NOTE

— COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

●

May 21, 2018,

a motion to certify a class action was filed in Tel Aviv District Court against Ormat Technologies, Inc. and

officers and directors. The alleged class is defined as "All persons who purchased Ormat shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between

August 3, 2017

and

May 13, 2018".

The motion alleges that the Company violated Sections

(a)(

) and

38C

of the Israeli Securities Law because it allegedly: (

) misled investors by stating in its financial statements that it maintains effective internal controls over its accounting policies and procedures, however the Company's internal controls had material weaknesses which led to erroneous accounting in its

2017

unaudited quarterly reports that had to be restated, including adjustments to the Company’s net income and shareholders’ equity; and (

) failed to issue an immediate report in Israel until

May 16, 2018,

analogous to the report that was released in the United States on

May 11, 2018

stating, inter alia, that the errors in its financial reports affected its balance sheet and would be remedied in its

2017

annual report. The Company filed an agreed motion to the Tel Aviv District Court to stay the proceedings in Israel until a final decision in the U.S. case (Mac Costas) is adjudicated.

●

June 11, 2018,

a putative class action was filed by Mac Costas on behalf of alleged shareholders that purchased or acquired the Company's ordinary shares between

August 8, 2017

and

May 15, 2018

was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. The complaint asserts claim against all defendants pursuant to Section

(b) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule

10b

thereunder and against its officers pursuant to Section

(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the Company's Form

-K for the years ended

December 31, 2016

and

2017,

and Form

-Qs for each of the quarters in the

nine

months ended

September 30, 2017

contained material misstatements or omissions, among other things, with respect to the Company’s tax provisions and the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting, and that, as a result of such alleged misstatements and omissions, the plaintiffs suffered damages. Following the Mac Costas filing and in accordance with the terms of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of

1995

(“PSLRA”), a number of law firms filed applications on behalf of entities purporting to hold shares in the Company, seeking to be appointed as lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the action. On

March 12, 2019

the court appointed Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd. (“Phoenix Insurance”) as lead plaintiff and approved their selection of lead counsel. Pursuant to a scheduling stipulation entered between the parties, Phoenix Insurance must file a consolidated amended complaint by

May 13, 2019,

the Company’s motion to dismiss must be filed by

July 12, 2019,

Phoenix Insurance must file their Opposition by

August 26, 2019,

and the Company must file their reply by

September 25, 2019.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and intends to defend itself vigorously.

●

September 11, 2018,

the Klein derivative action (“Klein Action”) was filed against the Company, our board and our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, and on

October 22, 2018,

the Matthew derivative action (“Matthew Action”) was filed against the company, certain named present and former board members (Barniv, Beck, Boehm, Clark, Falk, Freeland, Granot, Joyal, Nishigori, Sharir, Stern and Wong) in the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada. The Klein complaint asserts

four

derivative causes of action generally arising from Ormat's restatement of its financial statements: (i) the individual defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the company to improperly report its financials; (ii) the individual defendants allegedly were unjustly enriched by being compensated while breaching their fiduciary duties; (iii) the individual defendants allegedly committed corporate waste in paying officers and directors and by incurring legal costs and potential liability; and (iv) the director defendants allegedly breached Section

(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the issuance of

2018

proxy. The Matthew complaint similarly alleges derivatively a breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste by the named directors. On

January 24, 2019,

the Nevada Court entered an order consolidating the Klein Action and Matthew Action, and staying all deadlines and hearings in the consolidated action pending entry of an order on the motion to dismiss in the Mac Costas putative class action. Within

thirty

days of entry of an order on the motion to dismiss in the Mac Costas putative class action, the parties are required to meet and confer and to submit a proposed schedule for further proceedings in the consolidated action.

●

Following the announcement of the Company’s acquisition of U.S. Geothermal Inc. (“USG”), a number of putative shareholder class action complaints were initially filed on behalf of USG shareholders between

March 8, 2018

and

March 30, 2018

against USG and the individual members of the USG board of directors. All of the purported class action suits filed in Federal Court in Idaho have been voluntarily dismissed. The single remaining class action complaint is a purported class action filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, entitled Riche v. Pappas, et al., Case

No.

2018

0177

(Del. Ch.,

Mar. 12, 2018).

An amended complaint was filed on

May 24, 2018

under seal, under a confidentiality agreement that was executed by plaintiff. The amended Riche complaint alleges state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty against former USG directors and seeks post-closing damages. The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and intends to defend itself vigorously.

●

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 Puna Geothermal Venture (“PGV”) and other presently unknown defendants. HELCO and other parties were later joined as co-defendants. The Parties have reached an amicable settlement in an immaterial amount which, on

April 4, 2019,

was recorded by the Court, and the claim dismissed.

●

March 29, 2016,

a former local sales representative in Chile, Aquavant, S.A., filed a claim on the basis of unjust enrichment against Ormat’s subsidiaries in the

27th

Civil Court of Santiago, Chile. 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

years. Pursuant to various motions submitted by the defendants and the plaintiffs to various courts, including the Court of Appeals, the case was removed from the original court and then refiled before the

11th

Civil Court of Santiago. The Civil Court has heard oral testimonies and the “factual” stage of the proceedings are completed. The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and intends to defend itself vigorously.

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.