Note 10 - Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2014

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 10 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In December 2012, Laborers’ International Union of North America Local Union No. 783 (“LiUNA”), an organized labor union, filed a petition in Mono County Superior Court, naming Mono County, California and the Company as defendant and real party in interest, respectively. The petitioners brought this action to challenge the November 13, 2012 decision of the Mono County Board of Supervisors in adopting Resolutions No. 12-78, denying petitioners’ administrative appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”), adoption of findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and adoption of the final environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Mammoth Pacific enhancement. The Company has successfully defended itself against the petition, which has been denied by the court.

On July 8, 2014, Global Community Monitor, LiUNA, and two residents of Bishop, California filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging that Mammoth Pacific, L.P., Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Ormat Nevada, Inc. are operating three geothermal generating plants in Mammoth Lakes, California (MP-1; MP-II and PLES-I) in violation of the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”) and Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (“District”) rules. The Company is continuing to review the complaint and believes that it is without merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations set forth in the complaint and to take all the necessary legal action to have the complaint dismissed. Filing of the complaint in and of itself does not have any immediate adverse implications for the Mammoth plants.

In January 2014, the Company learned that two former employees alleged in a “qui tam” complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California that the Company submitted fraudulent applications and certifications to obtain grants. The United States Department of Justice has declined to intervene. The former employees have proceeded on their own and served the Company with their initial complaint in April 2014, and then filed an amended complaint in May 2014. The Company is investigating, and is defending against the amended complaint. This includes that, pursuant to the Company’s motion to move the venue of the proceeding, the file was reassigned from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California to the District of Nevada. In addition, the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which is pending before the Nevada United States District Court. The Company continues to believe that the allegations of the lawsuit have no merit, and we will continue to defend ourselves vigorously.

In addition, from time to time, the Company is named as a party in various other 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 Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.