XML 28 R12.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

6. Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

6. Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

As of December 31, 2015, the Company, through its subsidiaries, has non-cancelable future minimum operating lease payments for various office space locations. Future minimum operating lease payments are as follows:

Twelve months ended December 31,			Future Rent Payments
2016		$	447
2017			462
2018			479
2019			495
2020			209
Total		$	2,092

The Cupertino facility office space consists of 9,238 rentable square feet. The current lease expired on May 31, 2015, but the Company extended the lease for an additional five years ending on May 31, 2020. From June 1, 2013 through present, we sublet office space consisting of 3,104 rentable square feet to Splunk Inc., at a monthly rent rate equal to the rent charged to us by our landlord.

For the year ending December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company received from Splunk Inc., approximately $0.1 million in rent reimbursement respectively. For the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company recognized rent expense of $0.5 million and $0.3 million, respectively.

Legal Proceedings

On March 10, 2011, Universal Biofuels Private Limited (“UBPL”), the Company’s India operating subsidiary, received a demand notice from the State Bank of India under the Agreement of Loan for Overall Limit dated as of June 26, 2008. The notice informed UBPL that an event of default had occurred for failure to make an installment payment on the loan commencing June 2009 and demanded repayment of the entire outstanding indebtedness of 19.60 crore rupees (approximately $3.2 million) together with all accrued interest thereon and any applicable fees and expenses. Upon the occurrence and during the continuance of an Event of Default, interest accrues at the default interest rate of 2% above the State Bank of India Advance Rate. The default period began on July 1, 2009 when the principal payment was deemed past due; and we have accrued interest at the default rate since the beginning of the default period. On August 22, 2015, UBPL received from the State Bank of India, a One Time Settlement Sanction Letter allowing for, among other things, four payments over a 360 day period amounting to $4.3 million, an interest rate holiday for 15 days after which the interest rate is payable at the rate of 2% above the base rate of Reserve Bank of India and certain releases by both parties. The base rate was at 9.7% and the interest had been accrued at 11.7%. Upon performance under the agreement, including the payment of all stipulated amounts, UBPL will receive relief for prior accrued interest in the amount of approximately $2.1 million.

On August 4, 2013, GS Cleantech Corporation, a subsidiary of Greenshift Corporation (“Greenshift”), filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California – Fresno Division against the Company and its subsidiary, AAFK. The case was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana and joined to a pending Multidistrict Litigation. The complaint alleges infringement of patent rights assigned to Greenshift and pertaining to corn oil extraction processes the Company employs, and seeks royalties, treble damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctions precluding the Company from further infringement. The corn oil extraction process we use is licensed to us by Valicor Separation Technologies LLC. Valicor has no obligations to indemnify us. On October 23, 2014, the Court ruled that all the claims of all the patents at issue in the case are invalid and, therefore, not infringed and adopted this finding in our case on January 16, 2015. GS Cleantech has said it will appeal this decision when the remaining claim in the suit has been decided. We believe the likelihood of Greenshift succeeding on appeal of the invalidity findings is small since the Court’s findings included several grounds for invalidity of each allegedly infringed patent. If Greenshift successfully appeals the findings of invalidity, damages may be $1 million or more. The only remaining claim in the suit alleges that GS Cleantech obtained the patents at issue by inequitably conducting itself before the United States Patent Office. A trial in the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on that issue was concluded and awaits judicial decision. If the patents at issue are found invalid due to GS Cleantech’s inequitable conduct, it would receive no damage award. If the Court determines this is an “exceptional case” it may award the Company and its subsidiary the attorneys’ fees expended to date for defense in this case. It is unknown whether GS Cleantech would appeal such a ruling.