Commitments and Contingencies | Note 11—Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings On March 13, 2014, named plaintiff, Anthony Ferrare, commenced a putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The complaint was served on IDT Energy on July 16, 2014. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and other former and current electric customers of IDT Energy in Pennsylvania with variable rate plans, whom he contends were injured as a result of IDT Energy’s allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices. On August 7, 2014, IDT Energy removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On October 20, 2014, IDT Energy moved to stay or, alternatively, dismiss the complaint, as amended, by the named plaintiff. On November 10, 2014, the named plaintiff opposed IDT Energy’s motion to dismiss and IDT Energy filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of its motion to dismiss. On June 10, 2015, the Court granted IDT Energy’s motion to stay and denied its motion to dismiss without prejudice. The parties participated in mediation, and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with respect to a proposed settlement of the above-captioned putative class action (as well as the other putative class actions referred to in this section). There are a number of material issues not addressed by the MOU that must be resolved before a settlement can be finalized. The parties notified the Court of that development and are working towards finalizing the settlement, which will need to be approved by the Court. The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit. On June 20, 2014, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office (“AG”) and the Acting Consumer Advocate (“OCA”) filed a Joint Complaint against IDT Energy, Inc. with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”). In the Joint Complaint, the AG and the OCA allege, among other things, various violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the Telemarketing Registration Act and the Pennsylvania PUC’s regulations. IDT Energy reached an agreement in principle on a settlement with the AG and the OCA to terminate the litigation with no admission of liability or finding of wrongdoing by IDT Energy. On August 4, 2015, IDT Energy, the AG, and the OCA filed a Joint Petition to the Pennsylvania PUC seeking approval of the settlement terms. Under the settlement, IDT Energy will issue additional refunds to its Pennsylvania customers who had variable rates for electricity supply in January, February and March of 2014. IDT Energy will also implement certain modifications to its sales, marketing and customer service processes, along with additional compliance and reporting requirements. The settlement was approved by the Pennsylvania PUC on July 8, 2016. In July 2016, IDT Energy paid the agreed-upon $2.4 million for additional customer refunds to a refund administrator, and that administrator is currently in the process of issuing the additional refunds to customers. On July 2, 2014, named plaintiff, Louis McLaughlin, filed a putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, contending that he and other class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy’s allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and two subclasses: all IDT Energy customers who were charged a variable rate for their energy from July 2, 2008, and all IDT Energy customers who participated in IDT Energy’s rebate program from July 2, 2008. On January 22, 2016, the named plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of himself and all IDT Energy customers in New York State against IDT Energy, Inc., Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy International Corporation, and Genie Energy Ltd. (collectively, “IDT Energy”). On February 22, 2016, IDT Energy moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and the named plaintiff opposed that motion. The parties participated in mediation, and entered into a MOU with respect to a proposed settlement of the above-captioned putative class action (as well as the other putative class actions referred to in this section). There are a number of material issues not addressed by the MOU that must be resolved before a settlement can be finalized. The parties notified the Court of that development and are working towards finalizing the settlement, which will need to be approved by the Court. The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit. On July 15, 2014, named plaintiff, Kimberly Aks, commenced a putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in New Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, contending that she and other class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy’s alleged unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of herself and all other New Jersey residents who were IDT Energy customers at any time between July 11, 2008 and the present. The parties were engaged in discovery prior to the mediation described below. On April 20, 2016, the named plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of herself and all IDT Energy customers in New Jersey against IDT Energy, Inc., Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy International Corporation and Genie Energy Ltd. On June 27, 2016, defendants Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy International Corporation and Genie Energy Ltd. filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 26, 2016, the named plaintiff opposed that motion and IDT Energy filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of its motion to dismiss. The Court granted the motion to dismiss, but the parties agreed to set aside that decision to give the plaintiff an opportunity to submit opposition papers that had not been considered by the Court in rendering its decision. The parties participated in mediation, and entered into a MOU with respect to a proposed settlement of the above-captioned putative class action (as well as the other putative class actions referred to in this section). There are a number of material issues not addressed by the MOU that must be resolved before a settlement can be finalized. The parties notified the Court of that development and are working towards finalizing the settlement, which will need to be approved by the Court. The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit. In addition to the above, the Company may from time to time be subject to legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, the Company does not expect any of those legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. New York Public Service Commission Orders On February 23, 2016, the New York Public Service Commission (“PSC”) issued an order that sought to impose significant new restrictions on REPs operating in New York, including those owned by GRE. The restrictions described in the PSC’s order, which were to become effective March 4, 2016, would require that all REPs’ electricity and natural gas offerings to residential and small business customers include an annual guarantee of savings compared to the price charged by the relevant incumbent utility or, for electricity offerings, provide at least 30% of the supply from renewable sources. Customers not enrolled in a compliant program would be relinquished back to the local utility at the end of their contract period or, for variable price customers operating on month to month agreements, at the end of the current monthly billing cycle. On March 4, 2016, a group of parties from the REP industry sought and won a temporary restraining order to stay implementation of the most restrictive portions of the PSC’s order pending a court hearing on those parties’ motion for a preliminary injunction. On July 25, 2016, the New York State Supreme Court, County of Albany, entered a decision and order granting the Petitioners’ petition, vacated provisions 1 through 3 of the Order, and remitted the matter to the PSC for further proceedings consistent with the court’s order. The PSC has indicated that it intends to issue a new order to achieve similar objectives without the deficiencies cited by the Court. The Company is evaluating the potential impact of any new order from the PSC in response to the Court’s vacating of the PSC’s order on its New York operations, while preparing to operate in compliance with any new requirements that may be imposed. Depending on the final language of any new order, as well as the Company’s ability to modify its relationships with its New York customers, an order could have a substantial impact upon the operations of GRE-owned REPs in New York. On July 14, 2016, the PSC issued an Order restricting REPs, including those owned by GRE, from serving customers enrolled in New York’s utility low-income assistance programs. Most recently, on September 27, 2016, the New York State Supreme Court, Albany County, issued an order temporarily restraining the PSC from implementing the July 14, 2016 Order. Representatives of the REP industry challenged the ruling in Court on both procedural and substantive grounds. The judge set a November 18, 2016 return date for the industry’s request to continue that injunction for the duration of the proceeding, which seeks an order permanently invalidating the PSC’s order. Purchase Commitments The Company had purchase commitments of $16.5 million at September 30, 2016. The purchase commitments outstanding at September 30, 2016 are expected to be paid as follows: $12.1 million in the twelve months ending September 30, 2017, $3.3 million in the twelve months ending September 30, 2018 and $1.1 million in the twelve months ending September 30, 2019. Renewable Energy Credits GRE must obtain a certain percentage or amount of its power supply from renewable energy sources in order to meet the requirements of renewable portfolio standards in the states in which it operates. This requirement may be met by obtaining renewable energy credits that provide evidence that electricity has been generated by a qualifying renewable facility or resource. At September 30, 2016, GRE had commitments to purchase renewable energy credits of $42.1 million. Tax Audits The Company is subject to audits in various jurisdictions for various taxes. Amounts asserted by taxing authorities or the amount ultimately assessed against the Company could be greater than accrued amounts. Accordingly, additional provisions may be recorded in the future as revised estimates are made or underlying matters are settled or resolved. Imposition of assessments as a result of tax audits could have an adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. Letters of Credit At September 30, 2016, the Company had letters of credit outstanding totaling $8.2 million primarily for the benefit of regional transmission organizations that coordinate the movement of wholesale electricity and for certain utility companies. The letters of credit outstanding at September 30, 2016 expire as follows: $6.5 million in the twelve months ending September 30, 2017 and $1.7 million in the twelve months ending September 30, 2018. Performance Bonds GRE has performance bonds issued through a third party for the benefit of various states in order to comply with the states’ financial requirements for REPs. At September 30, 2016, GRE had aggregate performance bonds of $7.4 million outstanding. Other Contingencies As of November 19, 2015, IDT Energy and certain of its affiliates entered into an Amended and Restated Preferred Supplier Agreement with BP Energy Company (“BP”). The agreement’s termination date is November 30, 2019, except either party may terminate the agreement on November 30, 2018 by giving the other party notice by May 31, 2018. Under the agreement, IDT Energy purchases electricity and natural gas at market rate plus a fee. IDT Energy’s obligations to BP are secured by a first security interest in deposits or receivables from utilities in connection with their purchase of IDT Energy’s customer’s receivables, and in any cash deposits or letters of credit posted in connection with any collateral accounts with BP. IDT Energy’s ability to purchase electricity and natural gas under this agreement is subject to satisfaction of certain conditions including the maintenance of certain covenants. At September 30, 2016, the Company was in compliance with such covenants. At September 30, 2016, restricted cash—short-term of $0.2 million and trade accounts receivable of $33.1 million were pledged to BP as collateral for the payment of IDT Energy’s trade accounts payable to BP of $8.7 million at September 30, 2016. |