Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

Commitments and Contingencies

v3.4.0.3
Commitments and Contingencies
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies

Note 13. Commitments and Contingencies

Letters of Credit

As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Company had $9.2 million and $3.5 million, respectively, of unused letters of credit outstanding, which carry fees ranging from 1.50% - 3.10% and 2.00% - 3.25%, respectively, per annum.

Non-cancellable Operating Leases

The Company leases facilities and equipment under non-cancellable operating leases. Total operating lease expenses were $2.7 million and $1.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and March 31, 2015, respectively.

Certain operating leases contain rent escalation clauses, which are recorded on a straight-line basis over the initial term of the lease with the difference between the rent paid and the straight-line rent recorded as a deferred rent liability. Lease incentives received from landlords are recorded as deferred rent liabilities and are amortized on a straight-line basis over the lease term as a reduction to rent expense. Deferred rent liabilities were $2.2 million and $1.9 million as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively.

Capital Lease Obligations

As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, capital lease obligations were $28.0 million and $24.0 million, respectively. The capital lease obligations bear interest at rates up to 10% per annum.

Purchase Commitments

In January 2015, the Company entered into a purchase commitment with one of its suppliers to purchase $70.0 million of photovoltaic modules over the next 12 months with the first modules delivered in January 2015. In October 2015, the Company amended its commitment to purchase additional photovoltaic modules to be delivered until December 2016, for a total commitment of $146.0 million. In February 2016, the Company amended its commitment to reduce the price for products delivered after April 1, 2016. As of March 31, 2016, the Company had $64.0 million of purchase commitments remaining.

In June 2015, the Company entered into a purchase commitment with one of its suppliers to purchase $32.0 million of photovoltaic modules through December 2016. As of March 31, 2016, the Company had $1.5 million of purchase commitments remaining.

Guarantees

The Company guarantees one of its investors in one of its Funds an internal rate of return, calculated on an after-tax basis, in the event that it purchases the investor’s interest or the investor sells its interest to the Company. The Company does not expect the internal rate of return to fall below the guaranteed amount; however, due to uncertainties associated with estimating the timing and amount of distributions to the investor and the possibility for and timing of the liquidation of the Fund, the Company is unable to determine the potential maximum future payments that it would have to make under this guarantee.

ITC 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. 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”). 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 any payments to the investors in excess of the amount already recognized by the Company for this obligation are not probable based on the facts known at the reporting date. The maximum potential future payments that the Company could have to make under this obligation would depend on the difference between the fair values of the solar energy systems sold or transferred to the Funds as determined by the Company and the values the IRS would determine as the fair value for the systems for purposes of claiming ITCs. ITCs are claimed based on the statutory regulations from the IRS. The Company uses fair values determined with the assistance of an independent third-party appraisal as the basis for determining the ITCs that are passed-through to and claimed by the Fund investors. Since the Company cannot determine how the IRS will 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.

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.

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 by making false or misleading statements in connection with an August 5, 2015 initial public offering regarding the continuation of net metering programs. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who acquired the Company’s common stock pursuant or traceable to the initial public offering. Plaintiff seeks 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 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Mancy v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538303, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On April 22, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Brown et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538311, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. 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. The Mancy, Brown, and Baker complaints are substantially similar to the Pytel complaint, and seek similar relief against similar defendants on behalf of the same purported class.

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 of 1933 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, Mancy, Brown, and Baker actions.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against these complaints. The Company is not able to estimate the ultimate outcome or a range of possible loss at this time.

In July 2012, the Department of Treasury 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.