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 the Company and certain of its 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 alleged that certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors knew or should have known that BPC would be unable to fulfill its obligations to the Company, but allowed the Company to make false and misleading statements regarding BPC and its financial condition. The Tuttle complaint asserted causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment, and the Boll complaint asserted causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. Both complaints demanded damages sustained by the Company as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, and equitable relief, including that the Company institute appropriate corporate governance reforms. 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. On August 28, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On October 30, 2020, the Court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the settlement and plaintiffs’ requested fee and expense amount. The Court subsequently issued an order granting final approval of the settlement and plaintiffs’ requested fee and expense amount and entered final judgment. Pursuant to that order, the federal derivative lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice. The Company has not recorded any liability as of December 31, 2020 as its insurance funded the amounts owed under the settlement of both the State and Federal Derivative actions.
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”). The Company has 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 for 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, the Company is 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 litigation. In its cross-claims, Turbine Intl. has asserted claims against Capstone, and individually against Mr. James Crouse, the Company’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. is 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, which has been granted, allowing the Capstone’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) to be filed on August 25, 2020. The FAC added claims against persons and entities related to Turbine Intl., including Jose Penafiel and Gloria Penafiel, Hispania Petroleum, and Fortitude Resources, LLC, for breach of guaranty (as to Hispania), promissory fraud, and alter-ego liability.
The parties have commenced discovery, and the Company is in the process of serving the FAC on various out-of-state and international parties.
16. Leases
In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), requiring lessees to recognize most leases on the balance sheet, while recognition on the statements of operations will remain similar to current lease accounting. The ASU requires lessees to recognize a liability for lease obligations, which represents the discounted obligation to make future lease payments, and a corresponding right-of-use (ROU) asset on the balance sheet. The guidance requires