Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

Commitments and Contingencies

v3.10.0.1
Commitments and Contingencies
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies
Letters of Credit
As of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the Company had $15.5 million and $16.4 million, respectively, of unused letters of credit outstanding, which carry fees of 2.50% - 3.25% per annum.
Operating and Finance Leases
The Company leases real estate under non-cancellable-operating leases and equipment under finance leases.
The components of lease expense were as follows (in thousands):
 
 
Three Months Ended September 30,
 
Nine Months Ended September 30,
 
 
2018
 
2017
 
2018
 
2017
Finance lease cost:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Amortization of right-of-use assets
 
$
3,126

 
$
2,706

 
$
8,483

 
$
8,302

Interest on lease liabilities
 
167

 
142

 
414

 
509

Operating lease cost
 
2,616

 
2,433

 
7,749

 
7,563

Short-term lease cost
 
228

 
145

 
583

 
388

Variable lease cost
 
947

 
630

 
2,454

 
1,953

Sublease income
 
$
(156
)
 
$
(18
)
 
$
(381
)
 
$
(18
)
Total lease cost
 
$
6,928

 
$
6,038

 
$
19,302

 
$
18,697

Other information related to leases was as follows (in thousands):
 
 
Three Months Ended September 30,
 
Nine Months Ended September 30,
 
 
2018
 
2017
 
2018
 
2017
Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operating cash flows from operating leases
 
$
2,771

 
$
2,509

 
$
8,026

 
$
7,481

Operating cash flows from finance leases
 
123

 
134

 
327

 
468

Financing cash flows from finance leases
 
2,357

 
2,369

 
6,529

 
7,735

Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for lease obligations:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operating leases
 
1,322

 
1,589

 
1,414

 
5,455

Finance leases
 
4,997

 
72

 
9,139

 
174

Weighted average remaining lease term (years):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operating leases
 
3.51

 
4.08

 
3.51

 
4.08

Finance leases
 
2.59

 
2.20

 
2.59

 
2.20

Weighted average discount rate:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operating leases
 
4.2
%
 
4.0
%
 
4.2
%
 
4.0
%
Finance leases
 
4.0
%
 
3.0
%
 
4.0
%
 
3.0
%

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancellable leases as of September 30, 2018 were as follows (in thousands):
 
 
Operating Leases
 
Finance Leases
2018
 
$
9,000

 
$
8,749

2019
 
5,984

 
4,131

2020
 
4,211

 
2,371

2021
 
2,734

 
1,107

2022
 
1,918

 
49

Thereafter
 
321

 
19

Total future lease payments
 
24,168

 
16,426

Less: Amount representing interest
 
(1,623
)
 
(753
)
Present value of future payments
 
22,545

 
15,673

Less: Current portion
 
(8,288
)
 
(8,372
)
Long-term portion
 
$
14,257

 
$
7,301


Purchase Commitment
The Company entered into purchase commitments, which have the ability to be canceled without significant penalties, with multiple suppliers to purchase $159.6 million of photovoltaic modules and inverters by the end of 2019.
Warranty Accrual
The Company accrues warranty costs when revenue is recognized for solar energy systems sales, based on the estimated future costs of meeting its warranty obligations. Warranty costs primarily consist of replacement costs for supplies and labor costs for service personnel since warranties for equipment and materials are covered by the original manufacturer’s warranty (other than a small deductible in certain cases). As such, the warranty reserve is immaterial in all periods presented. The Company makes and revises these estimates based on the number of solar energy systems under warranty, the Company’s historical experience with warranty claims, assumptions on warranty claims to occur over a systems’ warranty period and the Company’s estimated replacement costs.
ITC and Cash Grant Indemnification
The Company is contractually committed to compensate certain investors for any losses that they may suffer in certain limited circumstances resulting from reductions in ITCs or U.S. Treasury grants. Generally, such obligations would arise as a result of reductions to the value of the underlying solar energy systems as assessed by the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) or U.S. Treasury Department. At each balance sheet date, the Company assesses and recognizes, when applicable, the potential exposure from this obligation based on all the information available at that time, including any audits undertaken by the IRS. The Company believes that this obligation is not probable based on the facts known as of the filing date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. The maximum potential future payments that the Company could have to make under this obligation would depend largely on the difference between the prices at which the solar energy systems were sold or transferred to the Funds (or, in certain structures, the fair market value claimed in respect of such systems (referred to as "claimed values")) and the eligible basis determined by the IRS. The Company set the purchase prices and claimed values based on fair market values determined with the assistance of an independent third-party appraisal with respect to the systems that generate ITCs that are passed-through to and claimed by the Fund investors. Since the Company cannot determine how the IRS may evaluate system values used in claiming ITCs, the Company is unable to reliably estimate the maximum potential future payments that it could have to make under this obligation as of each balance sheet date, though any potential future payments are mitigated by the insurance policy described below. In April 2018, the Company purchased an insurance policy providing for certain payments by the insurers in the event there is any final determination (including a judicial determination) that reduced the ITCs claimed in respect of solar energy systems sold or transferred to most Funds through April 2018, or later, in the case of Funds added to the policy after such date. In general, the policy indemnifies the Company and related parties for additional taxes (including penalties and interest) owed in respect of lost ITCs, gross-up costs and expenses incurred in defending such claim, subject to negotiated exclusions from, and limitations to, coverage.
Litigation
The Company is subject to certain legal proceedings, claims, investigations and administrative proceedings in the ordinary course of its business. The Company records a provision for a liability when it is both probable that the liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. These provisions, if any, are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Depending on the nature and timing of any such proceedings that may arise, an unfavorable resolution of a matter could materially affect the Company’s future consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position in a particular period.
In July 2012, the U.S. Treasury Department and the Department of Justice (together, the “Government”) opened a civil investigation into the participation by residential solar developers in the Section 1603 grant program. The Government served subpoenas on several developers, including Sunrun, along with their investors and valuation firms. The focus of the investigation is the claimed fair market value of the solar systems the developers submitted to the Government in their grant applications. The Company has cooperated fully with the Government and plans to continue to do so. No claims have been brought against the Company. The Company is not able to estimate the ultimate outcome or a range of possible loss at this point in time.    
On November 20, 2015, a putative class action captioned Slovin et al. v. Sunrun Inc. and Clean Energy Experts, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-05340, was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The complaint generally alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”) on behalf of an individual and putative classes of persons alleged to be similarly situated. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on December 2, 2015, and a Second Amended Complaint on March 25, 2016, also asserting individual and putative class claims under the TCPA. By Order entered on April 28, 2016, the Court granted the Company’s motion to strike the class allegations set forth in the Second Amended Complaint, and granted leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on July 12, 2016 asserting individual and putative class claims under the TCPA. On October 12, 2016, the Court denied the Company’s motion to again strike the class allegations set forth in the Third Amended Complaint. On October 3, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, seeking to, among other things, revise the definitions of the classes that plaintiffs seek to represent. The Company has opposed that motion, which remains pending before the Court. In each iteration of their complaint, plaintiffs seek statutory damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs, on behalf of themselves and the absent classes. On April 12, 2018, the Company and plaintiffs advised the Court that they reached a settlement in principle, and the Court vacated all deadlines relating to the motion for class certification. On September 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval to settle all claims against the Company for $5.5 million, which was accrued as of March 31, 2018.
Most, if not all, of the claims asserted in the lawsuit relate to activities allegedly engaged in by third-party vendors, for which the Company denies any responsibility. The vendors are contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for losses related to the conduct alleged. The Company has denied, and continues to deny, the claims alleged and the settlement does not reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability. The settlement is subject to definitive documentation, class notice and court approval.
On April 13, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Pytel v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538215, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company’s directors and officers, the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering and certain other defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), by making false or misleading statements in connection with the Company’s August 5, 2015 initial public offering regarding the continuation of net metering programs. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who acquired the Company’s common stock pursuant or traceable to the initial public offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, including interest, rescission or rescissory damages, an award of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, and any equitable or injunctive relief deemed appropriate by the court. On April 29, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Baker et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538419, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On May 10, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Nunez v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538593, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. The Baker and Nunez complaints are substantially similar to the Pytel complaint, and seek similar relief against similar defendants on behalf of the same purported class. On May 3, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint including allegations related to the alleged effect of customer cancellations on the Company’s business.
On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Cohen, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538304, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company’s directors and officers, and the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act by making false or misleading statements in connection with an August 5, 2015 initial public offering regarding the Company’s business practices and its dependence on complex financial instruments. The Cohen plaintiffs seek to represent the same class and seek similar relief as the plaintiffs in the Pytel, Nunez, and Baker actions.    On September 26, 2016, the Baker, Cohen, Nunez, and Pytel actions were consolidated (such consolidated action referred to as the "state court litigation"). On December 27, 2017, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
Following a mediation on May 4, 2018, the parties entered into an agreement in principle to settle all claims asserted in the state court litigation against all defendants. The aggregate amount of the proposed settlement is $32.0 million, $30.1 million of which will be funded by the Company’s insurers and the remaining $1.9 million of which was accrued as of June 30, 2018. The Company and all defendants have denied, and continue to deny, the claims alleged in the state court litigation and the settlement does not reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability as to any defendant. On September 14, 2018, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement is subject to definitive documentation, shareholder notice and final court approval.
On May 3, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned Fink, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02537, was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against the Company and certain of the Company’s directors and officers. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, by making false or misleading statements in connection with public filings made between September 15, 2015 and March 8, 2017 regarding the number of customers who canceled contracts after signing up for the Company’s home-solar energy system. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, including interest, attorney's fees, and costs, on behalf of all persons other than the defendants who purchased the Company's securities between September 16, 2015 and May 2, 2017. On May 4, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned Hall, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02571, was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. On May 18, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned Sanogo, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02865, was filed in the United States District Court, Northern California District of California. The Hall and Sanogo complaints are substantially similar to the Fink complaint, and seeks similar relief against similar defendants on behalf of a substantially similar class. On August 23, 2017, the FinkHall, and Sanogo actions were consolidated, and on September 25, 2017, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint which alleges the same underlying violations as the original Fink, Hall and Sanogo complaints (such consolidated action referred to as the "federal court litigation"). On April 5, 2018, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 3, 2018. On July 19, 2018, the court again granted defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice.
On August 8, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in principal with plaintiffs to settle all claims asserted in the federal court litigation against all defendants for $2.5 million, all of which will be funded by the Company's insurers. The Company and all defendants have denied, and continue to deny, the claims alleged in the federal court litigation and the settlement does not reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability as to any defendant. The settlement is subject to definitive documentation, shareholder notice and court approval.
On June 29, 2017, a shareholder derivative complaint captioned Barbara Sue Sklar Living Trust v. Sunrun Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against the Company and certain of the Company’s directors and officers. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements in connection with public filings, including proxy statements, made between September 10, 2015 and May 3, 2017 regarding the number of customers who cancelled contracts after signing up for the Company’s home solar energy system. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages in favor of the Company, certain corporate actions to purportedly improve the Company’s corporate governance, and an award of costs and expenses to the putative plaintiff stockholder, including attorneys’ fees. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The case has been stayed pending the outcome of the federal court litigation matter described above.
On April 5, 2018, a stockholder derivative complaint captioned Leonard Olsen v. Sunrun Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, against the Company and certain of the Company’s directors and officers. The complaint generally alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements in connection with public filings, including proxy statements, made between September 16, 2015 and May 21, 2017 regarding the number of customers who canceled contracts after signing up for the Company's home-solar energy system. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages in favor of the Company, equitable relief, and an award of costs and expenses to the putative plaintiff stockholder, including attorneys’ fees. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.