megawatt, (“MW”) and 3 MW wind turbine core electrical components and spare parts that the Company was prepared to deliver. The Company alleges that these actions constitute material breaches of its contracts because Sinovel did not give it notice that it intended to delay deliveries as required under the contracts. Moreover, the Company alleges that Sinovel has refused to pay past due amounts for prior shipments of core electrical components and spare parts. The Company is seeking compensation for past product shipments and retention (including interest) in the amount of approximately RMB 485 million ($76 million) due to Sinovel’s breaches of its contracts. The Company is also seeking specific performance of its existing contracts as well as reimbursement of all costs and reasonable expenses with respect to the arbitration. The value of the undelivered components under the existing contracts, including the deliveries refused by Sinovel in March 2011, amounts to approximately RMB 4.6 billion ($720 million). On October 8, 2011, Sinovel filed with the Beijing Arbitration Commission an application under the caption (2011) Jing Zhong An Zi No. 0963, for a counterclaim against the Company for breach of the same contracts under which the Company filed its original arbitration claim. Sinovel claimed, among other things, that the goods supplied by the Company do not conform to the standards specified in the contracts and claimed damages in the amount of approximately RMB 370 million ($58 million). On October 17, 2011, Sinovel filed with the Beijing Arbitration Commission a request for change of counterclaim to increase its damage claim to approximately RMB 1 billion ($157 million). On December 22, 2011, Sinovel filed with the Beijing Arbitration Commission an additional request for change of counterclaim to increase its damages claim to approximately RMB 1.2 billion ($190 million). On February 27, 2012, Sinovel filed with the Beijing Arbitration Commission an application under the caption (2012) Jing Zhong An Zi No. 0157, against the Company for breach of the same contracts under which the Company filed its original arbitration claim. Sinovel claimed, among other things, that the goods supplied by the Company do not conform to the standards specified in the contracts and claimed damages in the amount of approximately RMB 105 million ($17 million). The Company believes that Sinovel’s claims are without merit and it intends to defend these actions vigorously. Since the proceedings in this matter are in relatively early stages, the Company cannot reasonably estimate possible losses or range of losses at this time. The Company also submitted a civil action application to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court under the caption (2011) Yi Zhong Min Chu Zi No. 15524, against Sinovel for software copyright infringement on September 13, 2011. The application alleges Sinovel’s unauthorized use of portions of the Company’s wind turbine control software source code developed for Sinovel’s 1.5MW wind turbines and the binary code, or upper layer, of the Company’s software for the PM3000 power converters in 1.5MW wind turbines. In July 2011, a former employee of the Company’s Austrian subsidiary was arrested in Austria on charges of economic espionage and fraudulent manipulation of data. In September 2011, the former employee pled guilty to the charges, and was imprisoned. As a result of the Company’s internal investigation and a criminal investigation conducted by Austrian authorities, the Company believes that this former employee was contracted by Sinovel through an intermediary while employed by the Company and improperly obtained and transferred to Sinovel portions of its wind turbine control software source code developed for Sinovel’s 1.5MW wind turbines. Moreover, the Company believes the former employee illegally used source code to develop for Sinovel a software modification to circumvent the encryption and remove technical protection measures on the Company’s PM3000 power converters in 1.5MW wind turbines in the field. The Company is seeking a cease and desist order with respect to the unauthorized copying, installation and use of its software, monetary damages of approximately RMB 38 million ($6 million) for its economic losses and reimbursement of all costs and reasonable expenses. The Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court accepted the case, which was necessary in order for the case to proceed. In November 2011, Sinovel filed a motion to remove this case from the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court and transfer the matter to the Beijing Arbitration Commission. On February 14, 2012, the court denied Sinovel’s motion to remove the case. On February 21, 2012, Sinovel filed an appeal of the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court decision to the Beijing Higher People’s Court. On April 25, 2012, the Beijing Higher People’s Court issued a final Civil Ruling which supports the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court’s civil ruling and rejected Sinovel’s appeal. Sinovel filed an appeal of the Beijing Higher People’s Court’s decision with China’s Supreme People’s Court. A hearing regarding this appeal was held at the Chinese Supreme People’s Court on October 26, 2012. On November 23, 2012, China’s Supreme People’s Court issued a Civil Ruling, holding that (1) it will conduct a re-trial of Sinovel’s appeal, and (2) the lower court’s decision will be stayed pending the re-trial. China’s Supreme People’s Court conducted a re-trial of Sinovel’s appeal on May 29, 2013. On January 26, 2014, the Supreme People’s Court ruled to uphold the Beijing Higher People’s Court ruling that the dispute shall be heard by the court. The Company will now await a hearing date from the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court. The Company submitted a civil action application to the Beijing Higher People’s Court against Sinovel and certain of its employees for trade secret infringement on September 13, 2011 under the caption (2011) Gao Min Chu Zi No. 4193. The application alleges the defendants’ unauthorized use of portions of the Company’s wind turbine control software source code developed for Sinovel’s 1.5MW wind turbines as described above with respect to the Copyright Action. The Company is seeking monetary damages of RMB 2.9 billion ($453 million) for the trade secret infringement as well as reimbursement of all costs and reasonable expenses. The Beijing Higher People’s Court accepted the case, which was necessary in order for the case to proceed. On December 22, 2011, the Beijing Higher People’s Court transferred this case to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court under the caption (2011) Gao Min Chu Zi No. 4193. On June 7, 2012, the Company received an Acceptance Notice from the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court under the caption (2012) Yi Zhong Min Chu Zi No.6833. The Company is currently awaiting notice from the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court regarding the first hearing date. In August 2012, Sinovel filed a motion to remove this case from the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court and transfer the matter to the Beijing Arbitration Commission. On February 24, 2014, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court denied Sinovel’s motion to remove the case. On March 13, 2014, Sinovel filed an appeal of the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court decision to the Beijing Higher People’s Court. The Company is currently awaiting the final decision from the Beijing Higher People’s Court regarding the jurisdiction opposition issue. On September 16, 2011, the Company filed a civil copyright infringement complaint in the Hainan Province No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court against Dalian Guotong Electric Co. Ltd. (“Guotong”), a supplier of power converter products to Sinovel, and Huaneng Hainan Power, Inc. (“Huaneng”), a wind farm operator that has purchased Sinovel wind turbines containing Guotong power converter products. The case is captioned (2011) Hainan Yi Zhong Min Chu Zi No. 62. The application alleges that the Company’s PM1000 converters in certain Sinovel wind turbines have been replaced by converters produced by Guotong. Because the Guotong converters are being used in wind turbines containing the Company’s wind turbine control software, the Company believes that its copyrighted software is being infringed. The Company is seeking a cease and desist order with respect to the unauthorized use of its software, monetary damages of RMB 1.2 million ($0.2 million) for its economic losses (with respect to Guotong only) and reimbursement of all costs and reasonable expenses. The court has accepted the case, which was necessary in order for the case to proceed. In addition, upon the request of the defendant Huaneng, Sinovel has been added by the court to this case as a defendant and Huaneng has been released from this case. In December 2011, Sinovel filed a jurisdiction opposition motion requesting dismissal by the Hainan Province No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, saying the case should be governed by the Beijing Arbitration Commission. On February 3, 2012, the Company received the Civil Ruling from the court, which granted Sinovel’s motion, and dismissed the entire case. The Company appealed the court’s ruling to the Hainan Higher Court, which on April 5, 2012 upheld the decision of the Hainan Province No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court. On April 9, 2012, the Company filed an appeal of the Hainan Higher Court’s decision with China’s Supreme People’s Court. China’s Supreme People’s Court accepted the appeal on May 23, 2012. The case is captioned, (2012) Min Shen Zi No. 630. On December 20, 2012, China’s Supreme People’s Court issued a Civil ruling, holding that (1) it will conduct a re-trial of the Company’s appeal and (2) the lower court’s decision will be stayed pending the re-trial. China’s Supreme People’s Court conducted a re-trial of Sinovel’s appeal on May 29, 2013. On January 26, 2014, the Supreme People’s Court revoked Hainan No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court and Hainan Higher People’s Court rulings and ruled that the case shall be heard by the Hainan No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court. The Hainan No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court accepted the case under the caption (2014) Hainan Yi Zhong Min San Chu Zi No. 1. Ghodawat Energy Pvt Ltd (“Ghodawat”), a company registered in India carrying on the business of wind power development, lodged a Request for Arbitration with the Secretariat of the ICC International Court of Arbitration (the “ICC Court”) on May 12, 2011 and named AMSC Windtec GmbH (“AMSC Austria”) as the Respondent. Under the Request for Arbitration, Ghodawat alleges that AMSC Austria breached an agreement dated March 19, 2008 pursuant to which AMSC Austria granted a license to Ghodawat to manufacture, use, sell, market, erect, commission and maintain certain wind turbines using its technical information and wind turbine design (the “License Agreement”). Under the Request for Arbitration, Ghodawat’s claims in this arbitration amount to approximately €18 million ($24 million). AMSC Austria filed an Answer to Request for Arbitration and Counterclaim (“Answer and Counterclaim”), in which AMSC Austria denied Ghodawat’s claims in their entirety. AMSC Austria has also submitted counterclaims under the License Agreement against Ghodawat in the amount of approximately €6 million ($8 million). Ghodawat has filed a Reply to Answer to Request for Arbitration and Counterclaim in which it denies AMSC Austria’s counterclaims. On June 3, 2013, the final oral submissions’ hearing was conducted. The final award is pending and the ICC Court has extended the time limit for the Tribunal to render a final award on a number of occasions. The Company expects that the award will be issued in 2014; however, it cannot assure you that the issuance of the award will not be delayed. The Company has recorded a loss contingency based on its assessment of probable losses on this claim; however, this amount is immaterial to its consolidated financial statements. Other The Company enters into long-term construction contracts with customers that require the Company to obtain performance bonds. The Company is required to deposit an amount equivalent to some or all the face amount of the performance bonds into an escrow account until the termination of the bond. When the performance conditions are met, amounts deposited as collateral for the performance bonds are returned to the Company. In addition, the Company has various contractual arrangements in which minimum quantities of goods or services have been committed to be purchased on an annual basis. As of June 30, 2014 the Company had $6.1 million of restricted cash included in current assets, and $0.1 million of restricted cash included in long-term assets. These amounts included in restricted cash represent deposits to secure letters of credit for various supply contracts. These deposits are held in interest bearing accounts. The Company had an unused, unsecured line of credit consisting of €2.7 million (approximately $3.7 million) in Austria as of June 30, 2014.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration