Commitments and Contingencies | Note 12 Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings From time to time, we are involved in lawsuits that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. We are contesting each of these lawsuits vigorously and believe we have defenses to the allegations that have been made. In our opinion, the outcome to these legal actions will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. Derivative Suit Beginning on December 10, 2013, five putative shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed by five different individuals, in their capacity as our shareholders, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, purportedly on behalf of us and naming certain of our current and former executive officers and directors as individual defendants. These five shareholder lawsuits are captioned as follows: (1) Richard J. Wickham v. Richard M. Osborne, et al., (Case No. 1:13-cv-02718-LW); (2) John Durgerian v. Richard M. Osborne, et al., (Case No. 1:13-cv-02805-LW); (3) Joseph Ferrigno v. Richard M. Osborne, et al., (Case No. 1:13-cv-02822-LW); (4) Kyle Warner v. Richard M. Osborne, et al., (Case No. 1:14-cv-00007-LW) and (5) Gary F. Peters v. Richard M. Osborne, (Case No. 1:14-cv-0026-CAB). On February 6, 2014, the five lawsuits were consolidated solely for purposes of conducting limited pretrial discovery, and on February 21, 2014, the Court appointed lead counsel for all five lawsuits. The consolidated action contains claims against various of our current or former directors or officers alleging, among other things, violations of federal securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment arising primarily out of our acquisition of the Ohio utilities, services provided by JDOG Marketing and the acquisition of JDOG Marketing, and the sale of our common stock by Richard M. Osborne, our former chairman and chief executive officer, and Thomas J. Smith, our former chief financial officer. The suit, in which we are named as a nominal defendant, seeks the recovery of unspecified damages allegedly sustained by us, corporate reforms, disgorgement, restitution, the recovery of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and other relief. On January 13, 2017, (i) plaintiffs John Durgerian and Joseph Ferrigno, individually and derivatively on behalf of the Company; (ii) certain of our current and former officers and directors; and (iii) we entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the “Stipulation”). On January 31, 2017, the Court issued an order in the consolidated action preliminarily approving a proposed settlement (the “Settlement”), for which we have accrued a liability of $ 550 On April 17, 2017, following a hearing on April 12, 2017, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued an order (the “Final Order”) granting final approval of the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation. The Final Order approved the award of attorneys’ fees and unreimbursed expenses to lead counsel for plaintiffs’ in the amount of $ 3,200 2,650 The Settlement, as finally approved, caused the dismissal with prejudice of the derivative litigation. However, the Final Order is subject to appeal. The Settlement will become effective 30 days from April 17, 2017, the date the Final Order was entered by the Court, in the event no appeal is filed. Merger Litigation On November 3, 2016, a putative derivative and class action lawsuit was filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case Number CV16871400, captioned Alison D. “Sunny” Masters vs. Michael B. Bender et. al. The complaint (as amended) alleges, among other things, that (i) our board breached its fiduciary duties and acted in bad faith by failing to undertake an adequate sales process during the time leading up to the execution of the Merger Agreement, (ii) our officers violated their fiduciary duty of loyalty, (iii) the Merger Agreement contains preclusive deal protection devices, (iv) our board failed to act with due care, loyalty, good faith, and independence owed to our shareholders, (v) that our executive officers, board members, InterTech, NIL Funding, and First Reserve conspired and aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties, and (vi) that our board breached their fiduciary duties and violated related federal securities laws by omitting and misrepresenting material information in our preliminary proxy statement filed on November 9, 2016. The complaint further alleges various claims against the Zucker Trust and First Reserve including, as applicable, claims for breach of fiduciary duties, violations of Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 13d-2(a). On November 28, 2016, all defendants removed the Masters Case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Case Number 1:16-CV-02880. We agreed to provide expedited discovery to the plaintiff. On December 23, 2016, we entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiff providing for the settlement of the Masters case. In the Memorandum of Understanding, we agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to the Definitive Proxy Statement filed on November 23, 2016, solely for the purpose of minimizing the time, burden, and expense of litigation. The Memorandum of Understanding provides that, in exchange for making these disclosures, defendants will receive, after notice to potential class members and upon court approval, a customary release of claims relating to the Merger. On December 23, 2016, we filed with the SEC a Form 8-K making supplemental disclosures to our definitive proxy statement. On March 7, 2017, the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement, as contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding. On March 13, 2017, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a fairness hearing on July 5, 2017. Litigation with Richard M. Osborne On March 31, 2015, Orwell filed a complaint, captioned Orwell Natural Gas Company v. Orwell-Trumbull Pipeline Company LLC On July 14, 2016, we entered into a settlement agreement with Richard M. Osborne, our former chairman and chief executive officer (the “Settlement”). Under the Settlement, we settled numerous, but not all, outstanding litigation and regulatory proceedings between us, including our subsidiaries and certain of our current and former directors, and Mr. Osborne. All matters previously disclosed and subject to the Settlement are described in further detail in Part II, Item I of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2016, and under the caption “Litigation with Richard Osborne” in our Definitive Proxy Statement, filed with the SEC on May 9, 2016 and June 21, 2016, respectively. The specific litigation and regulatory proceedings subject to the Settlement are described in Part I, Item 3 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 filed with the SEC on March 16, 2017. We and Mr. Osborne further agreed to dismiss all other pending or threatened litigation matters between us, although not specifically identified in the agreement. In connection with the Settlement, Mr. Osborne withdrew the director candidates he had nominated for election to the board at the annual meeting of shareholders held on July 27, 2016. The proxy materials circulated in support of his candidates were also withdrawn. Pursuant to the Settlement, further details of the Settlement are confidential. On October 20, 2016, Orwell-Trumbull Pipeline Co., LLC filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas in Lake County, Ohio, captioned Orwell-Trumbull Pipeline Co., LLC v. Orwell Natural Gas Company On December 20, 2016, Orwell filed a complaint with the PUCO against Orwell-Trumbull, captioned Orwell Natural Gas Company v. Orwell-Trumbull Pipeline Co., LLC On March 14, 2017, Richard M. Osborne, our former chairman and chief executive officer, filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, captioned “Richard M. Osborne and Richard M. Osborne Trust, Under Restated and Amended Trust Agreement of February 24, 2012 v. Gas Natural, Inc.,” Case No. CV-17-877354. Mr. Osborne’s complaint alleges that we have breached the terms of the Settlement and seeks damages in excess of $ 4,000 Harrington Suit On February 25, 2013, one of our former officers, Jonathan Harrington, filed a lawsuit captioned “Jonathan Harrington v. Energy West, Inc. and Does 1-4,” Case No. DDV-13-159 in the Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. Mr. Harrington claims he was terminated in violation of a Montana statute requiring just cause for termination. In addition, he alleges claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent slander. Mr. Harrington is seeking relief for economic loss, including lost wages and fringe benefits for a period of at least four years from the date of discharge, together with interest. Mr. Harrington is an Ohio resident and was employed in our Ohio corporate offices. On March 20, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that Mr. Harrington was an Ohio employee, not a Montana employee, and therefore the statute does not apply. On July 1, 2014, the court conducted a hearing, made extensive findings on the record, and issued an Order finding in our favor and dismissing all of Mr. Harrington’s claims. On July 21, 2014, Mr. Harrington appealed the dismissal to the Montana Supreme Court. On August 11, 2015, the Montana Supreme Court agreed with us that Mr. Harrington’s employment was governed by Ohio law, and as such he could not take advantage of Montana’s Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act. However, the Montana Supreme Court also held the trial court erred in determining it lacked jurisdiction over the case, finding the trial court should have retained jurisdiction and applied Ohio law to Mr. Harrington’s claims. As Ohio is an “at will” state, we believe there are no claims under Ohio law and the case will ultimately be dismissed by the trial court on remand. On September 28, 2015, Mr. Harrington filed a motion to amend complaint to assert new causes of action not previously alleged including claims for misrepresentation, constructive fraud based on alleged representations, slander, and mental pain and suffering. We answered the amended complaint to preserve our defenses, we have also opposed Mr. Harrington’s motion to amend. On December 14, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the Montana action in its entirety on the basis that the forum is not appropriate. On August 17, 2016, the District Court again ruled in our favor and dismissed the case in its entirety. On September 1, 2016, Mr. Harrington again appealed to the Montana Supreme Court. The matter was required to proceed through a mandatory mediation process before briefs on the merits of the appeal would be heard by the Montana Supreme Court. The mediation process was not successful and no resolution of the claims has been reached to date, though the mediation has not yet been formally closed by the mediator. In addition, the issues appealed by Mr. Harrington in September 2016 have now been fully briefed and await ruling by the Montana Supreme Court. We continue to believe Mr. Harrington’s claims under both Montana and Ohio law are without merit and we will continue to vigorously defend this case on all grounds. |