Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2024

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 for 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 occasionally issue purchase orders to our component suppliers and third-party manufacturers that are not cancellable. As of March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, 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 the 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 as service revenue in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. We paid $15.1 million and $15.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively, for such performance guarantees.

Letters of Credit — In 2019, pursuant to the PPA II upgrade of the Energy Servers, we agreed to indemnify our financing partner for losses that may be incurred in the event of certain regulatory, legal or legislative developments and established a cash-collateralized letter of credit facility for this purpose. As of March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, the balance of this cash-collateralized letter of credit was $26.9 million and $40.4 million, respectively.

In addition, we have other outstanding letters of credit issued to our customers and other counterparties in the U.S. and international locations under different performance and financial obligations. These letters of credit are collateralized through cash deposited in the controlled bank accounts with the issuing banks and are classified as restricted cash in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. As of March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, the balances of the cash-collateralized letters of credit issued to our customers and other counterparties in the U.S. and international locations were $32.5 million and $32.6 million, respectively.

Pledged Funds — In 2019, pursuant to the PPA IIIb upgrade of the 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, 2024 and December 31, 2023, the balance of the restricted cash fund was $7.4 million and $7.6 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.

Investment Tax Credits — Our Energy Servers are eligible for federal Income Tax Credits (the “ITC”) 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.

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 matter 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 consolidated financial condition, 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 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 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 $3.0 million, which we expect to be funded entirely by our insurers. If the settlement becomes effective, we expect it to 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. On June 30, 2023, Bloom and the plaintiff’s executed a definitive settlement agreement containing the foregoing terms and customary terms for class action settlements, and on the same date, filed the settlement agreement with the court to seek its approval. The judge issued a preliminary approval of the settlement on October 31, 2023. Notice of the settlement together with requested Plaintiff attorney fees was sent to the defined class of Bloom stockholders and on May 2, 2024 the final settlement was approved.

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. 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 of Santa Clara 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 decision of the Eastern District of Texas. A hearing by the arbitrator in WIPO on arbitrability took place on June 27, 2023. On October 2, 2023, the arbitrator in the WIPO proceeding issued a ruling concluding that all the parties’ claims were arbitrable. On November 18, 2023, the arbitrator bifurcated the arbitration into a first phase that will focus on Bloom’s claims directed to improper inventorship of the Patents-in-Suit and Bloom’s defective product claims. Briefing on the first phase will take place throughout 2024 with a potential evidentiary hearing to be scheduled in 2025. We are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the arbitration at this time.