March Settlement Agreement, SunEdison Holdings Corporation failed to make a required payment under the terms of the agreement and as a result the LAP Shareholders recommenced the Arbitration against all parties, including TERP.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, TERP has made a one-time payment to LAP in the amount of $10.0 million in exchange for and contingent on the termination of the Arbitration against TERP. This amount was accrued for as of December 31, 2015 and is reported in general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statement of operations. None of the Parties has admitted to any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the claims asserted in the Arbitration, and the Parties have granted each other full releases of any further obligations under the Share Purchase Agreement and related agreements (including the TERP guarantee). The Settlement Agreement does not impact any claims that the LAP Shareholders or the TerraForm Power Parties may have against SunEdison, Inc. and SunEdison Holdings Corporation in connection with the transactions described above.
Daniel Gerber v. Wiltshire Council
On February 23, 2016, the U.K. Court of Appeals granted the appeal by the Company and the relevant local governmental authority and overturned an earlier decision by the U.K. High Court to quash (nullify) the planning permission necessary to build the Company’s 11.1 MW Norrington solar generation facility in Wiltshire, England. Among other things, the Court of Appeals held that the lower court erred in extending the time for the plaintiff to challenge the planning permission beyond the statutory appeal period. As a result of the successful appeal, the validity of the planning permission was reconfirmed. The plaintiff sought permission of the Supreme Court to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals; however, permission was denied by the Supreme Court. The Company will, however, have to seek certain amendments to the permit or modify certain aspects of the power plant to come in full compliance with its terms.
Claim relating to First Wind Acquisition
On May 27, 2016, D.E. Shaw Composite Holdings, L.L.C. and Madison Dearborn Capital Partners IV, L.P., as the representatives of the sellers (the “First Wind Sellers”) filed an amended complaint for declaratory judgment against the Company and Terra LLC in the Supreme Court of the State of New York alleging breach of contract with respect to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated as of November 17, 2014 (the “FW Purchase Agreement”) between, among others, SunEdison, the Company and Terra LLC and the First Wind Sellers. The amended complaint alleges that Terra LLC and SunEdison became jointly obligated to make $231.0 million in earn-out payments in respect of certain development assets SunEdison acquired from the First Wind Sellers under the FW Purchase Agreement, when those payments were purportedly accelerated by SunEdison's bankruptcy and by the resignations of two SunEdison employees. The amended complaint further alleges that the Company, as guarantor of certain Terra LLC obligations under the FW Purchase Agreement, is liable for this sum. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 5, 2016, on the ground that, among other things, SunEdison is a necessary party to this action. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on August 22, 2016. Defendants filed their reply on September 12, 2016. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled to take place on January 24, 2017.
The Company believes the First Wind Sellers’ allegation is without merit and will contest the claim and allegations vigorously. However, we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate resolution of any proceedings brought in connection with such a claim.
Whistleblower Complaint By Francisco Perez Gundin
On May 18, 2016, the Company’s former Director and Chief Operating Officer, Francisco Perez Gundin (“Perez”), filed a Complaint against the Company, TerraForm Global, Inc., and certain individuals, with the United States Department of Labor. The Complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in a retaliatory termination of Mr. Perez's employment after he allegedly voiced concerns to SunEdison’s Board of Directors about public representations made by SunEdison officers regarding SunEdison’s liquidity position, and after he allegedly voiced his opposition to transactions that he alleges were self-interested and which he alleges SunEdison forced on the Company. He alleges that the Company participated in SunEdison’s retaliatory termination by constructively terminating his position as Chief Operating Officer of the Company in connection with SunEdison’s constructive termination of his employment. He seeks lost wages, bonuses, benefits, and other money that he alleges that he would have received if he had not been subjected to the allegedly retaliatory termination.