XML 17 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT  v2.3.0.11
Commitment and Contingencies
 3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitment and Contingencies  
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]
NOTE 12
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES


INFRINGEMENT


On October 13, 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858, titled "Method of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems” (the ’858 Patent) to GS CleanTech Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of GreenShift Corporation. On October 27, 2009, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,608,729, titled "Method of Freeing the Bound Oil Present in Whole Stillage and Thin Stillage” (the ’729 Patent) to GS CleanTech. Both the ‘858 Patent and the ‘729 Patent relate to the Company’s corn oil extraction technologies.


On October 13, 2009, GS CleanTech filed a legal action in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York captioned GS CleanTech Corporation v. GEA Westfalia Separator, Inc.; and DOES 1-20, alleging infringement of the ‘858 Patent ("New York I Action"). On October 13, 2009, GS CleanTech filed a Motion to Dismiss with the same court relative to a separate complaint filed previously by Westfalia captioned GEA Westfalia Separator, Inc.  v. GreenShift Corporation that alleged (1) false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act § 43(a); (2) deceptive trade practices and false advertising in violation of New York General Business Law §§ 349, 350 and 350-a; and (3) common law unfair competition ("New York II Action"). On October 13, 2009, Westfalia filed its First Amended Complaint in the New York II Action to include as a plaintiff, ethanol production company Ace Ethanol, LLC , and to add claims seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of the ‘858 Patent.  On October 13, 2009, ICM, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court, District of Kansas in the matter captioned ICM, Inc. v. GS CleanTech Corporation and GreenShift Corporation, alleging unfair competition, interference with existing and prospective business and contractual relationships, and deceptive trade practices and also seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of the ‘858 Patent.


On October 15, 2009, in the New York I Action, GS CleanTech filed a Notice of Filing First Amended Complaint for infringement of the ‘858 Patent, along with a copy of the First Amended Complaint, which added ICM, Ace Ethanol, Lifeline Foods LLC and ten additional DOES as defendants in the New York I Action. On October 23, 2009, GS CleanTech's First Amended Complaint in the New York I Action was entered by the court. On November 5, 2009, in ICM’s Kansas lawsuit, GS CleanTech filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the Kansas case to New York for inclusion in the New York I Action. Also on November 5, 2009, in ICM’s Kansas lawsuit, ICM filed a motion to enjoin CleanTech and GreenShift from prosecuting the claims against ICM in the New York I Action.


During February 2010, GS CleanTech commenced a legal action in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana captioned GS CleanTech Corporation v. Cardinal Ethanol, LLC, and a separate legal action in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois captioned GS CleanTech Corporation v. Big River Resources Galva, LLC and Big River Resources West Burlington, LLC. ICM sold Cardinal and Big River the equipment that each of Cardinal and Big River have used and are using to infringe the ‘858 Patent as alleged by GS CleanTech. ICM has assumed the defense of each of the above matters.


During May 2010, GS CleanTech commenced the following additional actions: GS CleanTech Corporation v. Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois; GS CleanTech Corporation v. Al-Corn Clean Fuel, LLC; Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company, LLLP; Heartland Corn Products, LLC and Bushmills Ethanol, Inc., in the United States District Court, District of Minnesota; GS CleanTech Corporation v. United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC, in the United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin; GS CleanTech Corporation v. Iroquois BioEnergy Company, LLC, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana; GS CleanTech Corporation v. Blue Flint Ethanol, LLC, in the United States District Court, District of North Dakota; and, GS CleanTech Corporation v. Amaizing Energy Atlantic, LLC; Amaizing Energy Cooperative; Amaizing Energy Denison, LLC; Amaizing Holding Company, LLC; and Lincolnway Energy, LLC, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa.


On May 6, 2010, GreenShift submitted a "Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings" to the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "Panel") located in Washington, D.C. In this motion, GreenShift moved the Panel to transfer and consolidate all pending suits involving infringement of GreenShift’s patents to one federal court for orderly and efficient review of all pre-trial matters. On August 6, 2010, the Panel ordered the consolidation and transfer of all pending suits in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana for pretrial proceedings (the "MDL Case").


On July 14, 2010, GS CleanTech commenced an action entitled GS CleanTech Corporation v. Adkins Energy, LLC, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of the ‘858 Patent.  On August 4, 2010, Adkins filed an answer to the complaint and included counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that Adkins does not infringe the '858 Patent and that the '858 Patent is invalid, and also alleging breach of contract.  On November 30,2010, the Adkins action was transferred to the MDL Case.


On October 14, 2010, GS CleanTech commenced an action entitled GS CleanTech Corporation v. Flottweg Separation Technology, Inc. and Flottweg AG, in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut alleging infringement of the ‘858 Patent. On November 15, 2010, GS CleanTech filed an amended complaint alleging that Flottweg Separation Technology, Inc., has infringed the ‘858 Patent.  On November 15, 2010, the Flottweg action was transferred to the MDL Case.


As part of the MDL Case, on November 15, 2010, GS CleanTech amended its complaint filed in the New York I Action to include a claim of patent infringement personally against the founder, CEO and President of ICM, and ICM amended its complaint filed in the Kansas action to include a claim seeking a declaratory judgment that the '858 Patent is unenforceable. On November 30, 2010, in the MDL Case, GS CleanTech filed a motion to dismiss ICM's amended complaint (including its claim seeking a declaratory judgment that the '858 Patent is unenforceable) or, in the alternative, to transfer the Kansas case to New York for inclusion in the New York I Action.  ICM has opposed the motion to dismiss. On December 10, 2010, in the MDL Case, GS CleanTech filed motions to strike the affirmative defenses that the '858 Patent is unenforceable asserted by Cardinal Ethanol, LLC; Big River Resources Galva, LLC; and Big River Resources West Burlington, LLC; and Lincolnland Agri-Energy, LLC. Each defendant has opposed the respective motion to strike. On February 14, 2011, GS CleanTech notified the court in the MDL Case that it will not be proceeding with a motion for preliminary injunction. On February 24, 2011, in the MDL Case, in connection with its breach of contract counterclaim against GreenShift Corporation, Adkins Ethanol, LLC filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or in the alternative partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the issue of breach of contract and partial summary judgment on the issue of damages.   On March 24, 2011, GreenShift filed an opposition to Adkins’ motion.


All of the parties in the MDL Action have filed their respective briefs with the Court in connection with proposed claim construction for certain claim limitations in the '858 Patent.  The Court in the MDL Action has scheduled a hearing on the claim construction matter for August 22, 2011.


There have been no substantive rulings on the merits on any of the actions included in the MDL Case and Management is unable to characterize or evaluate the probability of any outcome at this time. The Company intends to take all necessary steps to bring infringement of its patents to an end, including filing additional lawsuits involving any and all infringing use of the Company’s patents. The Company further plans to seek additional relief for instances of willful infringement. The Company’s position is that any infringing ethanol producer is liable for any infringing use of the Company’s patented technologies beginning on the publication date of the application that led to the ‘858 Patent.


OTHER MATTERS


The Company’s subsidiary, GS COES (Yorkville I), LLC, is party to an action entitled Nosan, et at v. GS COES (Yorkville I), LLC, et. al., pending as Oakland County, Michigan Circuit Court Case No. 10-110329-CK, an action by nineteen plaintiffs to recover on a guarantee by the subsidiary secured by a pledge in support of a bridge loan arrangement under which a variety of lenders claim to be owed the aggregate principal amount of $1,734,579, plus interest for claimed breach of their subordinated loan to GS CleanTech Corporation. GreenShift Corporation and GS CleanTech Corporation are not currently parties to this action. The Court has granted a Motion for Change of Venue to allow transfer to Lenawee County, Michigan where the underlying bridge loan arrangement is currently being litigated. GS COES intends to vigorously defend this action. This case is in the discovery phase. At this stage of the proceedings, we cannot evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome.


GreenShift Corporation, GS CleanTech Corporation and GS COES (Yorkville I), LLC, are party to the matter captioned Dynalectric of Michigan II, Inc. v. Biofuels Industries Group, et al, Lenawee County, Michigan Circuit Court Case No. 09-3584-CK. This action was originally filed as a lien foreclosure and unjust enrichment claim by Dynalectric of Michigan II, Inc., which claim was resolved. GreenShift, as assignee of GS CleanTech, filed a counterclaim, cross-claim and third party complaint against various parties asserting a claim for money due in the amount of $1,442,082, plus interest, attorney fees and costs, and for foreclosure of its construction lien. Biofuels Industries Group then asserted counterclaims, cross-claims and third party complaints against GreenShift, GS CleanTech, GS COES, Kevin Kreisler and Viridis Capital, LLC claiming breach of contract and seeking damages plus attorney fees, interest and cost. In response, the Company and its subsidiaries has asserted additional claims against Biofuels Industries Group and third party complaints against three of the bridge lenders claiming lender liability and various other claims in excess of $25,000. On June 6, 2011 Biofuels filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of Michigan, Eastern Division, under which protection the collateral upon which the lien was recorded was sold for substantially less than the first mortgage holder’s claimed  balance in excess of $9,000,000.  Documentation confirming priority claim to the proceeds has been requested, but is not yet received.  Recovery by GS CleanTech on the construction lien does not appear at this time. As to the other claims, this case is in the discovery stage, but was stayed secondary to the bankruptcy filing. We are unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the range of possible loss in the event of an adverse verdict at this time.


On October 31, 2006, the Company guaranteed a secured note issued by a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company’s former subsidiary, GS AgriFuels Corporation, in the principal amount of $6,000,000 to Stillwater Asset-Backed Fund, LP. The balance due to Stillwater at December 31, 2010 was $2,071,886. This obligation is guaranteed by the Company, however, Stillwater is party to an intercreditor agreement with the Company’s senior lender which provides that no payments can be made by the Company against the balance due to Stillwater until the senior lender has been fully paid. The operations of GS AgriFuels were discontinued during 2009. Viridis Capital, LLC subsequently acquired the stock of GS AgriFuels during 2010.


The Company posted an accrued expense of $650,000 during the quarter ended June 30, 2011 for liquidated damages that have not been, but may be, assessed by YA Corn Oil relating to certain conditions involving third party documentation that have not yet been fulfilled.


The Company is also involved in various collection matters for which vendors are seeking payment for services rendered and goods provided. The Company and its subsidiaries are party to numerous matters pertaining to outstanding amounts alleged to be due. Management is unable to characterize or evaluate the probability of any outcome at this time.


Under the Company’s insurance programs, coverage is obtained for catastrophic exposures, as well as those risks required to be insured by law or contract. There is a $2,500 deductible per occurrence for environmental impairments. Environmental liability insurance is carried with policy limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate.