| Commitments and Contingencies | 19. Commitments and Contingencies Restricted Cash In connection with certain of the above noted sale/leaseback agreements, cash of $356.9 million and $275.1 million was required to be restricted as security as of September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively, which restricted cash will be released over the lease term. As of September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the Company also had certain letters of credit backed by security deposits totaling $340.1 million and $286.0 million, respectively, that are security for the above noted sale/leaseback agreements. As of September 30, 2022, the Company also had certain customer and customs related letters of credit totaling $23.8 million. As of September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the Company had $67.7 and $67.7 million, respectively, held in escrow related to the construction of certain hydrogen plants. The Company also had $5.0 million and $2.3 million of consideration held by our paying agent in connection with the Applied Cryo and Joule acquisitions, respectively, reported as restricted cash as of September 30, 2022, with a corresponding accrued liability on the Company’s unaudited interim condensed consolidated balance sheet. Additionally, the Company had $11.5 million in restricted cash as collateral resulting from the Frames acquisition as of September 30, 2022. Litigation Legal matters are defended and handled in the ordinary course of business. Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation, fines, and penalties and other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Legal costs incurred in connection with loss contingencies are expensed as incurred. The Company has not recorded any accruals related to any legal matters. As previously disclosed, in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed on August 9, 2022, several actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York In re Plug Power, Inc. Securities Litigation On March 31, 2021, Company stockholder Junwei Liu, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant Plug, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain Company directors and officers (the “Derivative Defendants”), captioned Liu v. Marsh et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02753 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Liu Derivative Complaint”). The Liu Derivative Complaint alleges that, between November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021, the Derivative Defendants “made, or caused the Company to make, materially false and misleading statements concerning Plug Power’s business, operations, and prospects” by “issu[ing] positive financial information and optimistic guidance, and made assurances that the Company’s internal controls were effective,” when, “[i]n reality, the Company’s internal controls suffered from material deficiencies that rendered them ineffective.” The Liu Derivative Complaint asserts claims for (1) breach of fiduciary duties, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) abuse of control, (4) gross mismanagement, (5) waste of corporate assets, and (6) contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act (as to the named officer defendants). The Liu Derivative Complaint seeks a judgment “[d]eclaring that Plaintiff may maintain this action on behalf of Plug”; “[d]eclaring that the [Derivative] Defendants have breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties”; “awarding to Plug Power the damages sustained by it as a result of the violations” set forth in the Liu Derivative Complaint, “together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest thereon”; “[d]irecting Plug Power and the [Derivative] Defendants to take all necessary actions to reform and improve Plug Power’s corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws”; and “[a]warding Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees, costs, and expenses”; and “[s]uch other and further relief as the [c]ourt may deem just and proper.” On April 5, 2021, Company stockholders Elias Levy and Camerohn X. Withers, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant Plug, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Derivative Defendants named in the Liu Derivative Complaint, captioned Levy et al. v. McNamee et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02891 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Levy Derivative Complaint”). The Levy Derivative Complaint alleges that, from November 9, 2020 to April 5, 2021, the Derivative Defendants “breached their duties of loyalty and good faith” by failing to disclose “(1) that the Company would be unable to timely file its 2020 annual report due to delays related to the review of classification of certain costs and the recoverability of the right to use assets with certain leases; (2) that the Company was reasonably likely to report material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.” The Levy Derivative Complaint asserts claims for (1) breach of fiduciary duty (as to the named director defendants), (2) unjust enrichment (as to certain named director defendants), (3) waste of corporate assets (as to the named director defendants), and (4) violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act (as to the named officer defendants). The Levy Derivative Complaint seeks a judgment “declaring that Plaintiffs may maintain this action on behalf of the Company”; finding the Derivative Defendants “liable for breaching their fiduciary duties owed to the Company”; directing the Derivative Defendants “to take all necessary actions to reform and improve the Company’s corporate governance, risk management, and internal operating procedures to comply with applicable laws”; “awarding damages to the Company for the harm the Company suffered as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct”; “awarding damages to the Company for [the named officer Derivative Defendants’] violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act”; “awarding Plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of this action, including attorneys’, accountants’, and experts’ fees”; and “awarding such other and further relief as is just and equitable.” The Liu Derivative Complaint and the Levy Derivative Complaint have been consolidated in In re Plug Power Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1:21-cv-02753-ER and, by stipulation approved by the Court, the cases have been stayed pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class action. On May 13, 2021, Company stockholder Romario St. Clair, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant Plug, filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against the derivative defendants named in the Liu derivative Complaint, captioned St. Clair v. Plug Power Inc. et al., index no. 653167/2021 (n.Y. Sup. Ct., n.Y. Cty.)(the “St. Clair derivative Complaint”). The St. Clair derivative Complaint alleges that, for approximately two years from March 13, 2019 onwards, the company made a number of improper statements that “failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material, adverse facts, which the [derivative] defendants knew, consciously disregarded, or were reckless in not knowing”,including: “(a) that the Company was experiencing known but undisclosed material weaknesses in its internal controls overfinancial reporting; (b) the Company was overstating the carrying amount of certain right of use assets and finance obligations associated with leases; (c) the Company was understating its loss accrual on certain service contracts; (d) the Company would need to take impairment charges relating to certain long-lived assets; (e) the Company was improperly classifying research and development costs versus costs of good sold; and (f) the Company would be unable to file its annual Report for the 2020 fiscal year due to these errors.” The St. Clair Derivative Complaint asserts claims for (1) breach of fiduciary and (2) unjustenrichment. The St. Clair Derivative Complaint seeks a judgment “for the amount of damages sustained by the Company as aresult of the defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment”; “[d]irecting Plug Power to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws”;“[e]xtraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity, and state statutory provisions”; [a]warding to PlugPower restitution from defendants, and each of them, and ordering disgorgement of all profits, benefits, and other compensationobtained by the defendants”; [a]warding to plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys’fees, accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs, and expenses”; and “[g]ranting such other and further relief as the [c]ourt deems justand proper.” By stipulation approved by the Court, the case has been stayed pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class action. On June 13, 2022, alleged Company stockholder Donna Max, derivatively on behalf of the Company as nominal defendant, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the derivative defendants named in the Liu Derivative Complaint, captioned Max v. Marsh, et. al., case no. 1:22-cv-00781(D. Del.) (the “Max Derivative Complaint”). The Max Derivative Complaint alleges that, for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020, the defendants did not “assure that a reliable system of financial controls was in place and functioning effectively”; “failed to disclose errors in the Company's accounting primarily relating to (i) the reported book value of right of use assets and related finance obligations, (ii) loss accruals for certain service contracts, (iii) the impairment of certain long-lived assets, and (iv) the classification of certain expenses previously included in research and development costs”; and that certain defendants traded Company stock at “artificially inflated stock prices.” The Max Derivative Complaint asserts claims for (1) breach of fiduciary against all defendants; (2) breach of fiduciary duty for insider trading against certain defendants; and (3) contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act against certain defendants. The Max Derivative Complaint seeks an award “for the damages sustained by [the Company]” and related relief. By stipulation approved by the Court, the case has been stayed pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Action. On June 29, 2022, alleged Company stockholder Abbas Khambati, derivatively on behalf of the Company as nominal defendant, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against the derivative defendants named in the Liu Derivative Complaint and Gerard A. Conway, Jr. and Keith Schmid, captioned Khambati v. McNamee, et. al., C.A. no. 2022-05691(Del. Ch.) (the “Khambati Derivative Complaint”). The Khambati Derivative Complaint alleges that the defendants “deceive[d] the investing public, including stockholders of Plug Power, regarding the Individual Defendants’ management of Plug Power’s operations and the Company’s compliance with the SEC's accounting rules”; “facilitate[d” certain defendants’ sales of “their personally held shares while in possession of material, nonpublic information”; and “enhance[d] the Individual Defendants’ executive and directorial positions at Plug Power and the profits, power, and prestige that the Individual Defendants enjoyed as a result of holding these positions.” The Khambati Derivative Complaint asserts claims for (1) breach of fiduciary; and (2) disgorgement and unjust enrichment. The Khambati Derivative Complaint seeks an award “for the damages sustained by [the Company] as a result of the breaches” alleged or “disgorgement or restitution”; “disgorgement of insider trading profits” and “all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by [defendants’] insider trading and further profits flowing therefrom”; an order “[d]irecting the Company to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures”; and related relief. On July 19, 2022, alleged Company stockholder Anne D. Graziano, as Trustee of the Anne D. Graziano Revocable Living Trust, derivatively on behalf of the Company as nominal defendant, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against the derivative defendants named in the Khambati Derivative Complaint, captioned Graziano v. Marsh, et. al., C.A. no. 2022-0629 (Del. Ch.) (the “Graziano Derivative Complaint”). The Graziano Derivative Complaint alleges that the director defendants (i) “either knowingly or recklessly issued or caused the Company to issue the materially false and misleading statements” concerning “certain critical accounting issues”; (ii) “willfully ignored, or recklessly failed to inform themselves of, the obvious problems with the Company’s internal controls, practices, and procedures, and failed to make a good faith effort to correct the problems or prevent their recurrence”; (iii) the members of the Audit Committee failed “to prevent, correct, or inform the Board of the issuance of material misstatements and omissions regarding critical accounting issues and the adequacy of the Company’s internal controls”; (iv) “received payments, benefits, stock options, and other emoluments by virtue of their membership on the Board and their control of the Company”; (v) violated the Company’s Code of Conduct because they knowingly or recklessly engaged in and participated in making and/or causing the Company to make the materially false and misleading statements; and (vi) certain defendants “sold large amounts of Company stock while it was trading at artificially inflated prices.” The Graziano Derivative Complaint asserts claims for (1) breach of fiduciary; (2) breach of fiduciary duty against certain defendants for insider trading; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; and (5) waste of corporate assets. The Graziano Derivative Complaint seeks an award of “the amount of damages sustained by the Company”; seeks an order “[d]irecting Plug Power to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws and to protect Plug Power and its stockholders from a repeat of the damaging events described herein”; and related relief. The parties to the Graziano Derivative Complaint and Khambati Derivative Complaint have been consolidated in Plug Power, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litiation, Consolidated C.A. No. 2022-0569 and, by stipulation approved by the court, the cases have been stayed pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Action. As previously disclosed, on August 28, 2018, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of multiple individuals against the Company and five corporate co-defendants in the 9th Judicial District Court, Rapides Parish, Louisiana. The lawsuit relates to the previously disclosed May 2018 accident involving a forklift powered by the Company’s fuel cell at a Procter & Gamble facility in Louisiana. The lawsuit alleges claims against the Company and co-defendants, including Structural Composites Industries, Deep South Equipment Co., Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., and Hyster-Yale Group, Inc. for claims under the Louisiana Product Liability Act (“LPLA”) including defect in construction and/or composition, design defect, inadequate warning, breach of express warranty and negligence for wrongful death and personal injuries, among other damages. Procter & Gamble has intervened in that suit to recover worker’s compensation benefits paid to or for the employees/dependents. Procter & Gamble has also filed suit for property damage, business interruption, loss of revenue, expenses, and other damages. Procter & Gamble alleges theories under the LPLA, breach of warranty and quasi-contractual claims under Louisiana law. Defendants include the Company and several of the same co-defendants from the August 2018 lawsuit, including Structural Composites Industries, Deep South Equipment Co., and Hyster-Yale Group, Inc. In April 2022, Plug reached a settlement with respect to the individual plaintiffs on terms well below the Company’s commercial liability insurance limits and continues to vigorously defend the remaining lawsuit against Proctor & Gamble. Concentrations of Credit Risk Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to credit risk consist principally of cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, accounts receivable and marketable securities. Cash and restricted cash are maintained in accounts with financial institutions, which, at times may exceed the Federal depository insurance coverage of $0.3 million. The Company has not experienced losses on these accounts and management believes, based upon the quality of the financial institutions, that the credit risk with regard to these deposits is not significant. The Company’s available-for-sale securities consists primarily of investments in U.S. Treasury securities and short-term high credit quality corporate debt securities. Equity securities are comprised of fixed income and equity market index mutual funds. Concentrations of credit risk with respect to receivables exist due to the limited number of select customers with whom the Company has commercial sales arrangements. To mitigate credit risk, the Company performs appropriate evaluation of a prospective customer’s financial condition. At September 30, 2022, one customer comprised 28.4% of the total accounts receivable balance. At December 31, 2021, one customer comprised approximately 46.6% of the total accounts receivable balance. For purposes of assigning a customer to a sale/leaseback transaction completed with a financial institution, the Company considers the end user of the assets to be the ultimate customer. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2022, 66.9% and 53.2% of total consolidated revenues were associated with three customers, respectively. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, 80.1% and 80.6% of total consolidated revenues were associated primarily with two and three customers, respectively. |
