XML 32 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.2
Commitments and Contingencies
 6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments
Purchase Commitments with Suppliers and Contract Manufacturers - As of June 30, 2022, we had a commitment with NetJets to purchase a fractional interest in one of its jets, which is to be used for corporate travel purposes, in the amount of approximately $3.4 million. The jet is expected to be completed by July of 2023. As of December 31, 2021, we had no material open purchase orders with our component suppliers and third-party manufacturers that are not cancellable.
Portfolio Financings Performance Guarantees - We guarantee the performance of Energy Servers at certain levels of output and efficiency to customers over the contractual term. We paid $0.7 million and $0.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively.
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. There were no letters of credit or pledged funds associated with the PPA IIIa Upgrade. As of June 30, 2022, the balance of this cash-collateralized letter of credit was $84.0 million, of which $41.1 million and $42.9 million is recognized as short-term and long-term restricted cash, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, the balance of this cash-collateralized letter of credit was $99.4 million, of which $41.7 million and $57.7 million is recognized as short-term and long-term restricted cash, respectively.
Pledged Funds - In 2019, pursuant to the PPA IIIb refinancing and energy servers upgrade program, we pledged $20.0 million for a seven-year period to secure our operations and maintenance obligations with respect to the totality of our obligations to the financier. We categorized the $20.0 million as restricted cash on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. It was agreed 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 June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the balance of the long-term restricted cash was $6.7 million and $6.7 million.
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. As of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, we have recorded $9.5 million and $9.5 million and in other long-term liabilities, respectively, for potential future repayments of this grant.
Investment Tax Credits - For information on ITCs, see Part II, Item 8, Note 13 - Commitments and Contingencies on our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021.
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 consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows for the period in which the resolution occurs or on future periods.
In July 2018, two former executives of Advanced Equities, Inc., Keith Daubenspeck and Dwight Badger, filed a statement of claim with the American Arbitration Association in Santa Clara, CA, against us, Kleiner Perkins, Caufield & Byers, LLC (“KPCB”), New Enterprise Associates, LLC (“NEA”) and affiliated entities of both KPCB and NEA seeking to compel arbitration and alleging a breach of a confidential agreement executed between the parties on June 27, 2014 (the “Confidential Agreement”). On May 7, 2019, KPCB and NEA were dismissed with prejudice. On June 15, 2019, a second amended statement of claim was filed against us alleging securities fraud, fraudulent inducement, a breach of the Confidential Agreement, and violation of the California unfair competition law. On July 16, 2019, we filed our answering statement and affirmative defenses. On September 27, 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss the statement of claim. On March 24, 2020, the Tribunal denied our motion to dismiss in part, and ordered that claimant’s relief is limited to rescission of the Confidential Agreement or remedies consistent with rescission, and not expectation damages. On September 14, 2020, the Tribunal issued an interim order dismissing the claimant’s remaining claims and requesting further briefing on the issue of prevailing party. On November 10, 2020, the Tribunal issued an order declaring us the prevailing party and requesting a motion for award of attorney’s fees. On March 17, 2021, we received the final award for attorneys fees and costs. On March 26, 2021, we filed a petition in the Northern District of California to confirm the award. Messrs. Badger and Daubenspeck have taken the position that the award should be vacated, including on the ground that one of the arbitrators made insufficient disclosures or was biased against them. The Northern District of California rejected the arguments made by Messrs. Badger and Daubenspeck and on September 8, 2021, issued an order granting our petition to confirm the award, and entered judgment in our favor for the attorneys fees and costs awarded by the Tribunal. On October 1, 2021, Mr. Badger and Mr. Daubenspeck filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. On July 25, 2022, the parties filed a stipulated motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal with prejudice pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement entered into by the parties on June 24, 2022. On July 29, 2022, the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appearl pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.
In June 2019, Messrs. Daubenspeck and Badger filed a complaint against our Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and our former Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting nearly identical claims as those in the pending arbitration discussed above. The lawsuit was stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration. The stay was lifted on October 20, 2020. On March 19, 2021, we filed a motion to dismiss the case on several grounds. On May 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the lawsuit pending the outcome of the petition to confirm the arbitration award in the Northern District of California. On July 25, 2022, the parties filed a stipulated motion to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement entered by the parties on June 24, 2022. On July 26, 2022, the court dismissed the action with prejudice.
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 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 Section 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 a motion 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 have filed a motion asking the court to certify an interlocutory appeal as to the accounting claims. The court denied plaintiff’s motion on April 14, 2022. Separately, the claims for violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act that were not dismissed by the court are proceeding to discovery. A case schedule has been set, with a trial scheduled for December 2023. We believe the claims to be without merit and we intend to defend this action vigorously. We are unable to predict the outcome of this litigation at this time and accordingly are not able to estimate any range of reasonably possible losses.
In September 2019, we received a books and records demand from purported stockholder Dennis Jacob (“Jacob Demand”). The Jacob Demand cites allegations from the September 17, 2019 report prepared by admitted short seller Hindenburg Research. In November 2019, we received a substantially similar books and records demand from the same law firm on behalf of purported stockholder Michael Bolouri (“Bolouri Demand” and, together with the Jacob Demand, the “Demands”). On January 13, 2020, Messrs. Jacob and Bolouri filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery to enforce the Demands in the matter styled Jacob, et al. v. Bloom Energy Corp., C.A. No. 2020-0023-JRS. On March 9, 2020, Messrs. Jacob and Bolouri filed an amended complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery to add allegations regarding the restatement. The court held a one-day trial on December 7, 2020. On February 25, 2021, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a decision rejecting the Bolouri Demand but granting in part the Jacob Demand allowing limited access to certain books and records pertaining to the allegations made in the Hindenburg Research Report. On March 29, 2021, the Court of Chancery entered a Final Order and Judgment regarding the required production of documents. On April 28, 2021, we produced documents to Mr. Jacob responsive to the Final Order and Judgment. We are unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible losses.
In March 2020, Francisco Sanchez filed a class action complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court against us alleging certain wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and that we engaged in unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code, and in July 2020 he amended his complaint to add claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). On November 30, 2020, we filed a motion to compel arbitration and the motion was to be heard on March 5, 2021. On February 24, 2021, Mr. Sanchez dismissed the individual and class action claims without prejudice, leaving one cause of action for enforcement of the Private Attorney Generals Act. In April 2021, an amended complaint reflecting these changes was filed with the Santa Clara Superior Court. The parties attended a mediation on January 10, 2022, and agreed in principle to resolve the PAGA and individual claims for approximately $1.0 million. The parties executed a written agreement in late May 2022. The agreement was approved by the Court in compliance with PAGA on July 1, 2022.
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 1, 2022. The next Status Conference with the judge is scheduled for September 1, 2022. If we are unable to secure building permits for these customer installations in a timely fashion, our customers will terminate their contracts with us and select another energy provider. In addition, if we are no longer able to install our Energy Servers in Santa Clara under building permits, we may not be able to secure future customer bookings for installation in the City of Santa Clara.
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, 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 hawse 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 and compel arbitration (or alternatively to stay). We filed our opposition on June 30, 2022, Plansee/GTP’s filed its reply on July 14, 2022 and we filed our sur-reply on July 22, 2022. Given that 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, and accordingly are not able to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.