XML 36 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Apr. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 19. Commitments and Contingencies Service Agreements Under the provisions of its service agreements, the Company provides services to maintain, monitor, and repair customer power plants to meet minimum operating levels. Under the terms of such service agreements, the particular power plant must meet a minimum operating output during defined periods of the term. If minimum output falls below the contract requirement, the Company may be subject to performance penalties and/or may be required to repair or replace the customer’s fuel cell module(s). Power Purchase Agreements Under the terms of the Company’s PPAs, customers agree to purchase power from the Company’s fuel cell power plants at negotiated rates. Electricity rates are generally a function of the customers’ current and estimated future electricity pricing available from the grid. As owner or lessee of the power plants, the Company is responsible for all operating costs necessary to maintain, monitor and repair the power plants. Under certain agreements, the Company is also responsible for procuring fuel, generally natural gas or biogas, to run the power plants. In addition, under the terms of some of the PPAs, the Company may be subject to a performance penalty if the Company does not meet certain performance requirements. Project Fuel Exposure ​ Certain of our PPAs for project assets in our generation operating portfolio and project assets under construction expose us to fluctuating fuel price risks as well as the risk of being unable to procure the required amounts of fuel and the lack of alternative available fuel sources. We seek to mitigate our fuel risk using strategies including: (i) fuel cost reimbursement mechanisms in our PPAs to allow for pass through of fuel costs (full or partial) where possible which we have done with our 14.9 MW operating project in Bridgeport, CT and our 7.4 MW project under construction in Hartford, CT; (ii) procuring fuel under fixed price physical contracts with investment grade counterparties which we have done for twenty years for our Tulare BioMAT project and the initial seven years of the eighteen year PPA for our LIPA Yaphank, NY project; and (iii) entering into financial hedges with investment grade counterparties to offset potential negative market fluctuations. ​ We currently have three projects in development with fuel sourcing risk, which are the Toyota project, which requires procurement of RNG, and our Derby, CT 14.0 MW and 2.8 MW projects, both of which require natural gas for which there is no pass through mechanism. Fuel sourcing and risk mitigation strategies for all three projects are being assessed and will be implemented as project operational dates become firm. Such strategies may require cash collateral or reserves to secure fuel or related contracts for these three projects. If the Company is unable to secure fuel on favorable economic terms, it may result in impairment charges to these project assets. ​ While the Company is pursuing alternative sources of RNG for the Toyota project, charges are being recorded to generation cost of sales for any project expenditure which may be unrecoverable. To date, $10.0 million in charges have been recorded, which includes $2.8 million in charges for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2021 and $7.2 million in charges for the six months ended April 30, 2022. As of April 30, 2022, the carrying value of the Toyota project on the Consolidated Balance Sheet totaled $20.7 million which represents the carrying value of inventory components that could be redeployed for alternative use. ​ Given the rise in natural gas prices as of April 30, 2022, the Company performed an impairment analysis with respect to the Derby 14.0 MW and 2.8 MW projects and concluded that an impairment has not occurred. Should natural gas prices continue to rise, there could be an impairment in future periods. The Company has risk mitigation strategies that it may implement in an effort to mitigate potential impacts including the ability to extend commercial operations dates. As of April 30, 2022, the carrying value of the 14.0 MW project in Derby, CT totaled $18.3 million and the carrying value of the 2.8 MW project in Derby, CT totaled $0.2 million. ​ Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic During fiscal year 2020, the Company launched a proactive response to the escalating COVID-19 outbreak and temporarily suspended operations at its Torrington, CT manufacturing facility in March 2020. The Company also commenced remote work protocol for those employees worldwide that were capable of working from home. The Company took these actions to secure the safety of the Company’s employees, our corporate community as a whole, and the communities in which our team members live, and to adhere to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) recommendations of social distancing and limited public exposure in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. All employees that were not able to work from home during the manufacturing facility shutdown due to their job function received full wages and benefits during such time. We did not implement any furlough, layoff or shared work program during such time. The Company resumed manufacturing in June 2020 and the Torrington, Connecticut manufacturing facility employees returned to work. We established a phased-in return to work schedule commencing March 15, 2021 for those employees working from home, which was completed in April 2021. In December of 2021, we instructed certain employees to work from home as a result of a rise in cases in the northeastern United States. We lifted this mandate at the end of January 2022. We will continue to evaluate our ability to operate in the event of a resurgence of COVID-19 and the advisability of continuing operations based on federal, state and local guidance, evolving data concerning the pandemic and the best interests of our employees, customers and stockholders. In addition, given the then-elevated number of COVID-19 cases throughout the U.S. as a result of the highly transmissible Delta and Omicron variants, the Company instituted policies to protect its employees and customers, including implementing a mandatory vaccination policy which required all U.S. employees to be fully vaccinated by November 1, 2021 or to seek a qualified religious and/or medical exemption with weekly testing protocols. Our weekly testing protocol for unvaccinated employees has been suspended due to the relatively low incidence of COVID-19 infections. However, we will continue to monitor any COVID-19 related data that affects the interests of the Company and its stakeholders and will take appropriate action as necessary. Other As of April 30, 2022, the Company had unconditional purchase commitments aggregating $95.8 million for materials, supplies and services in the normal course of business. Legal Proceedings POSCO Energy Matters Background and Description of Proceedings From approximately 2007 through 2015, the Company relied on POSCO Energy to develop and grow the Korean and Asian markets for its products and services. The Company received upfront license payments and was entitled to receive royalty income from POSCO Energy pursuant to certain manufacturing and technology transfer agreements, including the Alliance Agreement dated February 7, 2007 (and the amendments thereto), the Technology Transfer, License and Distribution Agreement dated February 7, 2007 (and the amendments thereto), the Stack Technology Transfer and License Agreement dated October 27, 2009 (and the amendments thereto), and the Cell Technology Transfer and License Agreement dated October 31, 2012 (and the amendments thereto) (collectively, the “License Agreements”). The License Agreements provided POSCO Energy with the exclusive technology rights to manufacture, sell, distribute and service the Company’s SureSource 300, SureSource 1500 and SureSource 3000 fuel cell technology in the Korean and broader Asian markets. In November 2019, POSCO Energy spun-off its fuel cell business into a new entity, KFC, without the Company’s consent. As part of the spin-off, POSCO Energy transferred manufacturing and service rights under the License Agreements to KFC, but retained distribution rights and severed its own liability under the License Agreements. The Company formally objected to POSCO Energy’s spin-off, and POSCO Energy posted a bond to secure any liabilities to the Company arising out of the spin-off. In September 2020, the Korean Electricity Regulatory Committee found that POSCO Energy’s spin-off of the fuel cell business to KFC may have been done in violation of Korean law. On February 19, 2020, the Company notified POSCO Energy in writing that it was in material breach of the License Agreements by (i) its actions in connection with the spin-off of the fuel cell business to KFC, (ii) its suspension of performance through its cessation of all sales activities since late 2015 and its abandonment of its fuel cell business in Asia, and (iii) its disclosure of material nonpublic information to third parties and its public pronouncements about the fuel cell business on television and in print media that have caused reputational damage to the fuel cell business, the Company and its products. The Company also notified POSCO Energy that, under the terms of the License Agreements, it had 60 days to fully cure its breaches to the Company’s satisfaction and that failure to so cure would lead to termination of the License Agreements. Further, on March 27, 2020, the Company notified POSCO Energy of additional instances of its material breach of the License Agreements based on POSCO Energy’s failure to pay royalties required to be paid in connection with certain module exchanges. On April 27, 2020, POSCO Energy initiated a series of three arbitration demands against the Company at the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce seated in Singapore, in which it alleged certain warranty defects in a sub-megawatt conditioning facility at its facility in Pohang, Korea and sought combined damages of approximately $3.3 million. Prior to filing the arbitrations, POSCO Energy obtained provisional attachments from the Seoul Central District Court attaching certain revenues owed to the Company by Korea Southern Power Company (“KOSPO”) as part of such warranty claims, which delayed receipt of certain payments owed to the Company. POSCO Energy subsequently sought additional provisional attachments on KOSPO revenues from the Seoul Central District Court based on unspecified warranty claims in an additional amount of approximately $7 million, and additional provisional attachments on KOSPO revenues from the Seoul Central District Court based on its alleged counterclaims in the license termination arbitration described below in an additional amount of approximately $110 million. POSCO Energy posted a bond in the amount of $46 million to secure any damages to the Company resulting from the attachments. The Company had outstanding accounts receivable due from KOSPO of $11.2 million, which amount was recovered from the Seoul Central District Court during the second quarter of fiscal year 2022 as discussed in additional detail below. On June 28, 2020, the Company terminated the License Agreements with POSCO Energy and filed a demand for arbitration against POSCO Energy and KFC in the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce based on POSCO Energy’s (i) failure to exercise commercially reasonable efforts to sell the Company’s technology in the Korean and Asian markets, (ii) disclosure of the Company’s proprietary information to third parties, (iii) attack on the Company’s stock price and (iv) spin-off of POSCO Energy’s fuel cell business into KFC without the Company’s consent. The Company requested that the arbitral tribunal (a) confirm through declaration that POSCO Energy’s exclusive license to market the Company’s technology and products in Korea and Asia is null and void as a result of the breaches of the License Agreements and that the Company had the right to pursue direct sales in these markets, (b) order POSCO Energy and KFC to compensate the Company for losses and damages suffered in the amount of more than $200 million, and (c) order POSCO Energy and KFC to pay the Company’s arbitration costs, including counsel fees and expenses. The Company retained outside counsel on a contingency basis to pursue its claims, and outside counsel entered into an agreement with a litigation finance provider to fund the legal fees and expenses of the arbitration. In October 2020, POSCO Energy filed a counterclaim in the arbitration (x) seeking approximately $880 million in damages based on allegations that the Company misrepresented the capabilities of its fuel cell technology to induce POSCO Energy to enter into the License Agreements and failed to turn over know-how sufficient for POSCO Energy to successfully operate its business; (y) seeking a declaration that the License Agreements remained in full force and effect and requesting the arbitral tribunal enjoin the Company from interfering in POSCO Energy’s exclusive rights under the License Agreements and (z) seeking an order that the Company pay POSCO Energy’s arbitration costs, including counsel fees and expenses. The Company discontinued revenue recognition of the deferred license revenue related to the License Agreements in July 2020 given the then-pending arbitrations. On August 28, 2020, POSCO Energy filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court”) purportedly seeking to enforce its rights as a stockholder of the Company to inspect and make copies and extracts of certain books and records of the Company and/or the Company’s subsidiaries pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law and/or Delaware common law. POSCO Energy alleged that it was seeking to inspect these documents for a proper purpose reasonably related to its interests as a stockholder of the Company, including investigating whether the Company’s Board of Directors and its management breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, and good faith. POSCO Energy sought an order of the Court permitting POSCO Energy to inspect and copy the demanded books and records, awarding POSCO Energy reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the matter, and granting such other and further relief as the Court deemed just and proper. On July 9, 2021, the Court issued a post-trial ruling denying POSCO Energy’s demand to inspect the Company’s books and records because POSCO Energy lacked a proper purpose. The Court held that the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that this complaint was the seventh legal action POSCO Energy initiated against the Company within the span of nine months, confirmed that POSCO Energy’s purpose in initiating the books and records demand and filing the complaint was not proper. As this dispute was resolved by the Court as described above, it did not require resolution pursuant to, and was not part of, the Settlement Agreement described below. On September 14, 2020, POSCO Energy filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “SD Court”) alleging that the Company delayed the removal of restrictive legends on certain share certificates held by POSCO Energy in 2018, thus precluding POSCO Energy from selling the shares and resulting in claimed losses in excess of $1 million. On September 16, 2021, the SD Court ruled in the Company’s favor on a motion for summary judgement dismissing all four counts of POSCO Energy’s complaint regarding share certificates held by POSCO Energy in 2018, but granted POSCO Energy leave to file an amended complaint. Settlement Agreement In order to resolve the disputes described above (other than the books and records dispute which was previously resolved by the Court), on December 20, 2021, the Company entered into the Settlement Agreement with PE Group. The Settlement Agreement provides, among other things, that the parties will cooperate in good faith to effect a market transition to the Company of the molten carbonate fuel cell business in Korea in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement. To that end, the Settlement Agreement provides that any and all past, current, or potential disputes and claims between the Company, on the one hand, and POSCO Energy and KFC, on the other, of any nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, asserted or not asserted, based on actions or omissions of any party on or before the date of Settlement Agreement are fully and finally settled, including such disputes and claims, directly or indirectly, in connection with the legal disputes (other than the books and records dispute which was previously resolved by the Court) and License Agreements described above, with the exception of (i) an unfiled claim by the Company in the amount of approximately $1.8 million with respect to certain royalties the Company believes are owed by POSCO Energy with respect to replacement modules deployed by POSCO Energy at Gyenonggi Green Energy and other sites for which POSCO Energy has not paid royalties, and (ii) an unfiled claim by POSCO Energy in an unknown amount with respect to a series of purchase orders for materials and components which began in 2014 under a supply chain contract, both of which claims remain unsettled. The Company does not believe the claim by POSCO Energy with respect to purchase orders for materials and components under the supply chain contract has merit and the Company retains the right to file a counterclaim for damages it believes it has incurred with respect to such supply chain contract. With respect to the attachments obtained by POSCO Energy from the Seoul Central District Court (as described above), the Settlement Agreement provides that, within five days of the date of the Settlement Agreement, POSCO Energy would file an application with the Seoul Central District Court to revoke the attachments. The application was filed with the Seoul Central District Court and during the second quarter of fiscal year 2022, the Company recovered the outstanding KOSPO accounts receivable of approximately $11.2 million from the Seoul Central District Court. Under the Settlement Agreement, the parties also agreed that, within five days of the date thereof, the Company would withdraw its objection to the spin-off of KFC from POSCO Energy, and that the License Agreements are not terminated, but instead are deemed to be amended such that PE Group only has the Right to Service License (as defined above). POSCO Energy and KFC further agreed that, as of the date of the Settlement Agreement, the License Agreements are deemed to be amended such that the Company exclusively enjoys all rights as to its technology in Korea and Asia, other than the Right to Service License. The Settlement Agreement further provides that the License Agreements will terminate automatically upon sixty days prior written notice to PE Group if (i) the Company enters into a business collaboration agreement with a Korean company to construct, assemble, manufacture, market, sell, distribute, import, export, install, commission, service, maintain, or repair products incorporating the Company’s technology, or otherwise conduct the Company’s business, in the Korean market; or (ii) the Company expands the capacity of its existing Korean entity such as to perform such activities itself. In the event of the termination of the License Agreements, the license granted to PE Group under the Right to Service License will continue notwithstanding the termination of the License Agreements, except that PE Group’s right to own, operate, and maintain all facilities and factories for the purpose of servicing any orders or requests made by the Company will terminate. For the avoidance of doubt, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, PE Group has no right to manufacture modules or any other product incorporating the Company’s technology under the License Agreements as amended, the Right to Service License or otherwise unless requested and authorized by the Company to do so. ​ The Settlement Agreement further provides that, in order to service its existing customers under the Existing LTSAs, KFC would place a firm, non-cancelable order for twelve SureSource 3000 modules within two weeks after the date of the Settlement Agreement and will place an additional firm, non-cancelable order for eight SureSource 3000 modules on or before June 30, 2022, all at a price of $3.0 million per module. In addition, KFC has agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to order fourteen additional SureSource 3000 modules by December 31, 2022, at a price of $3.0 million per module if ordered by such date. If KFC materially breaches the Settlement Agreement by failing to make timely and full payment for the modules for which KFC is required to place orders under the Settlement Agreement and does not cure such material breach within fifteen days of notice of such breach by the Company, the License Agreements and the Right to Service License granted to PE Group will be terminated. If the Company materially breaches the Settlement Agreement by failing to supply the modules for which KFC is required to place orders under the Settlement Agreement, as long as KFC has made the payment for such modules and has otherwise satisfied its contractual obligations for those modules and such material breach is not cured within sixty days after notice from PE Group, PE Group will have the right to terminate the Settlement Agreement. With respect to any other alleged breach, material or otherwise, of the Settlement Agreement, the parties’ exclusive remedy consists solely of general damages. ​ The Company received a firm, non-cancelable order from KFC for twelve SureSource 3000 modules. Six of these modules were delivered Ex Works from the Company’s facility in Torrington, Connecticut in January 2022. ​ Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, with respect to new modules to be supplied by the Company and deployed by PE Group to its existing customers, the Company will provide its standard warranty against module defects until the earlier of eighteen months from the date of shipment or twelve months from the date of installation. As part of the global settlement of the disputes among the parties and subject to the qualifications set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the Company will reimburse PE Group for any annual output penalty amount paid by PE Group to its customers pursuant to Existing LTSAs (whether such Existing LTSA is extended or renewed), caused by a shortfall or defect in the new modules for a period of up to seven years. The maximum annual reimbursement obligation with regard to any PE Group customer for any new module provided by the Company will not exceed an amount equal to 7.5% per year of the module purchase price. The Company will not be required to reimburse PE Group for any penalty paid by PE Group under the Existing LTSAs that is not caused by a shortfall or defect in the modules to be supplied by the Company including, without limitation, any shortfall or defect caused by a site-related problem, a problem with the balance of plant, or other components of the project. Although the Company has the exclusive and unrestricted right under the Settlement Agreement to perform, pursue, and otherwise conduct its business in relation to new fuel cell projects (including new projects with PE Group’s existing customers) in Korea and Asia, the parties have agreed that, except as further provided in the Settlement Agreement with respect to PE Group’s existing customers Noeul Green Energy and Godeok Green Energy, the Company will not engage in discussions with PE Group’s existing customers regarding Existing LTSAs without PE Group’s consent. The parties have further agreed that if PE Group cannot enter into an agreement with its existing customers to extend or renew Existing LTSAs by December 31, 2022, PE Group will cooperate with the Company so that the Company may discuss and, at the Company’s sole discretion, enter into an extension of an Existing LTSA, a new long-term service agreement to replace an Existing LTSA, or a module sales agreement with PE Group’s existing customers; provided that (i) should the Company enter into such an arrangement with a PE Group existing customer, (ii) the Company is required to provide replacement modules to such existing customer under such arrangement, and (iii) PE Group has not already deployed all or some the modules that PE Group ordered under Settlement Agreement, the Company will purchase the number of required replacement modules from PE Group at a price of $3.0 million per module (to the extent such modules are available and have not yet been deployed). The purchase of such replacement modules by the Company is contingent upon the modules being in proper condition as determined by inspection process to be agreed by the parties. Any modules purchased by the Company from PE Group under these terms will be included as part of the firm orders KFC is required to make pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. ​ With respect to operations and maintenance agreements, the Settlement Agreement provides that KFC will have the right of first refusal on providing operation and maintenance services on commercially reasonable terms for new long-term service agreements entered into by the Company in Korea for a period of the first to occur of either twenty-four months after the date of the Settlement Agreement or until such time as the Company engages a third party capable of providing such services in Korea. If KFC and the Company agree that KFC should provide operation and maintenance services pursuant to the right of first refusal, KFC and the Company will enter into one or more operation and maintenance agreements that reflect commercially reasonable terms and conditions as agreed by KFC and the Company at that time. With respect to BOP, KFC currently has eight units of BOP available, and the Settlement Agreement provides that the Company has the option to purchase such units of BOP for any new molten carbonate fuel cell projects within Korea at a price of KRW 2,550,000,000 (or USD $2,116,500 as of April 30, 2022) per unit. The Company will also have a non-exclusive, non-transferrable, non-sublicensable license to use the intellectual property embedded in the BOP units in Korea in consideration for a reasonable license fee to be separately agreed by the parties. Detailed terms and conditions of BOP and related software and firmware supply will be discussed and agreed to in good faith in separate BOP supply agreements in the event the Company exercises its option to purchase any of such BOP. As described above, the Company retained outside counsel on a contingency basis to pursue its claims against POSCO Energy and KFC, and outside counsel entered into an agreement with a litigation finance provider to fund the legal fees and expenses of the arbitration proceedings brought by the Company against POSCO Energy and KFC. As the Company has entered into the Settlement Agreement, it is required to remit fees to its counsel, Wiley Rein, LLP (“Wiley”), subject to the terms of its engagement letter with Wiley. On December 23, 2021, the Company agreed that it would pay Wiley a total of $24.0 million to satisfy all obligations to Wiley under the Company’s engagement letter (which is included in Administrative and selling expenses on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss for the six months ended April 30, 2022). Of this amount, $19.0 million was paid during the six months ended April 30, 2022, and the remaining $5.0 million will be paid on or before June 30, 2022. ​ Other Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is involved in other legal proceedings, including, but not limited to, regulatory proceedings, claims, mediations, arbitrations and litigation, arising out of the ordinary course of its business (“Other Legal Proceedings”). Although the Company cannot assure the outcome of such Other Legal Proceedings, management presently believes that the result of such Other Legal Proceedings, either individually, or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements, and no material amounts have been accrued in the Company’s consolidated financial statements with respect to these matters.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration