Note 11 — Litigation, Other Commitments and Contingencies, and Disclosures about Guarantees

Litigation

Devil’s Swamp

In October 2007, Cleco received a Special Notice for Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) from the EPA pursuant to CERCLA (also known as the Superfund statute). CERCLA establishes several classes of PRPs for a contaminated site, and imposes strict, joint, and several liability on those PRPs for the cost of response to the contamination. The special notice requested that Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power, along with many other listed PRPs, enter into negotiations with the EPA for the performance of an RI/FS at an area known as the Devil’s Swamp Lake site just northwest of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The EPA identified Cleco as one of many companies that was sending polychlorinated biphenyl wastes for disposal to the site. The Devil’s Swamp Lake site has been proposed to be added to the National Priorities List based on the release of PCBs to fisheries and wetlands located on the site, but no final determination has been made. The PRPs began discussing a potential proposal to the EPA in February 2008. The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to PRP’s Clean Harbors, Inc. and Baton Rouge Disposal to Conduct an RI/FS in December 2009. The Tier 1 part of the study was complete in June 2012. Field activities for the Tier 2 investigation were completed in July 2012. Currently, the study/remedy selection task continues, and there is no record of a decision. Therefore, management is unable to determine how significant Cleco’s share of the costs associated with the RI/FS and possible response action at the facility site, if any, may be and whether or not this will have a material adverse effect on the Registrants’ financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Discrimination Complaints

In December 2009, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (the Court) on behalf of eight current employees and four former employees alleging that Cleco discriminated against each of them on the basis of race. Each was seeking various remedies provided under applicable statutes prohibiting racial discrimination in the workplace, and together, the plaintiffs requested monetary compensation exceeding $35.0 million. In July 2010, the plaintiffs moved to add an additional current employee alleging that Cleco had discriminated on the basis of race. The additional plaintiff sought compensation of no less than $2.5 million and became the thirteenth plaintiff. In April 2011, Cleco entered into a settlement with one of the current employees which resulted in a dismissal of one of the thirteen cases with prejudice. In September 2011, the Court ruled on Cleco’s summary judgment motions, with the end result that eleven of the twelve remaining plaintiffs had at least one claim remaining. In February 2013, the Court ruled on the second motion for summary judgment, filed by Cleco in March 2012, in each of the eleven cases and each such case was dismissed with prejudice. Appeals were filed in ten of the eleven dismissed cases to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the Fifth Circuit). In June 2013, the Fifth Circuit clerk dismissed the appeals of two of the current employees due to their failure to file a brief in support of their respective appeals. On various dates in August through November 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court judgments in favor of Cleco in seven of the eight remaining cases. On April 8, 2014, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Court’s summary judgment dismissing the wrongful termination and other discrimination claims of the one remaining plaintiff, a former employee. Excepted from its ruling was one claim that the former employee, who served as one of Cleco’s human resources representatives, alleged arising from a disciplinary warning Cleco issued to the former employee. This one claim has been remanded to the Court for trial, scheduled to commence on January 20, 2015.

City of Opelousas

In March 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf of three Cleco Power customers in Opelousas, Louisiana. The complaint alleged that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs by applying to customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as Cleco Power applies to all of its retail customers. The plaintiffs claimed that Cleco Power owed customers in Opelousas more than $30.0 million as a result of the alleged overcharges. The plaintiffs alleged that Cleco Power should have established, solely for customers in Opelousas, retail rates that were separate and distinct from the retail rates that apply to other customers of Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not have collected from customers in Opelousas the storm surcharge approved by the LPSC following hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In April 2010, Cleco Power filed a petition with the LPSC appealing to its expertise in declaring that the ratepayers of Opelousas had been properly charged the rates that were applicable to Cleco Power’s retail customers and that no overcharges had been collected.

In May 2010, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the 27th Judicial District Court for St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, repeating the allegations of the first complaint, which was submitted on behalf of 249 Opelousas residents. In January 2011, the presiding judge in the state court proceeding ruled that the jurisdiction to hear the two class actions resided in the state court and not with the LPSC as argued by both Cleco Power and the LPSC Staff. Both Cleco Power and the LPSC Staff appealed this ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the State of Louisiana (Third Circuit). In September 2011, the Third Circuit denied both appeals. In October 2011, both Cleco Power and the LPSC appealed the Third Circuit’s ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court. In February 2011, the administrative law judge (ALJ) in the LPSC proceeding ruled that the LPSC has jurisdiction to decide the claims raised by the class action plaintiffs. At its December 2011 Business and Executive Session, the LPSC adopted the ALJ’s recommendation that Cleco Power be granted summary judgment in its declaratory action finding that Cleco Power’s ratepayers in the City of Opelousas had been served under applicable rates and policies approved by the LPSC and Cleco Power’s Opelousas ratepayers had not been overcharged in connection with LPSC rates or ratemaking. In January 2012, the class action plaintiffs filed their appeal of such LPSC decision to the 19th Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana. In December 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued its opinion accepting Cleco Power’s jurisdictional arguments and dismissed the state court claims. The appeal of the plaintiffs to the 19th Judicial District Court to review the LPSC ruling in Cleco Power’s favor that it had properly charged the ratepayers of Opelousas was dismissed with prejudice on May 21, 2014. With this dismissal, the matter is fully resolved in favor of Cleco Power.

Other

Cleco is involved in various litigation matters, including regulatory, environmental, and administrative proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions, arbitrators, and governmental agencies regarding matters arising in the ordinary course of business. The liability Cleco may ultimately incur with respect to any one of these matters in the event of a negative outcome may be in excess of amounts currently accrued. Management regularly analyzes current information and, as of June 30, 2014, believes the probable and reasonably estimable liabilities based on the eventual disposition of these matters is approximately $7.8 million and has accrued this amount.

Off-Balance Sheet Commitments

Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power have entered into various off-balance sheet commitments, in the form of guarantees and standby letters of credit, in order to facilitate their activities and the activities of Cleco Corporation’s subsidiaries and equity investees (affiliates). Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power have also agreed to contractual terms that require the Registrants to pay third parties if certain triggering events occur. These contractual terms generally are defined as guarantees in the authoritative guidance.

Cleco Corporation entered into these off-balance sheet commitments in order to entice desired counterparties to contract with its affiliates by providing some measure of credit assurance to the counterparty in the event Cleco’s affiliates do not fulfill certain contractual obligations. If Cleco Corporation had not provided the off-balance sheet commitments, the desired counterparties may not have contracted with Cleco’s affiliates, or may have contracted with them at terms less favorable to its affiliates.

The off-balance sheet commitments are not recognized on Cleco’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets because management has determined that Cleco’s affiliates are able to perform these obligations under their contracts and that it is not probable that payments by Cleco will be required. Cleco’s off-balance sheet commitments as of June 30, 2014, are summarized in the following table and a discussion of the off-balance sheet commitments follows the table. The discussion should be read in conjunction with the table to understand the impact of the off-balance sheet commitments on Cleco’s financial condition.



	AT JUNE 30, 2014
(THOUSANDS)	FACE AMOUNT
Cleco Corporation
Guarantee issued to Entergy Mississippi on behalf of Attala	$	500
Cleco Power
Obligations under standby letter of credit issued to the Louisiana Department of Labor	3,725
Obligations under standby letter of credit issued to MISO	2,000
Total	$	6,225
There were no reductions against the face amount for any of these commitments.

In January 2006, Cleco Corporation provided a $0.5 million guarantee to Entergy Mississippi for Attala’s obligations under the Interconnection Agreement. This guarantee will be effective until obligations are performed or extinguished.

The State of Louisiana allows employers of certain financial net worth to self-insure their workers’ compensation benefits. Cleco Power has a certificate of self-insurance from the Louisiana Office of Workers’ Compensation and is required to post a $3.7 million letter of credit, an amount equal to 110% of the average losses over the previous three years, as surety.

In December 2013, Cleco Power provided a $1.0 million letter of credit to MISO pursuant to the credit requirements of FTRs. On April 8, 2014, Cleco Power increased the letter of credit to $2.0 million. The letter of credit automatically renews each year and reduces Cleco Power’s credit facility capacity.

Cleco Corporation provided indemnifications to Cleco Power as a result of the transfer of Coughlin to Cleco Power on March 15, 2014. Cleco Power also provided indemnifications to Cleco Corporation and Evangeline as a result of the transfer of Coughlin to Cleco Power. The maximum amount of the potential payment to Cleco Power, Cleco Corporation, and Evangeline for their respective indemnifications is $40.0 million, except for indemnifications relating to the fundamental organizational structure of Cleco Corporation and Evangeline and of Cleco Power, respectively, of which the maximum amount is $400.0 million.

On-Balance Sheet Guarantees

Cleco Corporation provided a limited guarantee and an indemnification to Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States for Perryville’s performance, indemnity, representation, and warranty obligations under the Sale Agreement, the Power Purchase Agreement, and other ancillary agreements related to the sale of the Perryville facility in 2004. This is a continuing guarantee and all obligations of Cleco Corporation shall continue until the guaranteed obligations have been fully performed or otherwise extinguished. The maximum amount of the potential payment to Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States is $42.4 million. Currently, management does not expect to be required to pay Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States under the guarantee.

In April 2011, Acadia completed its disposition of Acadia Unit 2 to Entergy Louisiana. Limited guarantees and indemnifications were provided to Entergy Louisiana and an indemnification liability of $21.8 million, which represents the fair value of these indemnifications was recorded on Cleco’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. The indemnification liabilities were reduced through expiration of the contractual life or through a reduction in the probability of a claim arising. The indemnification obligation had a term of three years and at June 30, 2014 only the residual value of approximately $0.2 million remains. For the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, income of $0.7 million and $6.9 million was recognized, respectively.

As part of the Amended Lignite Mining Agreement, Cleco Power and SWEPCO, joint owners of Dolet Hills, have agreed to pay the loan and lease principal obligations of the lignite miner, DHLC, when due if they do not have sufficient funds or credit to pay. Any amounts paid on behalf of the miner would be credited by the lignite miner against future invoices for lignite delivered. At June 30, 2014, Cleco Power had a liability of $3.8 million related to the amended agreement. The maximum projected payment by Cleco Power under this guarantee is estimated to be $98.1 million; however, the Amended Lignite Mining Agreement does not contain a cap. The projection is based on the forecasted loan and lease obligations to be incurred by DHLC, primarily for purchases of equipment. Cleco Power has the right to dispute the incurrence of loan and lease obligations through the review of the mining plan before the incurrence of such loan and lease obligations. The Amended Lignite Mining Agreement is not expected to terminate pursuant to its terms until 2036 and does not affect the amount the Registrants can borrow under their credit facilities. Currently, management does not expect to be required to pay DHLC under the guarantee.

In its bylaws, Cleco Corporation has agreed to indemnify directors, officers, agents, and employees who are made a party to a pending or completed suit, arbitration, investigation, or other proceeding whether civil, criminal, investigative, or administrative, if the basis of inclusion arises as the result of acts conducted in the discharge of their official capacity. Cleco Corporation has purchased various insurance policies to reduce the risks associated with the indemnification. In its operating agreement, Cleco Power provides for the same indemnification as described above with respect to its managers, officers, agents, and employees.

Generally, neither Cleco Corporation nor Cleco Power has recourse that would enable them to recover amounts paid under their guarantee or indemnification obligations. The one exception is the insurance contracts associated with the indemnification of directors, managers, officers, agents, and employees. There are no assets held as collateral for third parties that either Cleco Corporation or Cleco Power could obtain and liquidate to recover amounts paid pursuant to the guarantees or indemnification obligations.

The following table summarizes the expected amount of commitment termination per period of off-balance sheet commitments and on-balance sheet guarantees discussed above.



							AT JUNE 30, 2014
			AMOUNT OF COMMITMENT EXPIRATION PER PERIOD
(THOUSANDS)	NET AMOUNT COMMITTED		LESS THAN ONE YEAR		1-3 YEARS		3-5 YEARS		MORE THAN 5 YEARS
Off-balance sheet commitments	$	6,225	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	6,225
On-balance sheet guarantees	3,961		180		—		—		3,781
Total	$	10,186	$	180	$	—	$	—	$	10,006

Other Commitments

NMTC Fund

In 2008, Cleco Corporation and US Bancorp Community Development Corporation (USBCDC) formed the NMTC Fund. Cleco has a 99.9% membership interest in the NMTC Fund and USBCDC has a 0.1% interest. The purpose of the NMTC Fund is to invest in projects located in qualified active low-income communities that are underserved by typical debt capital markets. These investments are designed to generate NMTCs and Historical Rehabilitation tax credits. The NMTC Fund was later amended to include renewable energy investments. The majority of the energy investments qualify for grants under Section 1603 of the ARRA. The tax benefits received from the NMTC Fund reduce the federal income tax obligations of Cleco Corporation. In total, Cleco Corporation will contribute $283.6 million of equity contributions to the NMTC Fund and will receive at least $301.9 million in the form of tax credits, tax losses, capital gains/losses, earnings, and cash over the life of the investment, which ends in 2017. The $18.3 million difference between equity contributions and total benefits received will be recognized over the life of the NMTC Fund as net tax benefits are delivered. The following table reflects remaining future equity contributions.



(THOUSANDS)	CONTRIBUTION
Six months ending Dec. 31, 2014	$	25,071
Years ending Dec. 31,
2015	11,195
2016	3,698
2017	2,913
Total	$	42,877

Of the $42.9 million, $29.3 million is due to be paid within the next 12 months. Due to the right of offset, the investment and associated debt are presented on Cleco’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet in the line item Tax credit fund investment, net. The amount of tax benefits delivered in excess of capital contributions as of June 30, 2014, was $54.5 million. The amount of tax benefits delivered but not utilized as of June 30, 2014, was $115.5 million and is reflected as a deferred tax asset.

The equity contribution does not contain a stated rate of interest. Cleco Corporation has recorded the liability and investment at its calculated fair value within the framework of the authoritative guidance. In order to calculate the fair value, management used an imputed rate of interest assuming that Cleco Corporation obtained financing of a similar nature from a third party. The imputed interest rate was used in a net present value model in order to calculate the fair value of the remaining portion of the delayed equity contributions. The following table contains the disclosures required by the authoritative guidelines for equity investments with an imputed interest rate.



(THOUSANDS)
Equity contributions, imputed interest rate 6%
Principal payment schedule above:	$	42,877
Less: unamortized discount	2,245
Total	$	40,632

The gross investment amortization expense will be recognized over a nine-year period, with three years remaining under the new amendment, using the cost method in accordance with the authoritative guidance for investments. The grants received under Section 1603, which allow certain projects to receive a federal grant in lieu of tax credits, and other cash reduce the basis of the investment. Periodic amortization of the investment and the deferred taxes generated by the basis reduction temporary difference are included as components of income tax expense.

Other

Cleco has accrued for liabilities related to third parties and employee medical benefits. Cleco has also accrued additional taxes other than income taxes at the state and local level.

Risks and Uncertainties

Cleco Corporation

Cleco Corporation could be subject to possible adverse consequences if Cleco’s counterparties fail to perform their obligations or if Cleco Corporation or its affiliates are not in compliance with loan agreements or bond indentures.

Other

Access to capital markets is a significant source of funding for both short- and long-term capital requirements not satisfied by operating cash flows. If Cleco Corporation’s credit ratings were to be downgraded by Moody’s or S&P, Cleco Corporation would be required to pay additional fees and higher interest rates under its bank credit and other debt agreements.

Changes in the regulatory environment or market forces could cause Cleco to determine its assets have suffered an other-than-temporary decline in value, whereby an impairment would be required to be taken and Cleco’s financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Cleco Power

Cleco Power began participating in the MISO market in December 2013. Energy prices in the MISO market are based on LMP, which includes a component directly related to congestion on the transmission system. Pricing zones with greater transmission congestion may have higher LMP costs. Physical transmission constraints present in the MISO market could increase energy costs within Cleco Power’s pricing zone. Cleco Power uses FTRs to mitigate the transmission congestion risk. Changes to anticipated transmission paths may result in an unexpected increase in energy costs to Cleco Power.

Access to capital markets is a significant source of funding for both short- and long-term capital requirements not satisfied by operating cash flows. Cleco Power pays fees and interest under its bank credit agreements based on the highest rating held. If Cleco Power’s credit ratings were to be downgraded by Moody’s or S&P, Cleco Power would be required to pay additional fees and higher interest rates under its bank credit agreements. Cleco Power’s collateral for derivatives is based on the lowest rating held. If Cleco Power’s credit ratings were to be downgraded by Moody’s or S&P, Cleco Power would be required to pay additional collateral for derivatives.