10. NSC and AdR Project Development

In May 2010, the Company acquired, through its wholly-owned Netherlands subsidiary, CW-Cooperatief, a 50% interest in NSC, a development stage Mexican company. CW-Cooperatief has since purchased, through the conversion of a loan it made to NSC, additional shares that increased its ownership interest in NSC to 99.99%. NSC was formed to pursue a project (the “Project”) that originally encompassed the construction, operation and minority ownership of a 100 million gallon per day seawater reverse osmosis desalination plant to be located in northern Baja California, Mexico and accompanying pipelines to deliver water to the Mexican potable water system. As discussed in paragraphs that follow, during 2015 the scope of the Project was defined by the State of Baja California (the “State”) to consist of a first phase consisting of a 50 million gallon per day plant and an aqueduct that connects to the Mexican potable water infrastructure and a second phase consisting of an additional 50 million gallons per day of production capacity.

Through a series of transactions completed in 2012‑2014, NSC purchased 20.1 hectares of land for approximately $20.6 million on which the proposed Project’s plant would be constructed.

In November 2012, NSC entered into a lease with an effective term of 20‑years from the date of full operation of the Project’s desalination plant, with the Comisión Federal de Electricidad for approximately 5,000 square meters of land on which it plans to construct the water intake and discharge works for the plant. The amounts due on this lease are payable in Mexican pesos at an amount that is currently equivalent to approximately $30,000 every two months. This lease may be cancelled by NSC should NSC ultimately not proceed with the Project.

In August 2014, the State enacted new legislation to regulate Public-Private Association projects which involve the type of long-term contract between a public-sector authority and a private party required for the Project (the “APP Law”). Pursuant to this new legislation, in January 2015, NSC submitted an expression of interest for its project to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Urban Development of the State of Baja California (“SIDUE”). SIDUE accepted NSC’s expression of interest and requested that NSC submit a detailed proposal for the Project that complies with the requirements of the new legislation. NSC submitted this detailed proposal (the “APP Proposal”) to SIDUE in late March 2015. The new legislation required that such proposal be evaluated by SIDUE and submitted to the Public-Private Association Projects State Committee (the “APP Committee”) for review and authorization. If the Project was authorized the State would be required to conduct a public tender for the Project.

In response to its APP Proposal, in September 2015 NSC received a letter dated June 30, 2015 from the Director General of the Comisión Estatal del Agua de Baja California (“CEA”), the State agency with responsibility for the Project, stating that (i) the Project is in the public interest with high social benefits and is consistent with the objectives of the State development plan; and (ii) that the Project should proceed, and the required public tender should be conducted. In November 2015, the State officially commenced the tender for the Project, the scope of which the State defined as a first phase to be operational in 2019 consisting of a 50 million gallon per day plant and an aqueduct that connects to the Mexican potable water infrastructure and a second phase to be operational in 2024 consisting of an additional 50 million gallons per day of production capacity. A consortium (the “Consortium”) comprised of NSC, NuWater S.A.P.I. de C.V. (“NuWater”) and Suez Medio Ambiente México, S.A. de C.V. (“Suez MA”), a subsidiary of SUEZ International, S.A.S., submitted its tender for the Project in April 2016 and in June 2016, the State designated the Consortium as the winner of the tender process for the Project.

Due to the amount of capital the Project requires, NSC will ultimately need an equity partner or partners for the Project. Consequently, NSC’s tender to the State for the Project was based upon the following: (i) NSC will sell or otherwise transfer the land and other Project assets to a new company (“Newco”) that would build and own the Project; (ii) NSC’s potential partners would provide the majority of the equity for the Project and thereby would own the majority interest in Newco; (iii) NSC would maintain a minority ownership position in Newco; and (iv) Newco would enter into a long-term management and technical services contract for the Project with an entity partially owned by NSC or another Company subsidiary.

In August 2016, NSC and NuWater incorporated Newco under the name Aguas de Rosarito S.A.P.I. de C.V. (“AdR”), a special purpose company, to complete the Project and executed a shareholders agreement for AdR agreeing among other things that (i) AdR would purchase the land and other Project assets from NSC on the date that the Project begins commercial operations and (ii) AdR would enter into a Management and Technical Services Agreement with NSC effective on the first day that the Project begins commercial operations. NSC initially owned 99.6% of the equity of AdR. In February 2018, NSC acquired the remaining 0.4% ownership in AdR from NuWater.

On August 22, 2016, the Public Private Partnership Agreement for public private partnership number 002/2015, bid number SIDUE-CEA-APP‑2015‑002 (“APP Contract”), was executed between AdR, the CEA, the Government of Baja California represented by the Secretary of Planning and Finance and the Public Utilities Commission of Tijuana (“CESPT”). The APP Contract requires AdR to design, construct, finance and operate a seawater reverse osmosis desalination plant (and accompanying aqueduct) with a capacity of up to 100 million gallons per day in two phases: the first with a capacity of 50 million gallons per day and an aqueduct to the Mexican potable water system in Tijuana, Baja California and the second phase with a capacity of 50 million gallons per day. The first phase must be operational within 36 months of commencing construction and the second phase must be operational by January 2025. The APP Contract further requires AdR to operate and maintain the plant and aqueduct for a period of 37 years starting from the commencement of operation of the first phase. At the end of the operating period, the plant and aqueduct will be transferred to the CEA.

The APP Contract does not become effective until the following remaining open conditions, among others, have been met:

the State has established and registered various payment trusts, guaranties and bank credit lines for specific use by the Project;

AdR has obtained all rights of way required for the aqueduct; and

all debt financing agreements necessary to provide the funding to AdR for the first phase of the Project have been executed.

In December 2016, the Congress of the State of Baja California, Mexico (the “Congress”) passed Decreto #57 which, among other things, ratified and authorized the payment obligations of the corresponding public entities under the APP Contract and authorized the corresponding public entities to obtain a credit facility to guarantee their payment obligations. During 2017, following consultations between representatives of the State of Baja California and the Ministry of Finance of the Federal Government of Mexico, it was determined that certain amendments to Decreto #57 were required to comply with recent changes to the Federal Financial Discipline Law for Federative Entities and Municipalities. In addition, it was necessary to amend Decreto #57 to authorize the inclusion of revenue from the CESPT in the primary payment trust for the Project. These amendments were included in Decreto #168, which was approved by the Congress in December 2017. The authorization for the execution of the credit agreement to guarantee the payment obligations of the public entities under the APP Contract given in Decreto #57, as amended by Decreto #168, expired on December 31, 2018. During the congressional session held at the end of March 2019, the Congress passed Decreto #335, which renewed the authorizations for the various payment trusts, guaranties and bank credit lines required to be established for the Project by the State entities. Decreto #335 expired December 31, 2019. During the congressional session held at the end of December 2019, the Congress passed Decreto #37, which renewed the authorizations for the various payment trusts, guaranties and bank credit lines required to be established for the Project by the State entities. Decreto #37 expires June 30, 2020. However, the expiration of Decreto #37 will not result in a termination of the APP Contract and/or the Project, as a new authorization may be issued by Congress.

Following its issuance, the following legal proceedings were initiated against Decreto #335:

(a) Amparo trial filed by a certain congressman and his alternate in April 2019. Given that neither AdR nor NSC are parties to this action, based on publicly available information the Company understands that in April 2019, a congressman of the Congress and his alternate filed this claim, stating that there are no interested third parties in this trial. Both the provisional and definitive suspensions of the effects of Decreto #335 requested by claimants, were denied by the Sixth District Court in Mexicali. As such, the effects of Decreto #335 have not been suspended. On July 31, 2019, this proceeding was dismissed. However, according to publicly available information, on August 15, 2019, the claimants appealed this dismissal. As neither AdR nor NSC are parties to this Amparo trial, they are not parties to that appeal. Based upon publicly available information, on February 6, 2020, the Sixth Collegiate Tribunal of the Fifteenth Circuit Court dismissed such appeal.

(b) Amparo trial filed in May 2019 by certain individuals that allegedly form part of Consejo Coordinador Empresarial (a private local business association). This claim challenged the constitutionality and therefore, the validity of Decreto #335. In May 2019, an initial resolution dismissing the claim was issued by the First District Court in Tijuana. The claimants in this proceeding appealed this dismissal, and the appeal was resolved in the claimants' favor by a superior court, therefore forcing the admission of this amparo claim by the First District Court in Tijuana. Both the provisional and definitive suspensions of the effects of Decreto #335 requested by claimants were denied by the First District Court in Tijuana. On October 1, 2019, AdR appeared before the First District Court, to vigorously oppose this claim. On January 3, 2020, the First District Court in Tijuana dismissed this claim On January 15, 2020, claimants appealed such dismissal, and such appeal has not been yet resolved.

(c) Constitutionality challenge (Acción de Inconstitucionalidad) against Decreto #335, filed by certain congresspersons in May 2019. Based on publicly available information, the Company understands that in May 2019, certain congresspersons filed this constitutionality challenge against Decreto #335. This challenge has yet to be resolved.

Both the exchange rate for the Mexican peso relative to the dollar and general macroeconomic conditions in Mexico have varied since the execution of the APP Contract. These changes have adversely impacted the estimated construction, operating and financing costs for the Project. The APP Contract and the APP Law allow for the parties to negotiate (but do not guarantee) modifications to the consideration (i.e. water tariff) under the APP Contract in the event of such significant macroeconomic condition changes. In February 2017, AdR submitted proposals to the CEA requesting the definition of the mechanism required by the APP Contract to update the consideration under the APP Contract for changes in foreign exchange rates, lending rates and certain laws which have impacted the Project. On June 1, 2018, AdR and the CEA executed an amendment to the APP Contract which, among other things, increases the scope of Phase 1 of the Project for including the aqueduct originally designated for Phase 2, and addresses AdR’s concerns regarding the impact on the Project for changes in the exchange rate for the peso relative to the dollar and changes in interest rates that have occurred subsequent to the submission of the Consortium’s bid for the Project. As a result of this amendment to the APP Contract, the final cost of Phase 1 and the related consideration to be charged by AdR under the APP Contract will be determined based upon the bid submitted by the Consortium, the changes set forth in the amendment to the APP Contract and the economic conditions (e.g. interest rates and currency exchange rates) in effect on the financial closing date for Phase 1.

In February 2018, AdR executed a subscription agreement (the “Agreement”) for the equity funding required for the Project. The Agreement calls for NSC to retain a minimum of 25% of the equity in AdR. One or more affiliates of Greenfield SPV VII, S.A.P.I. de C.V. (“Greenfield”), a Mexico company managed by an affiliate of a leading U.S. asset manager, will acquire a minimum of 55% of the equity of AdR. The Agreement also provides Suez MA with the option to purchase 20% of the equity of AdR. If Suez MA does not exercise this option, NSC will retain 35% of the equity of AdR and Greenfield will acquire 65% of the equity of AdR. The Agreement will become effective when the conditions precedent related to the Project are met, including but not limited to those conditions discussed previously. The aggregate investment to be made by the equity partners in the Project, in the form of equity and subordinated shareholder loans, is presently estimated at approximately 20% of the total cost of Phase 1 of the Project. This Agreement was originally scheduled to expire on June 30, 2019 but has been extended to April 30, 2020.

In June 2018, AdR and Suez MA executed a contract whereby Suez MA will serve as the engineering, procurement and construction contractor for the Project with such contract becoming effective on the effective date of the APP Contract.

If AdR is ultimately unable to proceed with the Project due to a failure by any of the parties involved to meet the conditions necessary for the APP Contract to become effective, or for any other reason, the land NSC has purchased and the rights of way deposits it has made may lose their strategic importance derived from their association with the Project and consequently may decline in value. If AdR does not proceed with the Project, NSC may ultimately be unable to sell this land or recoup its rights of way deposits for amounts at least equal to their carrying values as of December 31, 2019 of approximately $24.2 million. Any loss on the sale of the land, or impairment losses NSC may be required to record as a result of a decrease in the (i) fair value of the land; or (ii) value of the rights of way arising from the inability to complete the Project could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

Included in the Company’s results of operations are general and administrative expenses from NSC and AdR, consisting of organizational, legal, accounting, engineering, consulting and other costs relating to Project development activities. Such expenses amounted to approximately $2,348,000 and $2,884,000 for the year ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. The assets and liabilities of NSC and AdR included in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets amounted to approximately $29.3 million and $2.9 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2019 and approximately $26.2 million and $243,000 respectively, as of December 31, 2018.

Project Litigation

Immediately following CW-Cooperatief’s acquisition of its initial 50% ownership in NSC, the remaining 50% ownership interest in NSC was held by an unrelated company, Norte Sur Agua, S. de R.L. de C.V. (“NSA”). NSA subsequently transferred ownership of half of its shares in NSC to EWG Water LLC (“EWG”) and the other half of its shares in NSC to an individual (the “individual shareholder”). In February 2012, CW-Cooperatief paid $300,000 to enter into an agreement (the “Option Agreement”) that provided it with an option, exercisable through February 7, 2014, to purchase the shares of NSC owned by the individual shareholder for a price of $1.0 million along with an immediate usufruct and power of attorney to vote those shares. Such shares constituted 25% of the ownership of NSC as of February 2012. In May 2013, NSC repaid a $5.7 million loan payable to CW-Cooperatief by issuing additional shares of its stock. As a result of this share issuance to CW-Cooperatief, the Company indirectly acquired 99.99% of the ownership of NSC. The Option Agreement contained an anti-dilution provision that required CW-Cooperatief to transfer or otherwise cause the individual shareholder to acquire, for a total price of $1 (regardless of their par or market value), shares in NSC of an amount sufficient to maintain the individual shareholder’s 25% ownership interest in NSC if (i) any new shares of NSC were issued subsequent to the execution of the Option Agreement (causing the individual shareholder’s 25% ownership interest in NSC to be decreased); and (ii) CW-Cooperatief did not exercise its share purchase option by February 7, 2014. CW-Cooperatief exercised its option and paid the $1.0 million to the individual shareholder to purchase the Option Agreement shares in February 2014.

In January 2018, EWG initiated an ordinary mercantile claim against the individual shareholder, NSC and CW-Cooperatief, (with AdR being named as a third party to be called to trial) before the Tenth Civil Judge in Tijuana, Baja California for Mercantile Matters (the “Tenth Civil Judge”).

The paragraphs that follow include a description of such litigation, while subparagraphs a) through f) that follow describe certain separate amparo claims, an appeal and an administrative act arising from or relating to such ordinary mercantile claim, all in chronological order.

-In the ordinary mercantile claim, EWG challenged, among other things, the transactions contemplated under the Option Agreement, and therefore, the capital investment transactions that increased the ownership interest of CW-Cooperatief in NSC to 99.99% as a consequence of the Option Agreement. EWG requested that the courts, as a preliminary matter; (a) suspend the effectiveness of the challenged transactions; (b) order certain public officials in Mexico to record the pendency of the lawsuit in the public records (including a special request to register a lien over the real estate owned by NSC); (c) appoint an inspector for NSC to oversee its commercial activities; and (d) order public officials in Mexico and credit institutions abroad to refrain from authorizing or executing any legal act related with the activities of the plaintiff, the co-defendants and the third party called to trial to avoid damages to third parties, including those with whom negotiations or any form of commercial or administrative activities, or activities of any other nature related with the “Rosarito” water desalination project, are being conducted. The Tenth Civil Judge granted, ex-parte, the preliminary relief sought by EWG, which resulted in the issuance of official writs to several governmental and public entities involved with the Project, including the registration of the pendency of the lawsuit in certain public records.

a) AdR amparo claim against the preliminary relief sought by EWG.

In April 2018, AdR filed an amparo against the official writs issued by the Tenth Civil Judge to two governmental entities. In May 2018, the amparo claim was amended to also request protection against additional official writs issued by the Tenth Civil Judge to two other governmental entities and one banking institution. In May 2018, the Third District Court for Amparo and Federal Trials in the State of Baja California with residence in Tijuana granted a temporary suspension of the effects and consequences of the claimed official writs issued by the Tenth Civil Judge pending a further determination by the Third District Court. Such suspension was granted definitively in July 2018, and in August 2018, a resolution determining that the claimed official writs are unconstitutional, was issued. EWG appealed such resolution, and in January 2020, the Collegiate Tribunal resolving such appeal dismissed the amparo filed by AdR. However, such dismissal does not adversely impact AdR, considering the resolution to the appeal mentioned in subparagraph b) that follows.

-On October 16, 2018, NSC was served with the ordinary mercantile claim. On November 7, 2018, NSC filed a legal response to the claim, vigorously opposing the claims made by EWG. In addition to such legal response, NSC filed (i) a request to submit the claim to arbitration, based on certain provisions of the by-laws of NSC, (ii) an appeal remedy against the preliminary relief, and (iii) a request for the setting of a guarantee to release the preliminary relief granted in favor of EWG.

b) Appeal filed by NSC against the preliminary relief sought by EWG.

The appeal remedy mentioned previously in item (ii) suspended the proceeding (through the posting of a guarantee by NSC), and was resolved in December 2019 and communicated to EWG in January 2020. Such resolution revoked the order of the Tenth Civil Judge whereby EWG was granted the preliminary relief.

c) Amparo filed by EWG against the revocation of the preliminary relief.

In January 2020, EWG filed a new amparo claim against the resolution of the appeal remedy previously mentioned in item (ii). NSC has responded to this new amparo to vigorously oppose such amparo claim of EWG and to uphold the resolution of such appeal remedy. To this date, this amparo claim has not been resolved and, as such, it does not affect the revocation of the preliminary relief.

-On February 26, 2019, the Tenth Civil Judge acknowledged NSC’s filing of the legal response to the ordinary mercantile claim, its request to submit to arbitration, and the appeal remedy previously mentioned in item (ii), granting EWG a period of three business days to, among others, state what it deemed convenient to its interest.

-Further, on February 26, 2019, the Tenth Civil Judge set the guarantee requested in NSC’s November 7, 2018 legal response, in the form of a security deposit in the amount of 1,000,000 Mexican pesos, to release the preliminary relief sought by EWG. On March 4, 2019, NSC filed before the Tenth Civil Judge evidence of such security deposit, requesting the release of the mentioned preliminary relief.

-Irrespective of the resolution revoking the preliminary relief previously granted in favor of EWG (due to the filing of the security deposit by NSC) and the pendency of the appeal remedy filed by EWG against such revocation, on April 12, 2019, the Tenth Civil Judge granted EWG the opportunity to file a counter guarantee in the amount of 1,500,000 Mexican pesos to maintain the ex-parte preliminary relief granted in its favor. With respect to this matter, the Tenth Civil Judge issued a resolution on April 26, 2019 allowing such counter guarantee to be filed in the form of a security deposit or in any other form allowed by the law, without extending the term initially granted for the filing of the counter guarantee.

-NSC has vigorously opposed the resolution of the Tenth Civil Judge allowing the filing of a counter guarantee through the filing of a revocation remedy. To date, such appeal remedy has not been resolved.

-Further, on April 12, 2019, the Tenth Civil Judge ruled that the request for arbitration filed on November 7, 2018 was not applicable under Mexican law.

d) Amparo filed by NSC against the resolution rejecting submission to arbitration.

On May 17, 2019, NSC filed an amparo claim against the April 12, 2019 ruling. Such amparo claim was resolved on October 31, 2019, ordering the Tenth Civil Judge to issue a new resolution on the request to submit the claim to arbitration. EWG filed an appeal remedy opposing such order for the issuance of a new resolution, and such remedy has not yet been resolved. However, NSC has filed pleadings to uphold the order for the issuance of a new resolution challenged by EWG.

In any event, the order for the Tenth Civil Judge to issue a new resolution on the request to submit the claim to arbitration does not necessarily imply that the Tenth Civil Judge shall rule to move to arbitration. However, if the new resolution is unfavorable for NSC, NSC is prepared to vigorously oppose such resolution.

e) Administrative cancellation of registrations before the Public Registry of Property.

Despite the posting of the previously mentioned 1,000,000 Mexican pesos guarantee in February 26, 2019 to release the preliminary relief sought by EWG within the ordinary mercantile claim, the Tenth Civil Judge failed to make her resolution effective, which would thereby rescind the previously mentioned preliminary relief granted to EWG. Consequently, on June 19, 2019 (i.e. before obtaining a resolution revoking the preliminary relief as mentioned previously), NSC filed before the Public Registry of Property of Baja California a cancellation request for the provisional lien and the preventive annotation recorded against NSC’s property in the public real estate records. On June 24, 2019, the Public Registry of Property of Baja California issued an encumbrances cancellation resolution, approving the release of the provisional lien and the preventive annotation recorded against NSC’s property in the public real estate records. Such encumbrances cancellation resolution was registered before the Public Registry of Property of Playas de Rosarito on June 25, 2019. On June 26, 2019, the Public Registry of Property of Playas de Rosarito issued a certificate of no liens with respect to the real estate owned by NSC.

f) Amparo filed by EWG against the administrative cancellation of registrations before the Public Registry of Property.

In November 2019, NSC learned that EWG had filed an amparo claim before the Third District Court in Tijuana against such encumbrances cancellation resolution, and in December 2019, NSC responded to such procedure to vigorously oppose the claim of EWG. Thereafter, NSC submitted a motion to dismiss, based on the resolution of the appeal remedy revoking the preliminary relief, previously mentioned in item (ii). The Court resolved in favor of such motion to dismiss. However, EWG may file an appeal remedy against such resolution.

-On June 27, 2019, the Tenth Civil Judge acknowledged the posting, by EWG, of a bond policy as the counter guarantee allowed pursuant to the Tenth Civil Judge’s ruling on April 26, 2019. NSC plans to vigorously oppose the filing of such bond policy upon continuation of the proceedings, following the suspension granted as a result of the filing of the appeal remedy previously mentioned in item (ii).

-CW-Cooperatief has not been officially served with the ordinary mercantile claim, and AdR has not been notified that it has to appear for such trial. In any event, AdR is only a named third party called to trial in this claim, and no claims have been made by EWG against AdR.

The Company cannot presently determine what impact the resolution of the claim may ultimately have on its ability to complete the Project.