XML 25 R11.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

5. Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2018

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

As of December 31, 2018, 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
2019		$	712
2020			430
2021			210
2022			35
Total		$	1,387

The Company recognized rent expense of $0.6 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017.

The Company entered into a payment plan with Stanislaus County for unpaid property taxes on June 28, 2018 by paying $1.5 million as a first payment. Under the annual payment plan, the Company is set to pay 20% of the outstanding redemption amount, in addition to the current year property taxes and any interest incurred on the unpaid balance to date annually, on or before April 10 starting in 2019. As of December 31, 2018, the balance in property tax accrual was $3.3 million.

Legal Proceedings

On August 31, 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court against defendants EdenIQ, Inc. (EdenIQ). The lawsuit was based on EdenIQ’s wrongful termination of a merger agreement that would have effectuated the merger of EdenIQ into a new entity established and owned primarily by Aemetis. The lawsuit asserted that EdenIQ fraudulently induced the Company into assisting EdenIQ to obtain EPA approval for a new technology that the Company would not have done but for the Company’s belief that the merger would occur. The relief sought included EdenIQ’s specific performance of the merger and monetary damages, as well as punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. In response to the lawsuit, EdenIQ filed a cross-complaint asserting causes of action relating to the Company’s alleged inability to consummate the merger, the Company’s interactions with EdenIQ’s business partners, and the Company’s publicity of the status of the merger. EdenIQ named Third Eye Capital Corporation (TEC) as a defendant in a second amended cross-complaint that alleged TEC made a financial commitment to fund the merger contingent on the EPA’s approval of EdenIQ’s technology without disclosing that the financing commitment was tied to the EPA approval. EdenIQ claimed that TEC and the Company participated in the fraudulent concealment of material information surrounding the financing of the merger. By way of its cross-complaint, EdenIQ sought monetary damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. All of the claims asserted by both the Company and EdenIQ have been denied or dismissed. The Company and EdenIQ have filed motions for attorney’s fees and costs, which motions are currently pending. The Company seeks $1,775,043 by its motion and EdenIQ seeks $8,481,600.40 on its motion. The Company vigorously disputes EdenIQ’s position and supports its own position.