Note 9 - Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2020
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	NOTE 9 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES • On May 21, 2018, a motion to certify a class action was filed in Tel Aviv District Court against Ormat Technologies, Inc. and 11 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 and other respondents violated Sections 31(a)(1) and 38C of the Israeli Securities Law, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, because they allegedly: (1) misled investors by stating in the Company's financial statements that it maintains effective internal controls over its accounting policies and procedures, even though 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 (2) 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 had filed agreed motions from time to time to the Tel Aviv District Court to stay the proceedings in Israel in light of the United States case (Mac Costas). On June 30, 2020, pursuant to the execution and submission of a settlement agreement to the United States court for approval, which resolves the matters raised with respect to the entire class of shareholders (whether trading on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange or U.S. stock exchange), the Company filed a motion informing the Tel Aviv court of the settlement. On July 2, 2020, Plaintiff in the Tel Aviv action filed a motion requesting the Israeli court to issue an Anti-Suit Injunction against Phoenix Insurance, the lead plaintiff in the United States case, instructing it to, inter alia, discontinue acting on behalf of the Israeli class members in the matter. The Company considers that it has strong legal defenses and it is not probable that the request for an Anti-Suit Injunction will be granted. The potential amount that the Company may bear in this context cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. • On June 11, 2018, a putative class action 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 United States District Court for the District of Nevada against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, which was subsequently amended by a consolidated complaint filed by lead plaintiff Phoenix Insurance in May 13, 2019. The complaint asserts claim against all defendants pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and against its officers pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the Company's Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and Form 10-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. On December 6, 2019 the Company’s motion to dismiss was denied by the court. On March 23, 2020, pursuant to out of court mediation, a term sheet for a proposed settlement of the action without admission of liability or wrongdoing, was signed between the parties and on June 10, 2020, a joint stipulation and motion for preliminary approval of the comprehensive executed settlement documentation was filed for the court for approval, which is now pending. The sum the Company will bear in this context is not material. • On September 11, 2018, the Klein derivative action (Klein Action) was filed against the Company, our board and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer in the United States 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 United States 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 14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the issuance of the 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. On July 10, 2020, a comprehensive settlement package and derivative stipulation of settlement was submitted to the court, which will be requested to approve. The sum the Company will bear for implementation is not material. • 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. On March 27, 2020, pursuant to out of court mediation, a term sheet for a proposed settlement of the action, without admission of liability or wrongdoing, was signed between the parties. On June 3, 2020, a comprehensive settlement package and stipulation of settlement was filed with the court for approval. The court has scheduled a hearing date for its review on September 16, 2020. The sum the Company will bear in this context is not material. • On 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 10 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. On April 16, 2020, the 11th Civil Court of Santiago issued its order rejecting Plaintiff's principal claim of unjust enrichment, as an improper cause of action, rejecting Plaintiff's secondary claim for declaratory judgment, which the Court associates with the principal claim of unjust enrichment and not relating to a number of defenses raised by the Company. In May 2020, each of the parties filed separately to the court of appeals, which are pending. The Company considers it has strong legal defenses and the probability of the claimant receiving an award is low. The potential amount that the Company may bear in this context cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. 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 the Company's 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.

Note 9 - Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 9 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

• On May 21, 2018, a motion to certify a class action was filed in Tel Aviv District Court against Ormat Technologies, Inc. and 11 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 and other respondents violated Sections 31(a)(1) and 38C of the Israeli Securities Law, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, because they allegedly: (1) misled investors by stating in the Company's financial statements that it maintains effective internal controls over its accounting policies and procedures, even though 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 (2) 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 had filed agreed motions from time to time to the Tel Aviv District Court to stay the proceedings in Israel in light of the United States case (Mac Costas). On June 30, 2020, pursuant to the execution and submission of a settlement agreement to the United States court for approval, which resolves the matters raised with respect to the entire class of shareholders (whether trading on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange or U.S. stock exchange), the Company filed a motion informing the Tel Aviv court of the settlement. On July 2, 2020, Plaintiff in the Tel Aviv action filed a motion requesting the Israeli court to issue an Anti-Suit Injunction against Phoenix Insurance, the lead plaintiff in the United States case, instructing it to, inter alia, discontinue acting on behalf of the Israeli class members in the matter. The Company considers that it has strong legal defenses and it is not probable that the request for an Anti-Suit Injunction will be granted. The potential amount that the Company may bear in this context cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

• On June 11, 2018, a putative class action 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 United States District Court for the District of Nevada against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, which was subsequently amended by a consolidated complaint filed by lead plaintiff Phoenix Insurance in May 13, 2019. The complaint asserts claim against all defendants pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and against its officers pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the Company's Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and Form 10-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. On December 6, 2019 the Company’s motion to dismiss was denied by the court. On March 23, 2020, pursuant to out of court mediation, a term sheet for a proposed settlement of the action without admission of liability or wrongdoing, was signed between the parties and on June 10, 2020, a joint stipulation and motion for preliminary approval of the comprehensive executed settlement documentation was filed for the court for approval, which is now pending. The sum the Company will bear in this context is not material.

• On September 11, 2018, the Klein derivative action (Klein Action) was filed against the Company, our board and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer in the United States 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 United States 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 14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the issuance of the 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. On July 10, 2020, a comprehensive settlement package and derivative stipulation of settlement was submitted to the court, which will be requested to approve. The sum the Company will bear for implementation is not material.

• 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. On March 27, 2020, pursuant to out of court mediation, a term sheet for a proposed settlement of the action, without admission of liability or wrongdoing, was signed between the parties. On June 3, 2020, a comprehensive settlement package and stipulation of settlement was filed with the court for approval. The court has scheduled a hearing date for its review on September 16, 2020. The sum the Company will bear in this context is not material.

• On 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 10 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. On April 16, 2020, the 11th Civil Court of Santiago issued its order rejecting Plaintiff's principal claim of unjust enrichment, as an improper cause of action, rejecting Plaintiff's secondary claim for declaratory judgment, which the Court associates with the principal claim of unjust enrichment and not relating to a number of defenses raised by the Company. In May 2020, each of the parties filed separately to the court of appeals, which are pending. The Company considers it has strong legal defenses and the probability of the claimant receiving an award is low. The potential amount that the Company may bear in this context cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

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 the Company's 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.