XML 36 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.1.900

Legal and Regulatory Proceedings | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2015
Legal Proceedings [Abstract] |
Legal Proceedings | Note 13—Legal and Regulatory Proceedings On March 13, 2014, named plaintiff, Anthony Ferrare, commenced a putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The complaint was served on IDT Energy on July 16, 2014. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and other former and current electric customers of IDT Energy in Pennsylvania with variable rate plans, whom he contends were injured as a result of IDT Energy’s allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices. On August 7, 2014, IDT Energy removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On October 20, 2014, IDT Energy moved to stay or, alternatively, dismiss the complaint, as amended, by the named plaintiff. On November 10, 2014, the named plaintiff opposed IDT Energy’s motion to dismiss and IDT Energy filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of its motion to dismiss. On June 10, 2015, the Court granted IDT Energy’s motion to stay and denied its motion to dismiss without prejudice. IDT Energy believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action. On June 20, 2014, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office (“AG”) and the Acting Consumer Advocate (“OCA”) filed a Joint Complaint against IDT Energy, Inc. with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”). In the Joint Complaint, the AG and the OCA allege, among other things, various violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the Telemarketing Registration Act and the Pennsylvania PUC’s regulations. IDT Energy has reached an agreement in principle on a settlement with the AG and the OCA to terminate the litigation with no admission of liability or finding of wrongdoing by IDT Energy. On August 4, 2015, IDT Energy, the AG, and the OCA filed a Joint Petition to the Pennsylvania PUC seeking approval of the settlement terms. Under the settlement, if approved by the PUC, IDT Energy will agree to issue additional refunds to its Pennsylvania customers who had variable rates for electricity supply in January, February and March of 2014. IDT Energy will also agree to implement certain modifications to its sales, marketing and customer service processes, along with additional compliance and reporting requirements. The settlement must be approved by the Pennsylvania PUC, which is expected in the second quarter of 2016. On July 2, 2014, named plaintiff, Louis McLaughlin, filed a putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, contending that he and other class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy’s allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and two subclasses: all IDT Energy customers who were charged a variable rate for their energy from July 2, 2008, and all IDT Energy customers who participated in IDT Energy’s rebate program from July 2, 2008. On December 19, 2014, IDT Energy filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 9, 2015, the Court denied IDT Energy’s motion to dismiss without prejudice so as to allow McLaughlin to file an amended complaint. On January 22, 2016, the named plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of himself and all IDT Energy customers in New York State against IDT Energy, Inc., Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy International Corporation, and Genie Energy Ltd. Subsequently, on February 22, 2016, IDT Energy moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The named plaintiff’s opposition papers to the motion to dismiss are due on March 18, 2016 and IDT Energy’s reply is due on April 11, 2016. In the meantime, the parties are engaged in limited discovery. IDT Energy believes that the claims in the amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action. On July 15, 2014, named plaintiff, Kimberly Aks, commenced a putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in New Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, contending that she and other class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy’s alleged unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of herself and all other New Jersey residents who were IDT Energy customers at any time between July 11, 2008 and the present. On November 6, 2014, the Court denied IDT Energy’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. IDT Energy believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action. At December 31, 2015, the Company had an aggregate of $2.5 million accrued for the complaints and lawsuits described above. On February 23, 2016, the New York Public Service Commission (“PSC”) issued an order that sought to impose significant new restrictions on REPs operating in New York, including GRE. The restrictions described in the PSC’s order, which were to become effective March 4, 2016, would require that all REPs’ electricity and natural gas offerings to residential and small business customers include an annual guarantee of savings compared to the price charged by the relevant incumbent utility or, for electricity offerings, provide at least 30% of the supply from renewable sources. Customers not enrolled in a compliant program would be relinquished back to the local utility at the end of their contract period or, for variable price customers operating on month to month agreements, at the end of the current monthly billing cycle. On March 4, 2016, a group of parties from the REP industry sought and won a temporary restraining order to stay implementation of the most restrictive portions of the PSC’s order until a court hearing on April 14, 2016. GRE expects that the REP industry will take additional legal action in response to the order seeking a definitive judicial review of the industry’s challenges to the PSC’s order. The Company is evaluating the potential impact of the PSC’s order on its New York operations, while preparing to operate in compliance with any new requirements. Depending on the final language of the order and the outcome of legal appeals, as well as our final response to the order with respect to our relationships with our New York customers, the order will likely have a substantial impact upon GRE’s operations in New York. As of December 31, 2015, New York represented 53% of GRE’s total meters served and 44% of the total residential customer equivalents of GRE’s customer base. In addition to the above, the Company may from time to time be subject to legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, the Company does not expect any of those legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition

X
- Definition Legal proceedings. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | gne_LegalProceedingsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | gne_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration