Commitments and Contingencies | Note 13—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 subsequently entered into a Settlement Agreement (discussed below), which received preliminary approval from the Court on October 16, 2017. The Settlement Agreement is subject to entry of a final order by the Court approving the Settlement Agreement. The final approval hearing took place on April 9, 2018. The parties are awaiting a report and recommendation with respect to final approval of the settlement. 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 subsequently entered into a Settlement Agreement (discussed below), which received preliminary approval from the Court on October 16, 2017. The Settlement Agreement is subject to entry of a final order by the Court approving the Settlement Agreement. The final approval hearing took place on April 9, 2018. The parties are awaiting a report and recommendation with respect to final approval of the settlement. 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 subsequently entered into a Settlement Agreement (discussed below), which received preliminary approval from the Court on October 16, 2017. The Settlement Agreement is subject to entry of a final order by the Court approving the Settlement Agreement. The final approval hearing took place on April 9, 2018. The parties are awaiting a report and recommendation with respect to final approval of the settlement. On July 5, 2017, the Company entered into a class action Settlement Agreement with the class action plaintiffs acting individually and on behalf of the entire class, in the lawsuits currently pending in Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey described above. The Company does not believe that there was any wrongdoing on its part, and is entering into the settlement to further its efforts to address its customers’ concerns. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company has agreed to pay certain amounts to resolve the lawsuits and obtain a release of claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in the lawsuits or that are related to or arise out of the conduct alleged in the lawsuits or similar conduct, wherever it may have occurred. The settlement payment includes payments to customers who timely make a claim, class counsel, and the named plaintiffs, as well as the cost of a claims administrator for administrating the claims process. In 2017, the Company estimated, based in part on historical participation rates, that its total settlement payment would be approximately $9.0 million. In the second quarter of 2017, the Company recorded a liability of $9.0 million for the settlement payment. The period for class members to make claims has since expired, and in 2018, based on the claims received and related administrative costs, the Company estimated that the total settlement payment will be approximately $7.6 million. In the three months ended March 31, 2018, the Company reduced the liability for the settlement payment by $1.4 million, reversed $1.7 million of the revenue reduction recorded in 2017, and recorded expense of $0.3 million that is included in “Selling, general and administrative expense”. The Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court on October 16, 2017. The Settlement Agreement is subject to entry of a final order by the Court approving the Settlement Agreement. The final approval hearing took place on April 9, 2018. The parties are awaiting a report and recommendation with respect to final approval of the settlement. From time to time, the Company receives inquiries or requests for information or materials from public utility commissions or other governmental regulatory or law enforcement agencies related to investigations under statutory or regulatory schemes, and the Company responds to those inquiries or requests. The Company cannot predict whether any of those matters will lead to claims or enforcement actions. In the third quarter of 2017, the Company accrued $1.5 million of estimated loss related to concerns raised by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities and Division of Consumer Affairs regarding energy supply charges issued to the Company’s retail customers during the first quarter of 2014. 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 Proceedings In December 2017, the New York Public Service Commission (“PSC”) held an evidentiary hearing to assess the retail energy market in New York. The parties recently completed post-hearing briefing in the proceedings. The Company is evaluating the potential impact of any new order from the PSC that may follow from the evidentiary process, while preparing various contingencies for operation 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’s REPs in New York. As of March 31, 2018, New York represented 33% of GRE’s total meters served and 25% of the total residential customer equivalents (“RCEs”) of GRE’s customer base. On December 16, 2016, the PSC issued an order (the “2016 Order”) prohibiting REP service to customers enrolled in New York’s utility low-income assistance programs. Temporary stays of the 2016 Order expired, and REPs were required to return service of their low-income customers to the relevant local incumbent utility on the modified schedule set forth in the PSC’s 2016 Order. The 2016 Order required GRE’s REPs to transfer customer accounts comprising approximately 18,700 meters, representing approximately 10,600 RCEs, to their respective incumbent utilities in the three months ended March 31, 2018. On March 27, 2018, the New York Court of Appeals granted Motions for Leave to Appeal the question of whether the Legislature ever imparted to the PSC the authority to regulate the rates that private, non-monopoly REPs charge their customers. The Court of Appeals is now set to review a 2017 decision entered by the Appellate Division, Third Department, concerning the issue of the scope of the PSC’s authority over REPs under the Public Service Law, and to pronounce New York law on that issue. A briefing schedule was put in place, and the appeal is currently scheduled to be heard in September 2018. Purchase Commitments The Company had purchase commitments of $37.0 million at March 31, 2018, of which $35.4 million was for future purchases of electricity. The purchase commitments outstanding at March 31, 2018 are expected to be paid as follows: $34.3 million in the twelve months ending March 31, 2019, and $2.7 million in the twelve months ending March 31, 2020. 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 March 31, 2018, GRE had commitments to purchase renewable energy credits of $27.4 million. 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 March 31, 2018, GRE had aggregate performance bonds of $12.4 million outstanding. BP Energy Company Preferred Supplier Agreement As of November 19, 2015, certain of GRE’s REPs entered into an Amended and Restated Preferred Supplier Agreement with 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, the REPs purchase electricity and natural gas at market rate plus a fee. The obligations to BP are secured by a first security interest in deposits or receivables from utilities in connection with their purchase of the REPs’ customer’s receivables, and in any cash deposits or letters of credit posted in connection with any collateral accounts with BP. In addition, the REPs must pay an advance payment of $2.5 million to BP each month that BP will apply to the next invoiced amount due to BP. The ability to purchase electricity and natural gas under this agreement is subject to satisfaction of certain conditions including the maintenance of certain covenants. At March 31, 2018, the Company was in compliance with such covenants. At March 31, 2018, restricted cash—short-term of $0.3 million and trade accounts receivable of $31.0 million were pledged to BP as collateral for the payment of trade accounts payable to BP of $8.5 million at March 31, 2018. |