Federal Derivative Lawsuits
On March 7, 2016, a purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors under the following caption: Haber v. Jamison, et al., No. CV16-01569-DMG (RAOx). The lawsuit alleges that certain of our current and former officers and directors knew or should have known that BPC would be unable to fulfill its obligations to us, but allowed us to make false and misleading statements regarding BPC and our financial condition. The complaint asserts a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. It demands damages for the amount of damage sustained by us as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duties, and equitable relief, including that we institute appropriate corporate governance reforms. On May 11, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to stay this action until such time as the defendants’ motion(s) to dismiss the federal securities class action were either granted with prejudice or denied in whole or in part. On May 13, 2016, the Court entered that proposed order.
On July 12, 2016 and July 18, 2016, respectively, two additional purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors, under the caption Tuttle v. Atkinson, et al., No. CV16-05127, and Boll v. Jamison, et al., No. CV16-5282, respectively. The lawsuits allege that certain of our current and former officers and directors knew or should have known that BPC would be unable to fulfill its obligations to us, but allowed us to make false and misleading statements regarding BPC and our financial condition. The Tuttle complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment, and the Boll complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. Both complaints demand damages sustained by us as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, and equitable relief, including that we institute appropriate corporate governance reforms. The federal derivative actions were stayed until such time as the defendants’ motion(s) to dismiss the federal securities class action were either granted with prejudice or denied in whole or in part. On March 9, 2018, following the Court’s order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss in the federal securities class action, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to stay this action until the close of fact discovery in the federal securities class action. On March 13, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation.
The parties in the above federal derivative lawsuits participated in a mediation held on September 24, 2018. On May 6, 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle regarding corporate governance reforms to be implemented in settlement of the action. The parties fully executed a stipulation of settlement on July 14, 2020. A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 27, 2020. A hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is currently scheduled for August 28, 2020. We have not recorded any liability as of June 30, 2020 as our insurance carrier will fund the settlement amount.
Capstone Turbine Corporation v. Turbine International, LLC.
On February 3, 2020, Capstone Turbine Corporation filed suit against its former distributor, Turbine International, LLC (“Turbine Intl.”), in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles under the following caption: Capstone Turbine Corporation v. Turbine International, LLC; Case No. 20STCV04372 (“Capstone-Turbine Intl. Litigation”). We have alleged claims against Turbine Intl. for breach of contract and for injunctive relief relating to the parties’ prior distributor relationship, which terminated at the end of March of 2018, and Turbine Intl.’s failure to satisfy its payment obligations under certain financial agreements, namely an accounts receivable agreement and promissory note in favor of Capstone. As remedies for these claims, we are seeking compensatory, consequential, along with injunctive relief and attorney’s fees, interest, and costs.
On March 18, 2020, Turbine Intl. filed its answer and cross-claims in the Capstone-Turbine Intl. Litigation. In its cross-claims, Turbine Intl. has asserted claims against Capstone, and individually against Mr. James Crouse, Capstone’s Chief Revenue Officer, for breach of contract under the distributor agreement, accounts receivable agreement and promissory note, fraud, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and constructive trust, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the unfair practices act, violation of racketeer influenced corrupt organizations act, and conspiracy to commit fraud. As remedies for these alleged claims, Turbine Intl. are seeking compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages along with attorney’s fees, interest, and costs. Capstone answered the cross-claims on May 7, 2020. On July 8, 2020, Capstone filed a motion to amend its complaint. A hearing on said motion and a case management conference is scheduled for August 19, 2020. We have not recorded any liability as of June 30, 2020, as the matter is too early to estimate.