CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 9 — CONTINGENCIES Securities Class Actions Following the Company’s public announcement that it would restate certain of its financial results due to a change in the Company’s accounting treatment for certain exploration and development costs, three securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on March 9, 2010, March 18, 2010 and April 7, 2010. These complaints assert claims against the Company and certain officers and directors for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). One complaint also asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. All three complaints allege claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Company common stock between May 6, 2008 or May 7, 2008 and February 23, 2010 or February 24, 2010. These three lawsuits were consolidated by the Court in an order issued on June 3, 2010 and the Court appointed three of the Company’s stockholders to serve as lead plaintiffs. Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint (“CAC”) on July 9, 2010 that asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Company common stock between May 7, 2008 and February 24, 2010. The CAC alleges that certain of the Company’s public statements were false and misleading for failing to account properly for the Company’s exploration and development costs based on the Company’s announcement on February 24, 2010 that it was going to restate certain of its financial results to change its method of accounting for exploration and development costs in certain respects. The CAC also alleges that certain of the Company’s statements concerning the North Brawley project were false and misleading. The CAC seeks compensatory damages, expenses, and such further relief as the Court may deem proper. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on August 13, 2010. On March 3, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ allegations that the Company’s statements regarding the North Brawley project were false or misleading, but did not dismiss plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the 2008 restatement. Defendants answered the remaining allegations in the CAC regarding the restatement on April 8, 2011 and the case has now entered the discovery phase. On July 22, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the case as a class action on behalf of a class of purchasers of Company common stock between February 25, 2009 and February 24, 2010, and defendants filed an opposition to the motion for class certification on October 4, 2011. Subsequently, the parties participated in a mediation where they reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action lawsuits. The parties thereafter filed a stipulation of settlement with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on March 27, 2012 providing that the claims against the Company and its officers and directors will be dismissed with prejudice and plaintiffs will release the defendants from all claims in exchange for a cash payment of $3.1 million to be funded by the Company’s insurers. The stipulation of settlement received preliminary approval by the Court on March 30, 2012. It still remains subject to final approval by the Court following notice to members of the class. The Company and the individual defendants have steadfastly maintained that the claims raised in the securities class action lawsuits were without merit, and have vigorously contested those claims. As part of the settlement, the Company and the individual defendants continue to deny any liability or wrongdoing under the securities laws or otherwise. Stockholder Derivative Cases Four stockholder derivative lawsuits have also been filed in connection with the Company’s public announcement that it would restate certain of its financial results due to a change in the Company’s accounting treatment for certain exploration and development costs. Two cases were filed in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe on March 16, 2010 and April 21, 2010 and two cases were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on March 29, 2010 and June 7, 2010. All four lawsuits assert claims brought derivatively on behalf of the Company against certain of its officers and directors for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and other claims, including waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. The two stockholder derivative cases filed in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe were consolidated by the Court in an order dated May 27, 2010 and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated derivative complaint on September 7, 2010. In accordance with a stipulation between the parties, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 16, 2010. On April 18, 2011, the court stayed the state derivative case pending the resolution of the securities class action lawsuits. The Company cannot make an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss on the state derivative case. The two stockholder derivative cases filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada were consolidated by the Court in an order dated August 31, 2010, and plaintiffs filed a consolidated derivative complaint on October 28, 2010. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on December 13, 2010. On March 7, 2011, the Court transferred the federal derivative case to the Court presiding over the securities class action, and on August 29, 2011, the Court stayed the federal derivative case pending the resolution of the securities class action lawsuits. The Company cannot make an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss on the federal derivative case. The Company believes the allegations in these purported derivative actions are without merit and is defending the actions vigorously. Other On January 4, 2012, the California Unions for Reliable Energy (“CURE”) filed a petition in Alameda Superior Court, naming the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) and the Company as defendant and real party in interest, respectively. The petition asks the court to order the CEC to vacate its decision which denied, with prejudice, the complaint filed by CURE against the Company with the CEC. The CURE complaint alleged that the Company’s North Brawley project and East Brawley Project both exceed the CEC’s 50 MW jurisdictional threshold and therefore are subject to the CEC licensing authority rather than the Imperial County licensing authority. In addition, the CURE petition asks the court to investigate and halt any ongoing violation of the Warren Alquist Act by the Company, and to award CURE attorney’s fees and costs. As to North Brawley, CURE alleges that the CEC decision violated the Warren Alquist Act because it failed to consider provisions of the County permit for North Brawley, which CURE contends authorizes the Company to build a generating facility with a number of Ormat Energy Converters capable of generating more than 50 MW. As to East Brawley, CURE alleges that the CEC decision violated the Warren Alquist Act because it failed to consider the conditional use permit application for East Brawley, which CURE contends shows that the Company requested authorization to build a facility with a number of Ormat Energy Converters capable of generating more than 50 MW. The Company believes that the petition is without merit and intends to respond and take necessary legal action to dismiss the proceedings. The Company was notified that CURE intends to file the administrative record from the underlying administrative proceeding in the Alameda County Superior Court proceeding. This notice extended the time for the Company to respond to CURE’s petition. Once the Company is served with a certified copy of the administrative record, the Company will have thirty days in which to respond to CURE’s petition, unless the Company agrees to a shorter time. Filing of the petition in and of itself does not have any immediate adverse implications for the North Brawley or East Brawley projects and the Company continues to operate the North Brawley project in the ordinary course of business and continues with its development work on the East Brawley project. From time to time, the Company is named as a party in various lawsuits, claims and other legal and regulatory proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. These actions typically seek, among other things, compensation for alleged personal injury, breach of contract, property damage, punitive damages, civil penalties or other losses, or injunctive or declaratory relief. With respect to such lawsuits, claims and proceedings, the Company accrues reserves when a loss is probable and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the outcome of these proceedings, individually and collectively, will not be material to the financial statements as a whole.

NOTE 9 — CONTINGENCIES

Securities Class Actions

Following the Company’s public announcement that it would restate certain of its financial results due to a change in the Company’s accounting treatment for certain exploration and development costs, three securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on March 9, 2010, March 18, 2010 and April 7, 2010. These complaints assert claims against the Company and certain officers and directors for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). One complaint also asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. All three complaints allege claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Company common stock between May 6, 2008 or May 7, 2008 and February 23, 2010 or February 24, 2010. These three lawsuits were consolidated by the Court in an order issued on June 3, 2010 and the Court appointed three of the Company’s stockholders to serve as lead plaintiffs.

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint (“CAC”) on July 9, 2010 that asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Company common stock between May 7, 2008 and February 24, 2010. The CAC alleges that certain of the Company’s public statements were false and misleading for failing to account properly for the Company’s exploration and development costs based on the Company’s announcement on February 24, 2010 that it was going to restate certain of its financial results to change its method of accounting for exploration and development costs in certain respects. The CAC also alleges that certain of the Company’s statements concerning the North Brawley project were false and misleading. The CAC seeks compensatory damages, expenses, and such further relief as the Court may deem proper.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on August 13, 2010. On March 3, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ allegations that the Company’s statements regarding the North Brawley project were false or misleading, but did not dismiss plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the 2008 restatement. Defendants answered the remaining allegations in the CAC regarding the restatement on April 8, 2011 and the case has now entered the discovery phase. On July 22, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the case as a class action on behalf of a class of purchasers of Company common stock between February 25, 2009 and February 24, 2010, and defendants filed an opposition to the motion for class certification on October 4, 2011.

Subsequently, the parties participated in a mediation where they reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action lawsuits. The parties thereafter filed a stipulation of settlement with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on March 27, 2012 providing that the claims against the Company and its officers and directors will be dismissed with prejudice and plaintiffs will release the defendants from all claims in exchange for a cash payment of $3.1 million to be funded by the Company’s insurers. The stipulation of settlement received preliminary approval by the Court on March 30, 2012. It still remains subject to final approval by the Court following notice to members of the class.

The Company and the individual defendants have steadfastly maintained that the claims raised in the securities class action lawsuits were without merit, and have vigorously contested those claims. As part of the settlement, the Company and the individual defendants continue to deny any liability or wrongdoing under the securities laws or otherwise.

Stockholder Derivative Cases

Four stockholder derivative lawsuits have also been filed in connection with the Company’s public announcement that it would restate certain of its financial results due to a change in the Company’s accounting treatment for certain exploration and development costs. Two cases were filed in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe on March 16, 2010 and April 21, 2010 and two cases were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on March 29, 2010 and June 7, 2010. All four lawsuits assert claims brought derivatively on behalf of the Company against certain of its officers and directors for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and other claims, including waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.

The two stockholder derivative cases filed in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe were consolidated by the Court in an order dated May 27, 2010 and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated derivative complaint on September 7, 2010. In accordance with a stipulation between the parties, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 16, 2010. On April 18, 2011, the court stayed the state derivative case pending the resolution of the securities class action lawsuits. The Company cannot make an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss on the state derivative case.

The two stockholder derivative cases filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada were consolidated by the Court in an order dated August 31, 2010, and plaintiffs filed a consolidated derivative complaint on October 28, 2010. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on December 13, 2010. On March 7, 2011, the Court transferred the federal derivative case to the Court presiding over the securities class action, and on August 29, 2011, the Court stayed the federal derivative case pending the resolution of the securities class action lawsuits. The Company cannot make an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss on the federal derivative case.

The Company believes the allegations in these purported derivative actions are without merit and is defending the actions vigorously.

Other

On January 4, 2012, the California Unions for Reliable Energy (“CURE”) filed a petition in Alameda Superior Court, naming the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) and the Company as defendant and real party in interest, respectively. The petition asks the court to order the CEC to vacate its decision which denied, with prejudice, the complaint filed by CURE against the Company with the CEC. The CURE complaint alleged that the Company’s North Brawley project and East Brawley Project both exceed the CEC’s 50 MW jurisdictional threshold and therefore are subject to the CEC licensing authority rather than the Imperial County licensing authority. In addition, the CURE petition asks the court to investigate and halt any ongoing violation of the Warren Alquist Act by the Company, and to award CURE attorney’s fees and costs. As to North Brawley, CURE alleges that the CEC decision violated the Warren Alquist Act because it failed to consider provisions of the County permit for North Brawley, which CURE contends authorizes the Company to build a generating facility with a number of Ormat Energy Converters capable of generating more than 50 MW. As to East Brawley, CURE alleges that the CEC decision violated the Warren Alquist Act because it failed to consider the conditional use permit application for East Brawley, which CURE contends shows that the Company requested authorization to build a facility with a number of Ormat Energy Converters capable of generating more than 50 MW.

The Company believes that the petition is without merit and intends to respond and take necessary legal action to dismiss the proceedings. The Company was notified that CURE intends to file the administrative record from the underlying administrative proceeding in the Alameda County Superior Court proceeding. This notice extended the time for the Company to respond to CURE’s petition. Once the Company is served with a certified copy of the administrative record, the Company will have thirty days in which to respond to CURE’s petition, unless the Company agrees to a shorter time. Filing of the petition in and of itself does not have any immediate adverse implications for the North Brawley or East Brawley projects and the Company continues to operate the North Brawley project in the ordinary course of business and continues with its development work on the East Brawley project.

From time to time, the Company is named as a party in various lawsuits, claims and other legal and regulatory proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. These actions typically seek, among other things, compensation for alleged personal injury, breach of contract, property damage, punitive damages, civil penalties or other losses, or injunctive or declaratory relief. With respect to such lawsuits, claims and proceedings, the Company accrues reserves when a loss is probable and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the outcome of these proceedings, individually and collectively, will not be material to the financial statements as a whole.