Note 12 — 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 the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (also known as the Superfund statute) for a facility known as the Devil’s Swamp Lake site located just northwest of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The special notice requested that Cleco and Cleco Power, along with many other listed potentially responsible parties (PRP), enter into negotiations with the EPA for the performance of an RI/FS at the Devil’s Swamp Lake site. The EPA identified Cleco as one of many companies that sent polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) wastes for disposal to the site. The EPA proposed to add the Devil’s Swamp Lake site to the National Priorities List on March 8, 2004, based on the release of PCBs to fisheries and wetlands located on the site, but no final listing decision has yet been made. The PRPs began discussing a potential proposal to the EPA in February 2008. The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to two PRPs, Clean Harbors, Inc. and Baton Rouge Disposal, to conduct an RI/FS in December 2009. The Tier 1 part of the study was completed in June 2012. Field activities for the Tier 2 investigation were completed in July 2012. The draft Tier 2 remedial investigation report was submitted in December 2014. In 2015, remedial investigation activities included the collection and analysis of sediment, crawfish, and fish tissue samples. After reviewing the sample analysis, in August 2015, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals updated the advisory for the area to advise that fish and crawfish from the area should not be eaten. The final Tier 2 remedial investigation report was made public in December 2015. 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 site, if any, and whether this will have a material impact on the results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows of the Registrants.

Merger

In connection with the Merger, four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged, among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The petitions also alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek various remedies, including monetary damages, which includes attorneys’ fees and expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:


•	Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27, 2014),


•	Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C (filed October 30, 2014),


•	Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and


•	L’Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the Court consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Amended Petition). The consolidated action named Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Amended Petition alleged, among other things, that Cleco Corporation’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco’s shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The Consolidated Amended Petition further alleged that all defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty. Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish are captioned as follows:


•	Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7, 2014),


•	Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and


•	Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21, 2014).

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, bcIMC, and John Hancock Financial as defendants. The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. On December 11, 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class Action Petition for Damages. Each petition alleged, among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco’s shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also allege that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information about the Merger. Each petition further alleged that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors’ breaches of fiduciary duty. On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On January 23, 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants’ declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 5, 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish.

On February 25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L’Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of Shareholders held on February 26, 2015, for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion. On June 19, 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. This will be considered according to a schedule established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended petition on July 24, 2015.

On March 21, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. On May 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition. This petition eliminated the request for preliminary and permanent injunction and also named an additional executive officer as a defendant. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended Petition. A hearing was held on September 15, 2016. On September 26, 2016, the District Court granted the exceptions filed by Cleco and dismissed all claims asserted by the former shareholders. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s ruling to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal. The Third Circuit Court of Appeal heard oral arguments in the case on September 21, 2017. Cleco expects a ruling by December 31, 2017. Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions.

Gulf Coast Spinning

In September 2015, a potential customer sued Cleco for failure to fully perform an alleged verbal agreement to lend or otherwise fund its startup costs to the extent of $6.5 million. Gulf Coast Spinning Company, LLC (Gulf Coast), the primary plaintiff, alleges that Cleco promised to assist it in raising approximately $60.0 million, which Gulf Coast needed to construct a cotton spinning facility near Bunkie, Louisiana. According to the petition filed by Gulf Coast in the 12^th Judicial District Court for Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana (the “District Court”), Cleco made such promises of funding assistance in order to cultivate a new industrial electric customer which would increase its revenues under a power supply agreement that it executed with Gulf Coast. Gulf Coast seeks unspecified damages arising from its inability to raise sufficient funds to complete the project, including lost profits.

Cleco filed an Exception of No Cause of Action arguing that the case should be dismissed. The District Court denied Cleco’s exception in December 2015, after considering briefs and arguments. In January 2016, Cleco appealed the District Court’s denial of its exception by filing with the Third Circuit Court of Appeal for the State of Louisiana. In June 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal for the State of Louisiana denied the request to have the case dismissed. In July 2016, Cleco filed a writ to the Louisiana Supreme Court seeking a review of the District Court’s denial of Cleco’s exception. In November 2016, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Cleco’s writ application.

In February 2016, the parties agreed to a stay of all proceedings pending discussions concerning settlement. In May 2016, the District Court lifted the stay at the request of Gulf Coast. The parties are currently participating in discovery. Cleco believes the allegations of the petition are contradicted by the written documents executed by Gulf Coast, are otherwise without merit, and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims alleged by Gulf Coast.

Sabine River Flood

On March 17, 2017, Cleco was served with a summons in Perry Bonin, Ace Chandler, and Michael Manuel, et al v. Sabine River Authority of Texas and Sabine River Authority of Louisiana, No. B-160173-C. The action was filed in the 163rd Judicial District Court for Orange County, Texas, and relates to flooding that occurred in Texas and Louisiana in March 2016. The plaintiffs have alleged that the flooding was the result of the release of water from the Toledo Bend spillway gates into the Sabine River. While the plaintiffs have made numerous allegations, they have specifically alleged that Cleco Power, included as one of several companies and governmental bodies, failed to repair one of the two hydroelectric generators at the Toledo Bend Dam, which in turn contributed to the flooding. Cleco Power does not operate the hydroelectric generator. Management believes that the case, as it relates to Cleco Power, has no merit.

The suit has been removed to federal court in Texas. Unless and until the federal court remands the case, it will stay in federal court.

LPSC Audits

Fuel Audit

Generally, the cost of fuel used for electric generation and the cost of power purchased for utility customers are recovered through the LPSC-established FAC that enables Cleco Power to pass on to its customers substantially all such charges. Recovery of FAC costs is subject to periodic fuel audits by the LPSC. The LPSC FAC General Order issued in November 1997, in Docket No. U-21497 provides that an audit of FAC filings will be performed at least every other year. In February 2016, the LPSC initiated an audit of Cleco Power’s fuel and purchased power expenses for the period January 2014 through December 2015. The total amount of fuel expense included in the audit was $582.6 million. On January 19, 2017, the LPSC Staff issued its audit report which recommended no disallowance of fuel costs. The report was approved by the LPSC on April 19, 2017. Cleco Power has FAC filings for January 2016 and thereafter that remain subject to audit. Management is unable to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range of the disallowance, if any, related to these filings.

Environmental Audit

In July 2009, the LPSC issued Docket No. U-29380 Subdocket A, which provides for an EAC to recover from customers certain costs of environmental compliance. The costs eligible for recovery are prudently incurred air emissions credits associated with complying with federal, state, and local air emission regulations that apply to the generation of electricity reduced by the sale of such allowances. Also eligible for recovery are variable emission mitigation costs, which are the costs of reagents such as ammonia and limestone that are a part of the fuel mix used to reduce air emissions, among other things. In February 2016, the LPSC initiated an audit of Cleco Power’s environmental costs for the period November 2010 through December 2015. The total amount of environmental costs included in the audit was $81.2 million. In December 2016, the LPSC Staff issued its audit report which recommended a disallowance of environmental costs of less than $0.1 million. The report was approved by the LPSC on February 17, 2017. Cleco Power has EAC filings for January 2016 and thereafter that remain subject to audit. Management is unable to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range of the disallowance, if any, related to these filings.

In the second quarter of 2015, Cleco Power began incurring additional environmental compliance expenses for reagents associated with compliance with MATS. In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the MATS rule to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In December 2015, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the rule to the EPA; however, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals did not vacate this rule. In April 2016, the EPA released a final supplemental finding that, even considering costs, it is appropriate and necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutants. By the June 24, 2016, deadline, six petitions were filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the EPA’s findings. At the request of the EPA, on April 27, 2017, the court issued an order holding the cases in abeyance pending the EPA’s review of its supplemental finding. Oral arguments are set for November 16, 2017. These expenses are also eligible for recovery through Cleco Power’s EAC and are subject to periodic review by the LPSC.

Transmission ROE

Two complaints were filed with FERC seeking to reduce the ROE component of the transmission rates that MISO transmission owners, including Cleco, may collect under the MISO tariff. The complaints sought to reduce the 12.38% ROE used in MISO’s transmission rates to a proposed 6.68%. The first complaint, filed in November 2013, was for the period November 2013 through February 2015. In September 2016, FERC issued a Final Order in response to the first complaint establishing a 10.32% ROE.

The second complaint, filed in February 2015, was for the period February 2015 through May 2016. In June 2016, an ALJ issued an initial decision in the second rate case docket recommending a 9.70% base ROE. Cleco Power is unable to determine when a binding FERC order will be issued on the second ROE complaint.

In November 2014, the MISO transmission owners committee, of which Cleco is a member, filed a request with FERC for an incentive to increase the new ROE by 50 basis points for RTO participation as allowed by the MISO tariff. In January 2015, FERC granted the request. The collection of the adder is delayed until the resolution of the ROE complaint proceedings.

On February 13, 2017, $1.2 million of refunds relating to the first complaint were submitted to MISO. As of September 30, 2017, Cleco Power had $2.0 million accrued for a reduction to the ROE, including accrued interest. Management believes a reduction in the ROE, as well as any additional refund, will not have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows of the Registrants.

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 September 30, 2017, believes the probable and reasonably estimable liabilities based on the eventual disposition of these matters is $4.6 million and has accrued this amount.

Off-Balance Sheet Commitments and Guarantees

Cleco Holdings and Cleco Power have entered into various off-balance sheet commitments, in the form of guarantees and standing letters of credit, in order to facilitate their activities and the activities of Cleco Holdings’ subsidiaries and equity investees (affiliates). Cleco Holdings 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.

Cleco Holdings 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 Holdings 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 and Cleco Power’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets because management has determined that Cleco and Cleco Power’s affiliates are able to perform the obligations under their contracts and that it is not probable that payments by Cleco or Cleco Power will be required.

Cleco Holdings provided guarantees and indemnities to Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States as a result of the sale of the Perryville facility in 2005. The remaining indemnifications relate to environmental matters that may have been present prior to closing. These remaining indemnifications have no limitations to time. 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 these guarantees.

On behalf of Acadia, Cleco Holdings provided guarantees and indemnifications as a result of the sales of Acadia Unit 1 to Cleco Power and Acadia Unit 2 to Entergy Louisiana in 2010 and 2011, respectively. The remaining indemnifications relate to the fundamental organizational structure of Acadia. These remaining indemnifications have no limitations as to time or maximum potential future payments. Currently, management does not expect to be required to pay Cleco Power or Entergy Louisiana under these guarantees.

Cleco Holdings provided indemnifications to Cleco Power as a result of the transfer of Coughlin to Cleco Power in March 2014. Cleco Power also provided indemnifications to Cleco Holdings and Evangeline as a result of the transfer of Coughlin to Cleco Power. The maximum amount of the potential payment to Cleco Power, Cleco Holdings, and Evangeline for their respective indemnifications is $40.0 million, except for indemnifications relating to the fundamental organizational structure of each respective entity, of which the maximum amount is $400.0 million. Currently, management does not expect to be required to make any payments under these indemnifications.

As part of the Amended Lignite Mining Agreement, Cleco Power and SWEPCO, joint owners of Dolet Hills Power Station, have agreed to pay the loan and lease principal obligations of the lignite miner, DHLC, when due if DHLC does 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. The maximum projected payment by Cleco Power under this guarantee is estimated to be $106.5 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 this guarantee.

Generally, neither Cleco Holdings nor Cleco Power has recourse that would enable them to recover amounts paid under their guarantee or indemnification obligations. There are no assets held as collateral for third parties that either Cleco Holdings or Cleco Power could obtain and liquidate to recover amounts paid pursuant to the guarantees or indemnification obligations.

Other Commitments

NMTC Fund

In 2008, Cleco Holdings and US Bancorp Community Development (USBCDC) formed the NMTC Fund. Cleco Holdings 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 Holdings. In total, Cleco Holdings contributed $285.5 million of equity contributions to the NMTC Fund and will receive at least $303.8 million in the form of tax credits, tax losses, capital gains/losses, earnings, and cash over the life of the investment, which ends in 2018. 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.

Due to the right of offset, the investment and associated debt are presented in Tax credit fund investment, net, on Cleco’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. At December 31, 2016, the amount of the liability component contained in the net asset was $0.6 million, and it was paid on March 30, 2017. The amount of tax benefits delivered in excess of capital contributions as of September 30, 2017, was $11.8 million.

By using the cost method for investments, the gross investment amortization expense will be recognized over a ten-year period, which is projected to end in 2018. The basis of the investment is reduced by the grants received under Section 1603 of the ARRA, which allow certain projects to receive a federal grant in lieu of tax credits, and other cash. Periodic amortization of the investment and the deferred taxes generated by the basis reduction temporary difference are included as components of income tax expense.

Fuel Transportation Agreement

In October 2007, Cleco Power entered into an agreement with Savage Services that met the accounting definition of a capital lease for barges in order to transport petroleum coke and limestone to Madison Unit 3. In December 2012, Cleco Power entered into an amended agreement for 42 dedicated barges. The amended agreement continued to meet the accounting definition of a capital lease until its expiration on August 31, 2017. Upon expiration of the amended agreement, Cleco Power entered into a second amended agreement with Savage Services to continue use of the 42 barges. The new agreement meets the accounting definition of an operating lease and automatically renews the terms of the lease on a month-to-month basis until terminated by either party. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, Cleco Power recognized $0.3 million in operating lease expense for the barges. Cleco Power is evaluating future options related to its fuel transportation agreement with Savage Services.

Other

Cleco has accrued for liabilities related to third parties, employee medical benefits, and AROs.

Risks and Uncertainties

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

Access to capital markets is a significant source of funding for both short- and long-term capital requirements not satisfied by operating cash flows. On April 7, 2017, Moody’s updated its credit ratings by maintaining Cleco Holdings at Baa3 (stable) and Cleco Power at A3 (stable). On May 30, 2017, S&P affirmed Cleco Holdings’ and Cleco Power’s credit ratings at BBB- (stable) and BBB+ (stable), respectively.

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 and Cleco’s financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

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