Legal Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Legal Matters
Legal Matters	*Note 26 — Legal Matters* Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co. et al., Case No. 12-cv-5704 (N.D. Ill.): This is a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of Lime Energy’s securities between May 14, 2008 and December 27, 2012, inclusive. Following our announcement on July 17, 2012, four separate putative class actions were filed alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The four cases were consolidated. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”), on October 26, 2012, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on January 18, 2013, alleging that David Asplund, the Company’s former CEO, John O’Rourke, the Company’s current President and CEO, and Jeffrey Mistarz, the Company’s current CFO (the “Defendants”) issued false and misleading statements concerning its revenues during the class period and thereby artificially inflated its stock price. On May 15, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a “strong inference” that the defendants acted with scienter (i.e., either knowingly or recklessly) in connection with any of the alleged misstatements, as required by the PSLRA. Plaintiffs’ filed a response to the motion to dismiss on July 22, 2013, and our reply to their response is due August 22, 2013. A status hearing on the motion before Judge Gettleman has been set for October 24, 2013. Kuberski v. Lime Energy Co. et al., Case No. 12-cv-7993 (N.D. Ill.): This is a putative shareholder derivative action alleging that Lime’s officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company from May 14, 2008 through the present by failing to maintain adequate internal controls and causing the Company to issue false and misleading statements concerning Lime’s revenues. An initial derivative complaint was filed on October 5, 2012. A second derivative action was filed on March 5, 2013. The two cases were consolidated and the Court appointed Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs on April 9, 2013. On May 9, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint. On June 10, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to make a demand on the Board of Directors or to adequately plead why demand should be excused, as required by Rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Delaware law. Plaintiffs’ filed a response on July 8, 2013, and we filed a reply to Plaintiffs’ response on July 22, 2013. The Court has indicated that it will rule orally on the motion to dismiss on August 27, 2013. SEC Investigation. The Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting an investigation of, among other things, our revenue recognition practices and financial reporting. On September 11, 2012, the Commission issued a subpoena for documents. We are cooperating with the Commission’s investigation.

Note 26 — Legal Matters

Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co. et al., Case No. 12-cv-5704 (N.D. Ill.): This is a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of Lime Energy’s securities between May 14, 2008 and December 27, 2012, inclusive. Following our announcement on July 17, 2012, four separate putative class actions were filed alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The four cases were consolidated. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”), on October 26, 2012, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on January 18, 2013, alleging that David Asplund, the Company’s former CEO, John O’Rourke, the Company’s current President and CEO, and Jeffrey Mistarz, the Company’s current CFO (the “Defendants”) issued false and misleading statements concerning its revenues during the class period and thereby artificially inflated its stock price. On May 15, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a “strong inference” that the defendants acted with scienter (i.e., either knowingly or recklessly) in connection with any of the alleged misstatements, as required by the PSLRA. Plaintiffs’ filed a response to the motion to dismiss on July 22, 2013, and our reply to their response is due August 22, 2013. A status hearing on the motion before Judge Gettleman has been set for October 24, 2013.

Kuberski v. Lime Energy Co. et al., Case No. 12-cv-7993 (N.D. Ill.): This is a putative shareholder derivative action alleging that Lime’s officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company from May 14, 2008 through the present by failing to maintain adequate internal controls and causing the Company to issue false and misleading statements concerning Lime’s revenues. An initial derivative complaint was filed on October 5, 2012. A second derivative action was filed on March 5, 2013. The two cases were consolidated and the Court appointed Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs on April 9, 2013. On May 9, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint. On June 10, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to make a demand on the Board of Directors or to adequately plead why demand should be excused, as required by Rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Delaware law. Plaintiffs’ filed a response on July 8, 2013, and we filed a reply to Plaintiffs’ response on July 22, 2013. The Court has indicated that it will rule orally on the motion to dismiss on August 27, 2013.

SEC Investigation. The Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting an investigation of, among other things, our revenue recognition practices and financial reporting. On September 11, 2012, the Commission issued a subpoena for documents. We are cooperating with the Commission’s investigation.