Note 10 - Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 10 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

● Jon Olson and Hilary Wilt, together with Puna Pono Alliance, an unincorporated association, filed suit on February 17, 2015, in the Third Circuit Court for the State of Hawaii, requesting declaratory and injunctive relief requiring that Puna Geothermal Venture (“PGV”) conform to an ordinance that the plaintiffs allege will prohibit PGV from engaging in night drilling operations at its KS-16 well site. On May 17, 2015, the original filing was amended by a second amended complaint, adding the county of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources as defendants to the case. PGV believes that the allegations have no merit, and will continue to defend itself vigorously.

● 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., the Company and Ormat Nevada 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 rules. On June 26, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California rejected many of the parties' initial arguments. On October 14, 2015, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ sole remaining claim. The discovery stage will now commence.The Company believes that the allegations of the lawsuit have no merit, and will continue to defend itself vigorously.

● On April 5, 2012, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1260 (“Union”) filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) seeking to organize the operations and maintenance employees at the Puna Project.  PGV lost the union election by a slim margin in May 2012.  The election results and PGV’s obligation to negotiate with the Union were appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but were remanded back to the NLRB after the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S., 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014). On November 26, 2014, the NLRB found that a certification of representative should be issued. In January 2015, the parties submitted a briefing to the NLRB as to whether summary judgment is appropriate.  On June 26, 2015, the Board rejected PGV's arguments and ordered PGV to recognize the Union.On June 30, 2015, PGV appealed the NLRB decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The NLRB also filed a complaint and requested a hearing on December 8, 2015 to bring unfair labor practice allegations before an administrative law judge even though the charges turn in large part on the disposition of the appeal. The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law.

● In January 2014, Ormat learned that two former employees filed a "qui tam" complaint seeking damages, penalties and other relief, alleging that the Company and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Ormat Parties"), submitted fraudulent applications and certifications to obtain grants for the Puna and North Brawley projects. The United States Department of Justice declined to intervene. The complaint, which is pending before the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, has entered the discovery stage. On July 7, 2015, the Court issued a protective order stipulating limitations against the relators for the benefit of the Ormat Parties, to ensure the protection of confidentiality for sensitive Ormat Parties’ documents. The Ormat Parties believe that the allegations of the lawsuit have no merit, and will continue to defend themselves vigorously.

● On August 14, 2015, a former local sales representative in Chile, Aquavant, S.A., filed a preliminary motion with the 18th Civil Court of Santiago, requesting the production of documents relating to the Company’s activities in Chile. The motion alleges, based on the theory of unjust enrichment, that the Ormat Parties should pay agency fees to the plaintiffs in connection with the EPC contract entered into with Enel Green Power and/or Empresa Nacional del Petroleo, and/or other activities in Chile. The preliminary motion was denied by the 18th Civil Court. Plaintiffs refiled the motion in substantively similar form before the 11th Civil Court of Appeals in Santiago. The 11th Civil Court granted the motion, and has issued an order for Ormat to produce certain documents. Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the document production order, which was denied on October 6, 2015. The Ormat Parties believe that they have valid defenses under law.

● In addition, from time to time, the Company is named as a party to various other lawsuits, claims and other legal and regulatory proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our 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.