XML 31 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.23.1
Commitments and Contingencies
 3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments
Purchase Commitments with Suppliers and Contract Manufacturers - In order to reduce manufacturing lead-times and to ensure an adequate supply of inventories, we have agreements with our component suppliers and contract manufacturers to allow long lead-time component inventory procurement based on a rolling production forecast. We are contractually obligated to purchase long lead-time component inventory procured by certain manufacturers in accordance with our forecasts. We can generally give notice of order cancellation at least 90 days prior to the delivery date. However, we issue purchase orders to our component suppliers and third-party manufacturers that may not be cancellable. As of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, we had no material open purchase orders with our component suppliers and third-party manufacturers that are not cancellable.
Performance Guarantees - We guarantee the performance of Energy Servers at certain levels of output and efficiency to our customers over the contractual term. We monitor the need for any accruals arising from such guaranties, which are calculated as the difference between committed and actual power output or between natural gas consumption at warranted efficiency levels and actual consumption, multiplied by the contractual rates with the customer. Amounts payable under these guaranties are accrued in periods when the guaranties are not met and are recorded contra service revenue in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. We paid $15.8 million and $0.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively, for such performance guarantees.
Letters of Credit - In 2019, pursuant to the PPA II upgrade of Energy Servers, we agreed to indemnify our financing partner for losses that may be incurred in the event of certain regulatory, legal or legislative development and established a cash-collateralized letter of credit facility for this purpose. As of March 31, 2023, the balance of this cash-collateralized letter of credit was $54.7 million, of which $33.3 million and $21.4 million is recognized as short-term and long-term restricted cash, respectively. As of December 31, 2022, the balance of this cash-collateralized letter of credit was $69.1 million, of which $40.6 million and $28.5 million is recognized as short-term and long-term restricted cash, respectively.
Pledged Funds - In 2019, pursuant to the PPA IIIb upgrade of Energy Servers, we established a restricted cash fund of $20.0 million, which had been pledged for a seven-year period to secure our operations and maintenance obligations with respect to the totality of our obligations to the financier. All or a portion of such funds would be released if we meet certain credit rating and/or market capitalization milestones prior to the end of the pledge period. If we do not meet the required criteria within the first five-year period, the funds would still be released to us over the following two years as long as the Energy Servers continue to perform in compliance with our warranty obligations. As of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, the balance of the long-term restricted cash fund was $6.7 million and $6.7 million, respectively.
Contingencies
Indemnification Agreements - We enter into standard indemnification agreements with our customers and certain other business partners in the ordinary course of business. Our exposure under these agreements is unknown because it involves future claims that may be made against us but have not yet been made. To date, we have not paid any claims or been required to defend any action related to our indemnification obligations. However, we may record charges in the future as a result of these indemnification obligations.
Delaware Economic Development Authority - In March 2012, we entered into an agreement with the Delaware Economic Development Authority to provide a grant of $16.5 million to us as an incentive to establish a new manufacturing facility in Delaware and to provide employment for full time workers at the facility over a certain period of time. We have so far received $12.0 million of the grant, which is contingent upon meeting the milestones through September 30, 2023. In the event that we do not meet the milestones, we may have to repay the Delaware Economic Development Authority, up to an additional $2.5 million on September 30, 2023. We repaid $1.5 million and $1.0 million of the grant in 2017 and 2021, respectively. As of September 30, 2022 the grant became current, and we have recorded $9.5 million in accrued expenses and other current liabilities for future repayments of this grant as of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively.

Investment Tax Credits - Our Energy Servers are eligible for federal ITCs that accrued to qualified property under Internal Revenue Code Section 48 when placed into service. However, the ITC program has operational criteria that extend for five years. If the energy property is disposed of or otherwise ceases to be qualified investment credit property before the close of the five-year recapture period is fulfilled, it could result in a partial reduction of the incentives. Energy Servers are purchased by the PPA Entities, other financial sponsors, or customers and, therefore, these parties bear the risk of repayment if the assets placed in service do not meet the ITC operational criteria in the future although in certain limited circumstances we do provide indemnification for such risk.
Legal Matters - We are involved in various legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. We review all legal matters at least quarterly and assess whether an accrual for loss contingencies needs to be recorded. We record an accrual for loss contingencies when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Legal matters are subject to uncertainties and are inherently unpredictable, so the actual liability in any such matters may be materially different from our estimates. If an unfavorable resolution were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our condensed consolidated balance sheets, results of operations or cash flows for the period in which the resolution occurs or in future periods.
In March 2019, the Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against us, certain members of our senior management, certain of our directors and the underwriters in our July 25, 2018 IPO alleging violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) for alleged misleading statements or omissions in our Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in connection with the IPO. Two related class action cases were subsequently filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court against the same defendants containing the same allegations; Rodriquez vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on April 22, 2019 and Evans vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on May 7, 2019. These cases have been consolidated. Plaintiffs’ consolidated amended complaint was filed with the court on September 12, 2019. On October 4, 2019, defendants moved to stay the lawsuit pending the federal district court action discussed below. On December 7, 2019, the Superior Court issued an order staying the action through resolution of the parallel federal litigation mentioned below. We believe the complaint to be without merit and in contravention of our forum selection clause in our Restated Certificate of Incorporation and we intend to defend this action vigorously. We are unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible losses.
In May 2019, Elissa Roberts filed a class action complaint in the federal district court for the Northern District of California against us, certain members of our senior management team, and certain of our directors alleging violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act for alleged misleading statements or omissions in our Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in connection with the IPO. On September 3, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs’ counsel. On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the underwriters in the IPO and our auditor as defendants for the Section 11 claim, as well as adding claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), against us, and certain members of our senior management team. The amended complaint alleged a class period for all claims from the time of our IPO until September 16, 2019. On April 21, 2020, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which continued to make the same claims and added allegations pertaining to the restatement and, as to claims under the Exchange Act, extended the putative class period through February 12, 2020. On July 1, 2020, we and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. On September 29, 2021, the court entered an order dismissing with leave to amend (1) five of seven statements or groups of statements alleged to violate Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and (2) all allegations under the Exchange Act. All allegations against our auditors were also
dismissed. Plaintiffs elected not to amend the complaint and instead on October 22, 2021 filed a motion for entry of final judgment in favor of our auditors so that plaintiffs could appeal the dismissal of those claims. The court denied that motion on December 1, 2021 and in response plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to certify an interlocutory appeal as to the accounting claims. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion on April 14, 2022. The claims for violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act that were not dismissed by the court entered the discovery phase.
On January 6, 2023, Bloom and the plaintiffs’ entered into an agreement in principle to settle the claims against Bloom, its executives and directors, and the IPO underwriters for a payment of $3 million, which will be funded entirely by our insurers. If the settlement becomes effective, it will result in a dismissal with prejudice of all claims against us, our executives and directors, and the underwriters. The settlement does not constitute an acknowledgement of liability or wrongdoing. This settlement is conditioned on the execution of a definitive settlement agreement containing the foregoing terms and customary terms for class action settlements, and approval of the settlement by the court. If the court does not approve the settlement and all of its material terms, or the settlement does not otherwise become final or effective, proceedings in the action will continue.
In June 2021, we filed a petition for writ of mandate and a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Santa Clara Superior Court against the City of Santa Clara for failure to issue building permits for two of our customer installations and asking the court to require the City of Santa Clara to process and issue the building permits. In October 2021, we filed an amended petition and complaint that asserts additional constitutional and tort claims based on the City’s failure to timely issue the Energy Server permits. Discovery has commenced and we are aggressively pursuing all claims. On February 4, 2022, the City of Santa Clara filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss all of the Company’s claims. The trial judge rejected the demurrer on all claims except one, and allowed Bloom leave to amend that claim. The second amended petition was filed on July 5, 2022. The City of Santa Clara demurred only to the amended cause of action seeking damages for tortious conduct. The trial judge granted that demurrer and struck the tort claim on October 27, 2022; the writ of mandate and constitutional claims were allowed to proceed. The parties are currently briefing the writ of mandate claims which seek immediate issuance of the building permits. On April 21, 2023, the parties executed a settlement agreement which allows our two pending customer installations to proceed under building permits and requires the City to amend its zoning code so that future installations of Bloom Energy Servers in Santa Clara require only building permits.
In February 2022, Plansee SE/Global Tungsten & Powders Corp. (“Plansee/GTP”), a former supplier, filed a request for expedited arbitration with the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center in Geneva Switzerland (“WIPO”), for various claims allegedly in relation to an Intellectual Property and Confidential Disclosure Agreement between Plansee/GTP and Bloom Energy Corporation. Plansee/GTP’s statement of claims includes allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,802,328, 8,753,785 and 9,434,003. On April 3, 2022, we filed a complaint against Plansee/GTP in the Eastern District of Texas to address the dispute between Plansee/GTP and Bloom Energy Corporation in a proper forum before a U.S. Federal District Court. Our complaint seeks the correction of inventorship of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,802,328, 8,753,785 and 9,434,003 (the “Patents-in-Suit”); declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability, and non-infringement of the Patents-in-Suit; and declaratory judgment of no misappropriation. Further, our complaint seeks to recover damages we have suffered in relation to Plansee/GTP’s business dealings that, as alleged, constitute acts of unfair competition, tortious interference contract, breach of contract, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and violations of the Clayton Antitrust Act. On June 9, 2022, Plansee/GTP filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas and compel arbitration (or alternatively to stay). We filed our opposition on June 30, 2022, Plansee/GTP filed its reply on July 14, 2022 and we filed our sur-reply on July 22, 2022. On February 9, 2023, Magistrate Judge Payne issued a report and recommendation to stay the district court action pending an arbitrability determination by the arbitrator for each claim.
On February 23, 2023, we filed an amended complaint adding additional causes of action and filed objections to the Magistrate’s report and recommendation. On April 26, 2023, Judge Gilstrap overruled our objections to the Magistrate’s report and recommendation and stayed the district court action pending arbitrability determinations by the arbitrator in the WIPO proceeding. The arbitration had been held in abeyance awaiting the District Court’s decision. Given that the District Court matter is stayed and the WIPO arbitration had been held in abeyance, the cases are still in their early stages. We are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the arbitration and district court action at this time.