Note 10 - Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2017

Notes to Financial Statements

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE

10

— COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

● Jon Olson and Hilary Wilt, together with Puna Pono Alliance filed a complaint on February 17, 2015 in the Third Circuit Court for the State of Hawaii, requesting declaratory and injunctive relief requiring that PGV comply with 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 complaint was amended to add the county of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources as defendants to the case. On October 10, 2016, the court issued its decision in response to each of the plaintiffs ’ and defendants’ motions for summary judgment, denying plaintiffs’ motion and granting defendant PGV's and the County of Hawaii’s cross motions for summary judgment, effectively rendering the plaintiffs’ action moot. On January 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the Intermediate Court of Appeals address appellate jurisdiction, which was denied by the court on April 20, 2017 as premature. The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and intends to defend itself vigorously.

● On July 8, 2014, Global Community Monitor, LiUNA, and two residents of Bishop, California filed a complaint in the U.S. 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 and Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District rules. On June 26, 2015, in response to a motion by the defendants, the court dismissed all but one of the plaintiffs ’ causes of action. On January 6, 2017, the court issued its order regarding several pending motions, including plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, defendants' motion for summary judgment, defendants' motion to exclude and defendants' motion for leave to file a sur-reply. The impact of the court’s January 6 order is to deny the plaintiffs’ sole remaining cause of action. No appeal by the plaintiffs is expected and the Company considers this case to be effectively closed.

● On March 29, 2016, a former local sales representative in Chile, Aquavant, S.A., filed a claim against Ormat ’s subsidiaries in the 27th Civil Court of Santiago, Chile on the basis of unjust enrichment. The claim requests that the court order Ormat to pay Aquavant $4.6 million in connection with its activities in Chile, including the EPC contract for the Cerro Pabellon project and various geothermal concessions, plus 3.75% of Ormat geothermal products sales in Chile over the next 10 years. Pursuant to various petitions submitted by the defendants, including a motion describing preliminary procedural defenses, on August 18, 2016, and then on October 10, 2016, the 27th Civil Court issued a number of decisions, which include removal of the case to the 11th Civil Court of Santiago, thereby delaying a determination on the larger issues of jurisdiction and competency of the Chilean courts as a substantive (and not procedural) defense. The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and intends to defend itself vigorously.

● On August 5, 2016, George Douvris, Stephanie Douvris, Michael Hale, Cheryl Cacocci, Hillary E. Wilt and Christina Bryan, acting for themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated residents of the lower Puna District, filed a complaint in the Third Circuit Court for the State of Hawaii seeking certification of a class action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, consequential and punitive damages, attorney ’s fees and statutory interest against PGV and other presently unknown defendants. On December 12, 2016, the federal district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for joinder of HELCO as a co-defendant, and the case, which had previously been removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, was remanded back to the Third Circuit Court. The amended complaint alleges that injuries and other damages in an undisclosed amount were caused to the plaintiffs as a result of an alleged toxic release by PGV in the wake of Hurricane Iselle in August 2014. On March 25, 2017, HELCO filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in the Third Circuit Court against itself, on several grounds. Following briefing and oral arguments, the HELCO motion to dismiss is under consideration by the court. The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law, and intends to defend itself vigorously.

● On June 20, 2016, Nadia Garcia, individually and as successor in interest to Thomas Garcia Valenzuela, and as guardian ad litem to Emerie Garcia, Khamilla Garcia and Reyene Adam, filed a complaint against Ormat Technologies, Ormat Nevada and Ormesa LLC in the Superior Court of Imperial County seeking unspecified monetary damages. The complaint alleges that the Ormat defendants caused the wrongful death, personal injury and other harm to Thomas Garcia when he was employed by Martin Hydroblasting Services, Inc. and suffered injuries leading to his death while performing work at the Ormesa plant site on or around March 31, 2016. At the end of April, 2017, an out of court settlement was agreed between the plaintiffs and the deceased's employer ’s insurer, which is being presented to the court for its approval. 

I

n 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.