Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments to Acquire Power Plants In April 2015, the Company entered into purchase and sale agreements to acquire controlling interests in three operating power plants located in South Africa with an aggregate net capacity of 32.6 MW from BioTherm. The aggregate consideration payable for these three power plants is approximately $75.4 million . See Note 2 - Acquisitions for additional discussion of these commitments. Legal Proceedings Initiated Against the Company Project Litigation GUVNL Litigation The Company is subject to litigation with Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (“GUVNL”), the offtake counterparty for certain power plants in India, which is seeking a reduction of the tariff set forth in the applicable PPAs. In separate litigation, GUVNL also claims that there has been a violation of the terms of certain PPAs between GUVNL and the applicable project companies on account of a change in stockholders since execution of such PPAs, and as such GUVNL is entitled to terminate such PPAs. The Company successfully defended each case at the first court level and an appeal of each case was dismissed by the appellate level, but GUVNL has appealed to the Supreme Court of India on each matter. The cases are currently pending with the Supreme Court of India. The Company believes that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is remote. Honiton Litigation The Company was subject to pending litigation proceedings with Suzlon Energy (Tianjin) Limited (“SETL”) with respect to alleged breaches of a turbine supply contract relating to the Honiton wind power plants in China. The operation and maintenance service contracts claim pending before an arbitral tribunal was resolved on December 3, 2015, pursuant to which the Company was required to pay an award of $0.5 million , which was paid in January 2016. On June 3, 2016, SETL and the Company reached a settlement resolving all remaining disputes relating to the turbine contracts. The terms of this final settlement resulted in SETL assigning all rights as a creditor it held against the Company to Beijing Aliyun Investment and Consulting Co. Ltd. (“Aliyun”). In addition, the Company agreed to pay Aliyun $7.1 million (RMB 47.0 million ), of which RMB 45.0 million was paid during the second quarter of 2016, and the remaining RMB 2.0 million is due no later than July 2018, subject to various conditions set forth in the settlement agreement. In accordance with the settlement agreement, SETL withdrew its pending claims against the Company. As of March 31, 2017 a liability was recognized related to the proceedings in the amount of $0.3 million (RMB 2.0 million ). Bankruptcy Court Action Motion to Stay and Motion to Compel Mediation On November 2, 2016, the unsecured creditors’ committee in the SunEdison Bankruptcy filed an adversary complaint against the Company and others with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint and contemporaneous motion to stay seek to stay pending litigation against current and former directors and officers of SunEdison and the Company, including TerraForm Global, Inc. v. SunEdison, Inc., et al., the Company’s action against SunEdison described below. The unsecured creditors’ committee intends to file a derivative action on behalf of the SunEdison bankruptcy estate against current and former SunEdison officers and directors. It has requested the stay in order to preserve the proceeds of SunEdison’s and the Company's directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies. On November 4, 2016, the unsecured creditors’ committee filed a motion in the SunEdison Bankruptcy case for derivative standing to sue various current and former SunEdison officers and directors. The unsecured creditors’ committee filed an amended adversary complaint on November 9, 2016. As described in a motion to compel mediation filed by SunEdison on November 23, 2016, SunEdison and the unsecured creditors’ committee agreed to hold the motion to stay and any proposed claims by the unsecured creditors’ committee against various current and former SunEdison officers and directors in abeyance pending a global mediation relating to insurance issues. The Company’s objection to the motion to stay and the motion to compel mediation was filed on December 1, 2016. On December 28, 2016, pursuant to a consent order entered by the bankruptcy court, SunEdison, the unsecured creditors’ committee and the Company, among other parties, were directed to participate in the mediation process that is being conducted in connection with the SunEdison Bankruptcy. The mediation commenced on February 10, 2017. On March 27, 2017, SunEdison, the unsecured creditors’ committee and the directors and officers of SunEdison who would be defendants in the estate claims proposed to be brought by the unsecured creditors’ committee reached an agreement in principle to settle those claims in exchange for a payment of $32.0 million from a $150.0 million directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy shared with the Company, TerraForm Power, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, "TerraForm Power"), SunEdison and certain of their respective directors and officers covering the period from July 15, 2015 to July 14, 2016. The agreement is subject to the approval of the bankruptcy court overseeing the SunEdison Bankruptcy. On March 31, 2017, the limited stay expired. Given the preliminary nature of the claims, the Company is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these motions or that an adverse resolution of legal proceedings would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations. Avoidance Actions On November 7, 2016, the unsecured creditors’ committee in the SunEdison Bankruptcy filed a motion with the bankruptcy court seeking standing to assert against the Company, on behalf of SunEdison, avoidance claims arising from intercompany transactions between the Company and SunEdison. The Company’s objection to the standing motion was filed on November 29, 2016. The unsecured creditors’ committee filed a reply and supplemental reply in support of its standing motion on December 5, 2016 and December 21, 2016, respectively. On March 6, 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with SunEdison in connection with the SunEdison Bankruptcy and the Merger Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”), pursuant to which SunEdison would release any potential avoidance claims it may have against the Company. The Settlement Agreement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on June 7, 2017; however, its effectiveness is conditional on the completion of the Brookfield Transaction. If the Settlement Agreement becomes effective, the Company expects this standing motion will be withdrawn. If the Settlement Agreement is terminated or if the standing motion is not withdrawn, the Company expects to vigorously contest this standing motion and, if standing is granted, the underlying avoidance claims. The Company is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these claims or that an adverse resolution of a legal proceeding, if commenced, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations. Renova Arbitration On July 14, 2016, Renova Energia, S.A. (“Renova”) filed a request for arbitration against TerraForm Global, Inc., TerraForm Global, LLC, TerraForm Global Brazil Holding B.V. and TERP GLBL Brasil I Participacoes S.A. (collectively, the “TerraForm Global Parties”) in the Center for Arbitration and Mediation of the Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada (the “Renova Arbitration”). Renova alleges, among other things, that TerraForm Global, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries listed above: (i) fraudulently induced Renova to enter into the acquisition agreements related to the Salvador and Bahia wind power plants, the omnibus closing agreement with respect to such acquisitions, and the put/call arrangement entered into between SunEdison and Renova in connection with the Renova Transaction based on misleading and false representations about their and SunEdison’s financial condition and prospects; (ii) aided and abetted SunEdison’s fraud; (iii) negligently misrepresented their and SunEdison’s financial conditions and prospects; (iv) committed related violations of federal and state securities laws; (v) breached express warranties under the applicable acquisition agreements; (vi) wrongfully refused to repurchase from Renova seven million shares of TerraForm Global, Inc. Class A common stock pursuant to Renova’s put exercise notice of March 31, 2016, in breach of the put/call arrangement entered into between SunEdison and Renova in connection with the Renova Transaction; and (vii) unjustly enriched themselves. Renova seeks, among other relief, rescission of the Salvador and Bahia transactions, and/or damages in an amount to be determined in the arbitration of not less than $250 million , representing the drop in value of the 20,327,499 shares of TerraForm Global, Inc. Class A common stock Renova received in the Salvador transaction, from its $15 /share IPO price to its trading level of $3.38 /share at the time the request for arbitration was filed, as well as other related losses. On May 26, 2017, the TerraForm Global Parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (the “Renova Settlement Agreement”) with Renova. The Renova Settlement Agreement resolves all disputes among the TerraForm Global Parties and Renova that are the subject of the Renova Arbitration. Pursuant to the Renova Settlement Agreement, the TerraForm Global Parties have agreed to make a one-time settlement payment in the aggregate amount of $15.0 million , in exchange for and contingent on the withdrawal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims made in the Renova Arbitration and termination of the Renova Arbitration. In addition, 792,495 shares of TerraForm Global, Inc. Class A common stock issued to Renova and currently held in escrow pursuant to the acquisition agreements for the Salvador wind power plant acquired by a subsidiary of the Company will be returned to the Company. None of the parties to the Renova Arbitration has admitted to any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the claims asserted in the Renova Arbitration. Subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions set forth in the Renova Settlement Agreement (including the purchase of Renova’s shares of TerraForm Global, Inc. Class A common stock by an affiliate of Brookfield as described below), the parties have granted each other full releases with respect to any claims arising in connection with the previously completed acquisitions by the Company of the Salvador and Bahia wind power plants from Renova and all related transactions and any other disputes that could arise in the future among the TerraForm Global Parties and Renova concerning or related in any way to such transactions and events, which are the subject of the Renova Arbitration. Also, concurrently with the execution of the Renova Settlement Agreement, Renova and affiliates of Brookfield entered into a Purchase & Sale Agreement (the “PSA”) with respect to all of the shares of Class A common stock of TerraForm Global, Inc. owned by Renova (excluding the shares to be released from escrow to TerraForm Global, Inc. pursuant to the Renova Settlement Agreement). Pursuant to the terms of the PSA, an affiliate of Brookfield has agreed to purchase 19,535,004 shares of Class A common stock of TerraForm Global, Inc. from Renova for a purchase price in cash of $4.75 per share, or $92,791,269 in the aggregate. The consummation of the share purchase contemplated by the PSA is subject to customary conditions to closing and is conditioned upon the satisfaction of certain conditions set forth in the Renova Settlement Agreement described above, including the effectiveness of the mutual releases and release of the shares in escrow. The Company recognized $3.8 million of general and administrative expenses as of December 31, 2016 as a result of this settlement. Securities Litigation Multidistrict Litigation On July 27, 2016, lead plaintiff Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of Michigan in the Horowitz et. al v. SunEdison, Inc. et al. action (E.D. Mo.) moved to transfer various actions pending in federal district courts to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings before the Multidistrict Litigation Panel. On October 4, 2016, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel issued an order transferring the following cases to the SDNY for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings: • Fraser v. Wuebbels et al. • Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. • Badri v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. • Patel v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. • Pyramid Holdings, Inc. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. • Beltran v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. • Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. SunEdison, Inc. et al. • Glenview Capital Partners, L.P. et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et al. • Omega Capital Investors et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et al. Four of these actions, Fraser v. Wuebbels et al., Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., Badri v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., and Patel v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., were initially filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo on October 23, 2015, December 3, 2015, December 9, 2015 and January 4, 2016, respectively. These four separate purported class actions were filed against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, each of the underwriters of the Company’s IPO, and SunEdison. A separate class action, Agrawal v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo on October 30, 2015. This action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in February 2016. Additionally, two separate purported class action lawsuits, Beltran v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. and Pyramid Holdings, Inc. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., were filed on October 29, 2015 and November 5, 2015, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the same defendants. The class action plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The class action complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in the Company's registration statement for the IPO regarding SunEdison and its recent operating results and business strategy. Among other relief, the class action complaints seek class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys’ fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and proper. On April 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison’s voluntary petition for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants removed the remaining state actions to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 27, 2016, the plaintiffs in the cases removed from state court filed motions to remand. On June 1, 2016, the defendants filed motions to transfer the cases to the SDNY, the jurisdiction in which SunEdison’s bankruptcy is pending. The previous briefing schedule has been vacated as a result of the October 4, 2016 transfer order issued by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel. On November 3, 2016, Plaintiff in Patel v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. voluntarily dismissed the case. On December 20, 2016, Plaintiff in Beltran v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. voluntarily dismissed the case. On December 22, 2016, the court consolidated Pyramid Holdings, Inc. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., Badri v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., and Fraser v. Wuebbels et al. as In re TerraForm Global, Inc. Securities Litigation and ordered the plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint. On January 16, 2017, the plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On April 21, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the remaining complaints and, as a result, is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits or that an adverse resolution of these lawsuits would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations. On March 29, 2016, plaintiff filed Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. SunEdison, Inc. et al., in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo against the Company, SunEdison, certain officers and directors of the Company and SunEdison, and the underwriters of the Company’s IPO. The plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in the Company's registration statement for the IPO regarding SunEdison and its recent operating results and business strategy. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, rescission, and such other relief (including equitable or injunctive relief) as the court may deem just and proper. On April 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison’s voluntary petition for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 27, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to remand. On June 1, 2016, the defendants moved to transfer the case to the SDNY, the jurisdiction in which SunEdison’s bankruptcy is pending. The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations. On March 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed Glenview Capital Partners, L.P. et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et al., in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo against the Company, SunEdison, certain officers and directors of the Company and SunEdison, and the underwriters of the Company’s August 5, 2015 bond offering and SunEdison’s August 18, 2015 preferred stock offering. The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, as well as the Maryland Securities Act. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they purchased securities pursuant to offering documents that contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted other material facts necessary to make the statements in the offering documents not misleading. The complaint further alleges that these false and misleading statements led to the forced conversion of the plaintiffs’ Class D securities into restricted common stock, that the Company breached the June 9, 2015 Class D Purchase Agreement between the Company and the plaintiffs, and that the defendants made negligent misrepresentations in connection with the Company’s Class D registration statement. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission, and such other relief (including equitable or injunctive relief) as the court may deem just and proper. On April 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison’s voluntary petition for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 26, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On May 27, 2016, the defendants moved to transfer the case to the SDNY, the jurisdiction in which SunEdison’s bankruptcy is pending. The Court held a hearing on the motion to remand and the motion to transfer on August 18, 2016. On August 26, 2016, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand and granting the defendants’ motion to transfer. The Court also certified a legal issue for interlocutory review, and on September 2, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On November 17, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an order requiring all parties to file statements addressing the effect of the Multidistrict Litigation Panel’s transfer order on the motion for permission to appeal. On December 8, 2016, the parties filed their responses. The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations. On March 30, 2016, plaintiffs filed Omega Capital Investors et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et al., in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo against the Company, SunEdison, certain officers and directors of the Company and SunEdison, and the underwriters of SunEdison’s preferred stock offering. The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, as well as the Maryland Securities Act. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements in connection with the Company’s IPO, and that these false and misleading statements led to the forced conversion of their Class D securities into restricted common stock. The complaint further alleges that the Company breached the June 9, 2015 Class D Purchase Agreement between the Company and the plaintiffs and made negligent misrepresentations in connection with the Company’s Class D registration statement. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission, and such other relief (including equitable or injunctive relief) as the court may deem just and proper. On April 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison’s voluntary petition for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 26, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On June 1, 2016, the defendants moved to transfer the case to the SDNY, the jurisdiction in which SunEdison’s bankruptcy is pending. The Court held a hearing on the motion to remand and the motion to transfer on August 18, 2016. On August 26, 2016, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand and granting the defendants’ motion to transfer. The Court also certified a legal issue for interlocutory review, and on September 2, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On November 17, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an order requiring all parties to file statements addressing the effect of the Multidistrict Litigation Panel’s transfer order on the motion for permission to appeal. On December 8, 2016, the parties filed their responses. The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations. Conditional Transfer Cases On October 5, 2016, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel issued conditional transfer orders in three cases, Kingdon Associates et al. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., VMT II LLC v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., and Canyon Capital Advisors LLC et al. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. On July 14, 2016, plaintiffs filed Kingdon Associates et al. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo against the Company, TerraForm Global, LLC, certain officers and directors of the Company and SunEdison, and the underwriters of the Company’s IPO. The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, as well as state law claims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Maryland securities laws. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in the Company's registration statement for the IPO regarding SunEdison and its recent operating results and business strategy and that these false and misleading statements led to the forced conversion of their Class D securities into restricted common stock. The complaint further alleges that the Company breached the June 9, 2015 Class D Purchase Agreement between the Company and the plaintiffs and made negligent misrepresentations in connection with the Company’s Class D registration statement. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, rescission, and such other relief (including equitable or injunctive relief) as the court may deem just and proper. On September 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison’s voluntary petition for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs did not oppose the Multidistrict Litigation Panel's conditional transfer order, and the matter was transferred to the multidistrict litigation on October 20, 2016. The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations. On August 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed Canyon Capital Advisors LLC et al. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo against the Company, certain officers and directors of the Company and SunEdison, and the underwriters of the Company’s IPO and SunEdison’s August 18, 2015 preferred stock offering. The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, as well as the California Corporate Securities Law. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they purchased securities pursuant to offering documents that contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted other material facts necessary to make the statements in the offering documents not misleading. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission, and such other relief (including equitable or injunctive relief) as the court may deem just and proper. On September 8, 2016, in light of SunEdison’s voluntary petition for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On September 26, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On October 6, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended motion to remand. On October 20, 2016, defendants filed their opposition to that motion, and on November 2, 2016, plaintiffs filed their reply. On October 19, 2016, defendants filed a motion to stay the case until a final transfer determination could be made by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel. On November 2, 2016, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to stay. The Court held a hearing on the motion to remand and the motion to stay on November 10, 2016. On October 26, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the conditional transfer order. On November 16, 2016, defendants filed an opposition to the motion to vacate. On November 17, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation withdrawing the motions to stay and vacate, which the court entered. On November 22, 2016, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel transferred the case to the SDNY for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings. The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations. On September 16, 2016, plaintiff filed VMT II LLC v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo against the Company, certain officers and directors of the Company and SunEdison, and the underwriters of SunEdison’s preferred stock offering. The plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, as well as the Maryland Securities Act. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements in connection with the Company’s IPO, and that these false and misleading statements led to the forced conversion of their Class D securities into restricted common stock. The complaint further alleges that the Company breached the June 9, 2015 Class D Purchase Agreement between the Company and the plaintiffs and made negligent misrepresentations in connection with the Company’s Class D registration statement. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission, and such other relief (including equitable or injunctive relief) as the court may deem just and proper. On September 28, 2016, in light of SunEdison’s voluntary petition for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs did not oppose the Multidistrict Litigation Panel's conditional transfer order, and the matter was transferred to the multidistrict litigation on October 20, 2016. The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations. On December 19, 2016, an initial case management conference was held in the multidistrict litigation proceedings in the SDNY. The Court entered a partial stay of all proceedings through March 31, 2017, and entered an order requiring all parties to the multidistrict litigation, including the parties to the conditional transfer cases, to participate in the mediation process that is being conducted in connection with the SunEdison Bankruptcy, which also includes the derivative claim described below. The mediation commenced on February 10, 2017. On February 6, 2017, the Company filed pre-motion letters with the Court describing the grounds for anticipated motions to dismiss in the following matters: In re TerraForm Global, Inc. Securities Litigation, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. SunEdison, Inc. et al., Glenview Capital Partners, L.P. et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et al., Omega Capital Investors et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et al., Kingdon Associates et al. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., Canyon Capital Advisors LLC et al. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., and VMT II LLC v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. The plaintiffs in those matters filed responses on February 20, 2017. On March 31, 2017, the partial stay expired. On April 13, 2017, the Court held a status conference and entered a briefing schedule for the Company’s anticipated motion to dismiss the Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint in In re TerraForm Global, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Company filed its motion to dismiss on June 9, 2017. Plaintiffs’ opposition is due on July 14, 2017, and the Company’s reply is due on August 4, 2017. Further proceedings in the remaining multidistrict litigation matters described above have been stayed pending resolution of the initial motion to dismiss. On March 22, 2017, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel issued conditional transfer orders in Domenech v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. and Perez v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., and these matters were transferred to the multidistrict litigation on April 13, 2017 and May 31, 2017, respectively. These matters are further described below. Derivative Claim Aldridge v. Blackmore et al. O |