Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

17. Commitments and Contingencies

        Lease Commitments

        The Company leases certain equipment and facilities under operating leases that expire through 2018. The Company recognizes its minimum lease payments, including escalation clauses, on a straight-line basis over the minimum lease term of the lease. Rent expense was $1.1 million and $1.5 million in the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

        Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases (with initial or remaining lease terms in excess of one year) as of December 31, 2013 are (in thousands):

Years ending December 31:
2014	$ 1,027
2015	680
2016	613
2017	379
2018	356
Total minimum lease payments	$ 3,055

        Legal Proceedings

        On April 30, 2010, the Company received notice of an administrative complaint filed by its former chief financial officer. The complaint was filed with the Hartford, Connecticut office of the U.S. Department of Labor (“U.S. DOL”) under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) and alleged, among other things, that the Company’s termination of her employment on April 19, 2010 was retaliatory and due to her alleged protected activity associated with comments she made to the Company’s board of directors at their meeting on March 26, 2010. On June 14, 2010, the Company filed its response to the complaint denying the allegations and requesting a dismissal of the matter. On September 27, 2013, the U.S. DOL issued preliminary findings on the matter concluding there was reasonable cause to support the former employee’s claims and ordering the Company to pay damages in excess of $1.9 million and take certain other actions. On October 22, 2013, the Company filed its Objections and Request for Hearing with the U.S. DOL which triggered the appointment of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), and the scheduling of a hearing on the merits of the matter. Thereafter, the parties agreed to participate in a U.S.DOL mediation process on February 7, 2014. On March 13, 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which provides for payment of a one-time lump sum amount of $0.4 million to the former employee, along with issuance of 75,000 shares of Company stock. The Company has reserved $0.6 million at December 31, 2013, which includes the lump sum amount, the market value of the common stock on December 31, 2013 and $0.1 million in legal expenses incurred as of December 31, 2013. The settlement has been formally approved by the ALJ. As a result, there has been mutual releases of all claims and a dismissal of the SOX complaint.

       On November 15, 2013, BP Products North America (“BP”) instituted claims against Johnson Matthey (“JM”) as the parent company of and purchaser of Applied Utility Systems, Inc. (“AUS”), a former subsidiary of the Company. On May 12, 2010, JM tendered to the Company a claim for indemnification under the Asset Purchase Agreement dated October 1, 2009, (the “Asset Purchase Agreement”), among JM, the Company and AUS. On June 11, 2013, BP, JM and the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Releases pursuant to which they settled all claims. The settlement agreement had no material impact on the Company. Under the indemnification clauses of the Asset Purchase Agreement, the Company may be liable for legal expenses incurred by JM. These legal costs may be offset against funds withheld by JM from the acquisition of AUS.

       In connection with the Asset Purchase Agreement, on October 1, 2009, JM presented the Company with an indemnification claim seeking recovery of the net amount $0.9 million after offsetting the funds withheld by JM from the acquisition of AUS. These claims are for matters relating to various customer contracts that JM purchased. The Company and JM have entered into discussions relating to the application of offsets and the validity of the claims presented. The Company has offered a settlement amount of $0.2 million and has reserved for this amount in the fourth quarter of 2013. Since the discussions are ongoing, the ultimate costs associated with this matter cannot be determined at this time.

        In addition to the foregoing, the Company is involved in legal proceedings from time to time in the ordinary course of its business. Management does not believe that any of these claims and proceedings against it is likely to have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Accordingly, the Company cannot determine the final amount, if any, of its liability beyond the amount accrued in the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2013, nor is it possible to estimate what litigation-related costs will be in the future.

Sales and Use Tax Audit

        The Company is undergoing a sales and use tax audit by the State of California on AUS for the period of 2007 through 2009. The audit has identified a project performed by the Company during that time period for which sales tax was not collected and remitted and for which the State of California asserts that proper documentation of resale may not have been obtained and that the Company owes sales tax of $1.3 million. The Company contends and believes that it received sufficient and proper documentation from its customer to support not collecting and remitting sales tax from that customer and is actively disputing the audit report with the State of California. On August 12, 2013, the Company appeared at an appeals conference with the Board of Equalization.  The outcome of that hearing is still pending. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for this matter as the Company does not assess a loss as being probable. Should the Company not prevail in this matter, it will pursue reimbursement from the customer for all assessments from the State.