AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR CORP /DE/ - Quarter Report: 2015 December (Form 10-Q)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

For the quarterly period ended: December 31, 2015

For the transition period from _____ to _____.

Commission File Number: 0-19672

American Superconductor Corporation

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(978) 842-3000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

N/A

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).     Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ¨    No   x

Shares outstanding of the Registrant’s common stock:

AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION

INDEX

2

AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION

PART I — FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION

UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(In thousands, except per share data)  

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

4

AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION

UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE (LOSS) INCOME

(In thousands)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

5

AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION

UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In thousands)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

6

AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

1. Nature of the Business and Operations and Liquidity

Nature of the Business and Operations

American Superconductor Corporation (“AMSC” or the “Company”) was founded on April 9, 1987. The Company is a leading provider of megawatt-scale solutions that lower the cost of wind power and enhance the performance of the power grid. In the wind power market, the Company enables manufacturers to field wind turbines through its advanced engineering, support services and power electronics products. In the power grid market, the Company enables electric utilities and renewable energy project developers to connect, transmit and distribute power through its transmission planning services and power electronics and superconductor-based products. The Company’s wind and power grid products and services provide exceptional reliability, security, efficiency and affordability to its customers.

These unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of the Company have been prepared on a going concern basis in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) instructions to Form 10-Q. The going concern basis of presentation assumes that the Company will continue operations and will be able to realize its assets and discharge its liabilities and commitments in the normal course of business. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in the financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP have been condensed or omitted pursuant to those instructions. The year-end condensed balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements but does not include all disclosures required by GAAP. The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements, in the opinion of management, reflect all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring adjustments) necessary for a fair statement of the results for the interim periods ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 and the financial position at December 31, 2015.

On March 24, 2015, the Company effected a 1-for-10 reverse stock split of its common stock. Trading of the Company’s common stock reflected the reverse stock split beginning on March 25, 2015. Unless otherwise indicated, all historical references to shares of common stock, shares of restricted stock, restricted stock units, shares underlying options, warrants or calculations that use common stock for per share financial reporting have been adjusted for comparative purposes to reflect the impact of the 1-for-10 reverse stock split as if it had occurred at the beginning of the earliest period presented.

Liquidity

The Company has experienced recurring operating losses and as of December 31, 2015, the Company had an accumulated deficit of $924.8 million. In addition, the Company has experienced recurring negative operating cash flows.  At December 31, 2015, the Company had cash and cash equivalents of $36.4 million. Cash used in operations for the nine months ended December 31, 2015 was $7.8 million.

From April 1, 2011 through the date of this filing, the Company has reduced its global workforce substantially.  The Company has taken actions to consolidate certain business operations to reduce facility costs.  As of December 31, 2015, the Company had a global workforce of 339 persons.  The Company plans to closely monitor its expenses and, if required, expects to further reduce operating costs and capital spending to enhance liquidity.

Over the last several years, the Company has entered into several debt and equity financing arrangements in order to enhance liquidity.  Since April 1, 2012, the Company has generated aggregate cash flows from financing activities of $72.0 million.  This amount includes proceeds from an April 2015 equity offering, which generated net proceeds of approximately $22.3 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by the Company.  See Note 10, “Debt”, and Note 12 “Stockholders Equity” for further discussion of these financing arrangements. The Company believes that it is in compliance with the covenants and restrictions included in the agreements governing its debt arrangements as of December 31, 2015.

The Company believes it has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations, capital expenditures and scheduled cash payments under its debt obligations for the next twelve months. The Company’s liquidity is highly dependent on its ability to increase revenues, its ability to control its operating costs, its ability to maintain compliance with the covenants and restrictions on its debt obligations (or obtain waivers from its lender in the event of non-compliance), and its ability to raise additional capital, if necessary. There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to continue to raise additional capital from other sources or execute on any other means of improving liquidity described above.

7

On October 6, 2015, 100% of the outstanding common stock of Blade Dynamics Limited (“Blade Dynamics”) was acquired by a subsidiary of General Electric Company.  After deducting transaction expenses, the Company received net proceeds of $2.5 million from the sale, which was recorded as a gain in the third fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2015.  Additionally, under the terms of the purchase agreement, the Company may be entitled to receive up to an additional $1.6 million in proceeds, upon the successful achievement of certain milestones by Blade Dynamics over the next three years.  The Company had recorded a charge of $3.5 million during the nine months ended December 31, 2014 to fully impair its investment in Blade Dynamics.  

The Company no longer believes its investment in Tres Amigas, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Tres Amigas”) is recoverable.  The Company fully impaired its remaining investment, recording a charge of $0.7 million during the nine months ended December 31, 2015. (See Note 14, “Minority Investments”, for further information about such investment).

2. Stock-Based Compensation

The Company accounts for its stock-based compensation at fair value. The following table summarizes stock-based compensation expense by financial statement line item for the three and nine months ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 (in thousands):

During the nine months ended December 31, 2015, the Company granted 420,189 restricted stock awards.  These awards generally vest over 3 years.  During the nine months ended December 31, 2014, the Company granted 100,000 stock options and 324,300 restricted stock awards.  The stock options vest over 5 years, and the restricted stock awards generally vest over three years. Awards for restricted stock include both time-based and performance-based awards.  For options and awards that vest upon the passage of time, expense is being recorded over the vesting period.  Performance-based awards are expensed over the requisite service period based on probability of achievement.

The estimated fair value of the Company’s stock-based awards, less expected annual forfeitures, is amortized over the awards’ service period. The total unrecognized compensation cost for unvested outstanding stock options was $0.8 million at December 31, 2015. This expense will be recognized over a weighted average expense period of approximately 2.6 years. The total unrecognized compensation cost for unvested outstanding restricted stock was $3.1 million at December 31, 2015. This expense will be recognized over a weighted-average expense period of approximately 2.0 years.

The weighted average assumptions used in the Black-Scholes valuation model for stock options granted during the three and nine months ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 are as follows:

3. Computation of Net Loss per Common Share

Basic net loss per share (“EPS”) is computed by dividing net loss by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Where applicable, diluted EPS is computed by dividing the net loss by the weighted-average number of common shares and dilutive common equivalent shares outstanding during the period, calculated using the treasury stock method. Common equivalent shares include the effect of restricted stock, exercise of stock options and warrants and contingently issuable shares. For the each of the three and nine months ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, 1.6 million shares were not included in the calculation of diluted EPS as they were considered anti-dilutive, of which 0.4 million relate to outstanding stock options, and 1.2 million relate to outstanding warrants, respectively.

8

The following table reconciles the numerators and denominators of the earnings per share calculation for the three and nine months ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 (in thousands, except per share data):

4. Fair Value Measurements

A valuation hierarchy for disclosure of the inputs to valuation used to measure fair value has been established. This hierarchy prioritizes the inputs into three broad levels as follows:

The Company provides a gross presentation of activity within Level 3 measurement roll-forward and details of transfers in and out of Level 1 and 2 measurements.  A change in the hierarchy of an investment from its current level is reflected in the period during which the pricing methodology of such investment changes.  Disclosure of the transfer of securities from Level 1 to Level 2 or Level 3 is made in the event that the related security is significant to total cash and investments.  The Company did not have any transfers of assets and liabilities from Level 1 and Level 2 to Level 3 of the fair value measurement hierarchy during the three and nine months ended December 31, 2015.

A financial asset’s or liability’s classification within the hierarchy is determined based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

9

The following table provides the assets and liabilities carried at fair value on a recurring basis, measured as of December 31, 2015 and March 31, 2015 (in thousands):

The table below reflects the activity for the Company’s major classes of liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis (in thousands):

Valuation Techniques

Cash Equivalents

Cash equivalents consist of highly liquid instruments with maturities of three months or less that are regarded as high quality, low risk investments and are measured using such inputs as quoted prices, and are classified within Level 1 of the valuation hierarchy. Cash equivalents consist principally of certificates of deposits and money market accounts.

Warrants

Warrants were issued in conjunction with a Securities Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with Capital Ventures International (“CVI”), an equity offering to Hudson Bay Capital in November 2014, and a Loan and Security Agreement with Hercules Technology Growth Capital, Inc. (“Hercules”). (See Note 10, “Debt,” and Note 11 “Warrants and Derivative Liabilities,” for additional information.) These warrants are subject to revaluation at each balance sheet date, and any change in fair value will be recorded as a change in fair value in derivatives and warrants until the earlier of their exercise or expiration.

The Company relies on various assumptions in a lattice model to determine the fair value of warrants. The Company has valued the warrants within Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy. (See Note 11, “Warrants and Derivative Liabilities,” for a discussion of the warrants and the valuation assumptions used.)

10

Minority Investment

The Company accounts for the minority investment in Tres Amigas on the equity basis (See Note 14, “Minority Investments”).  During the three months ended June 30, 2015, the Company determined that as a result of delays in Tres Amigas securing financing for the project as well as the Company’s projected recovery of its investment based on recent adverse market indicators for potential sales of the Company’s share of the investment, that its investment in Tres Amigas was no longer recoverable and therefore recorded an impairment charge of $0.7 million.

5. Accounts Receivable

Accounts receivable at December 31, 2015 and March 31, 2015 consisted of the following (in thousands):

6. Inventory

Inventory at December 31, 2015 and March 31, 2015 consisted of the following (in thousands):

The Company recorded inventory write-downs of $1.0 million and $0.1 million for each of the three months ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.  The Company recorded inventory write-downs of $1.8 million and $1.4 million for each of the nine months ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.  These write downs were based on evaluating its inventory on hand for excess quantities and obsolescence.

Deferred program costs as of December 31, 2015 and March 31, 2015 primarily represent costs incurred on programs accounted for under contract accounting where the Company needs to complete development milestones before revenue and costs will be recognized.

7. Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses

Accounts payable and accrued expenses at December 31, 2015 and March 31, 2015 consisted of the following (in thousands):

The Company generally provides a one to three year warranty on its products, commencing upon installation. A provision is recorded upon revenue recognition to cost of revenues for estimated warranty expense based on historical experience.

Product warranty activity was as follows (in thousands):

11

8. Income Taxes

The Company recorded income tax expense of $0.8 million and $2.3 million for the three and nine months ended December 31, 2015, respectively.  The Company recorded income tax expense of $0.2 million and $0.4 million for the three and nine months ended December 31, 2014, respectively.  Income tax expense was primarily due to dividend withholding taxes and income taxes in the Company’s foreign jurisdictions.

Accounting for income taxes requires a two-step approach to recognizing and measuring uncertain tax positions.  The first step is to evaluate the tax position for recognition by determining if, based on the technical merits, it is more likely than not the position will be sustained upon audit, including resolution of related appeals or litigation processes, if any.  The second step is to measure the tax benefit as the largest amount that is more than 50% likely to be realized upon ultimate settlement.  The Company re-evaluates these uncertain tax positions on a quarterly basis.  The evaluation is based on factors including, but not limited to, changes in facts or circumstances, changes in tax law, effectively settled issues under audit and new audit activity.  Any changes in these factors could result in the recognition of a tax benefit or an additional charge to the tax provision.  The Company identified an uncertain tax position in the nine months ended December 31, 2015 and had an unrecognized tax benefit in the amount of $0.7 million.  This amount, if recognized, would result in a reduction of the Company’s effective tax rate.

Section 382 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “IRC”), provides limits on the extent to which a corporation that has undergone an ownership change (as defined) can utilize any net operating loss (“NOL”) and general business tax credit carryforwards it may have.  The Company conducted a study as a result of the April 2015 equity offering to determine whether Section 382 could limit the use of its carryforwards in this manner.  After completing this study, the Company has concluded that the limitation will not have a material impact on its ability to utilize its net operating loss carryforwards.  If there were material ownership changes subsequent to the study, the Company’s ability to utilize its net operating loss carryforwards could be limited.

9. Restructuring

The Company accounts for charges resulting from operational restructuring actions in accordance with ASC Topic 420, Exit or Disposal Cost Obligations (“ASC 420”) and ASC Topic 712, Compensation—Nonretirement Postemployment Benefits (“ASC 712”). In accounting for these obligations, the Company is required to make assumptions related to the amounts of employee severance, benefits, and related costs and the time period over which leased facilities will remain vacant, sublease terms, sublease rates and discount rates. Estimates and assumptions are based on the best information available at the time the obligation arises. These estimates are reviewed and revised as facts and circumstances dictate; changes in these estimates could have a material effect on the amount accrued on the consolidated balance sheet.

During the years ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, the Company undertook restructuring activities, approved by the Board of Directors, in order to reorganize its global operations, streamline various functions of the business, and reduce its global workforce to better reflect the demand for its products.  During the year ended March 31, 2014, the Company undertook a plan to consolidate its Grid manufacturing activities into its Devens, Massachusetts facility and close its facility in Middleton, Wisconsin which was completed during the year ended March 31, 2015.  In addition, the Company established a new Wind manufacturing facility in Romania and as a result, reduced the headcount in its operation in China.  The Company is maintaining its headcount in China at a level necessary to support demand from its Chinese customers.  The Company recorded restructuring charges for severance and other costs of approximately $0.5 million and $1.9 million during the three and nine months ended December 31, 2014, respectively, primarily associated with the consolidation of the Company’s Grid manufacturing activities in the United States.  From April 1, 2011 through December 31, 2015, the Company’s various restructuring activities resulted in a substantial reduction of its global workforce. All amounts related to these restructuring activities have been paid as of December 31, 2015.

12

The following table presents restructuring charges and cash payments (in thousands):

All restructuring charges discussed above are included within restructuring and impairments in the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations. The Company includes accrued restructuring within accounts payable and accrued expenses in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets.

10. Debt

On June 5, 2012, the Company entered into the Loan and Security Agreement with Hercules (the “Term Loan”), under which the Company borrowed $10.0 million. After closing fees and expenses, the net proceeds to the Company were $9.7 million. The Term Loan bears an interest rate equal to 11% plus the percentage, if any, by which the prime rate as reported by The Wall Street Journal exceeds 3.75%. The Company made interest-only payments from July 1, 2012 through October 31, 2012, after which the Company began repaying the Term Loan in equal monthly installments ending on December 1, 2014, when the loan was repaid in full. In addition, Hercules received a warrant (the “First Warrant”) to purchase 13,927 shares of common stock, exercisable at an initial strike price of $35.90 per share, subject to adjustment, until December 5, 2017. Due to certain adjustment provisions within the warrant, it qualified for liability accounting and the fair value of $0.4 million was recorded upon issuance, which the Company recorded as a debt discount and a warrant liability.  The total debt discount including the First Warrant, end of term fee and legal and origination costs of $1.2 million was amortized into interest expense over the term of the Term Loan using the effective interest method. Under this method, interest expense was recognized each period until the debt instrument reached maturity. During the three and nine months ended December 31, 2014, the Company recorded non-cash interest expense for amortization of the debt discount related to the Term Loan of less than $0.1 million and $0.1 million, respectively.

On November 15, 2013, the Company amended the Term Loan with Hercules and entered into a new term loan (the “New Term Loan B”), borrowing an additional $10.0 million. After closing fees and expenses, the net proceeds to the Company for the New Term Loan B were $9.8 million.  The New Term Loan B bears the same interest rate as the Term Loan.  The Company is repaying the New Term Loan B in equal monthly installments ending on November 1, 2016.  The principal balance of the New Term Loan B is approximately $3.7 million as of December 31, 2015.  Hercules received a warrant (the “Second Warrant”) to purchase 25,641 shares of common stock, exercisable at an initial strike price of $19.50 per share, subject to adjustment, until May 15, 2019.  In addition, the exercise price of the First Warrant was reduced to $19.50 per share.  (See Note 11, “Warrants and Derivative Liabilities,” for a discussion on both warrants and the valuation assumptions used.) The Company will pay an end of term fee of $0.5 million upon the earlier of maturity or prepayment of the New Term Loan B. The Company has accrued the end of term fee and recorded a corresponding amount into the debt discount.  The New Term Loan B includes a mandatory prepayment feature which allows Hercules the right to use any of the Company’s net proceeds from specified asset dispositions greater than $1.0 million in a calendar year to pay off any outstanding accrued interest and principal balance on the New Term Loan B.  The Company determined the fair value to be de-minimis for this feature. In addition, the Company incurred $0.2 million of legal and origination costs in the three months ended December 31, 2013, which have been recorded as a debt discount. The total debt discount including the Second Warrant, end of term fee and legal and origination costs of $1.0 million is being amortized into interest expense over the term of the New Term Loan B using the effective interest method.  During the three and nine months ended December 31, 2015, the Company recorded non-cash interest expense for amortization of the debt discount related to the New Term Loan B of $0.1 million and $0.2 million, respectively. During the three and nine months ended December 31, 2014, the Company recorded non-cash interest expense for amortization of the debt discount related to the New Term Loan B of $0.1 million and $0.4 million, respectively.

13

On December 19, 2014, the Company entered into an amendment with Hercules (the “Hercules Second Amendment”) and entered into a new term loan (the “New Term Loan C”), borrowing an additional $1.5 million.  After closing fees and expenses, the net proceeds to the Company for the New Term Loan C were $1.4 million.  The Term Loan, New Term Loan B and New Term Loan C are collectively referred to as the “Term Loans”.  The New Term Loan C also bears the same interest rate as the other Term Loans.  The Company will make interest only payments until maturity on June 1, 2017, when the loan is scheduled to be repaid in its entirety.  The maturity date of the New Term Loan C was extended from March 1, 2017 to June 1, 2017 due to the Company’s April 2015 equity offering which raised more than $10 million in new capital before December 31, 2015.  In conjunction with the Hercules Second Amendment, the First Warrant and Second Warrant were cancelled and replaced with the issuance of a new warrant (the “Warrant”) to purchase 58,823 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $11.00 per share, subject to adjustment.  The Warrant expires on June 30, 2020.  (See Note 11, “Warrants and Derivative Liabilities”, for a discussion on the Warrant and the valuation assumptions used.)  The Company will pay an end of term fee of approximately $0.1 million upon earlier of maturity or prepayment of the New Term Loan C.  The Company has accrued the end of term fee and recorded a corresponding amount in the debt discount.  The New Term Loan C includes the same mandatory prepayment feature as the New Term Loan B.   The Company determined the fair value to be de-minimus for this feature.  In addition, the Company incurred approximately $0.1 million of legal and origination costs in the three months ended December 31, 2014, which have been recorded as a debt discount.  The total debt discount, including the Warrant, end of term fee and legal and origination costs of $0.3 million is being amortized into interest expense over the term of the New Term Loan C using the effective interest method.  During the three and nine months ended December 31, 2015, the Company recorded non-cash interest expense for amortization of the debt discount related to the New Term Loan C of less than $0.1 million and $0.1 million, respectively.  During each of the three and nine months ended December 31, 2014, the Company recorded non-cash interest expense for amortization of the debt discount related to the New Term Loan C of less than $0.1 million.  If the maturity of any of the Term Loans is accelerated because of prepayment, then the amortization will be accelerated.

The Term Loans are secured by substantially all of the Company’s existing and future assets, including a mortgage on real property owned by the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, ASC Devens LLC, and located at 64 Jackson Road, Devens, Massachusetts.  The Term Loans contain certain covenants that restrict the Company’s ability to, among other things, incur or assume certain debt, merge or consolidate, materially change the nature of the Company’s business, make certain investments, acquire or dispose of certain assets, make guarantees or grant liens on its assets, make certain loans, advances or investments, declare dividends or make distributions or enter into transactions with affiliates. In addition, there is a covenant that requires the Company to maintain a minimum unrestricted cash balance (the “Minimum Threshold”) in the United States.  As part of the Hercules Second Amendment, this Minimum Threshold was amended to be the lower of $5.0 million or the aggregate outstanding principal balance of the Term Loans.  As a result of the Company’s April 2015 equity offering, the Minimum Threshold was reduced to the lesser of $2.0 million or the aggregate outstanding principal balance of the Term Loans.  As of December 31, 2015, the Minimum Threshold was $2.0 million.  The events of default under the Term Loans include, but are not limited to, failure to pay amounts due, breaches of covenants, bankruptcy events, cross defaults under other material indebtedness and the occurrence of a material adverse effect and/or change in control. In the case of a continuing event of default, Hercules may, among other remedies, declare due all unpaid principal amounts outstanding and any accrued but unpaid interest and foreclose on all collateral granted to Hercules as security under the Term Loans.

Although the Company believes that it is in compliance with the covenants and restrictions under the Term Loans as of December 31, 2015, there can be no assurance that the Company will continue to be in compliance.

Interest expense on the Term Loans for the three and nine months ended December 31, 2015 was $0.2 million, and $0.8 million, respectively, which included $0.1 million and $0.3 million, respectively, of non-cash interest expense related to the amortization of the debt discount on the Term Loans.  Interest expense on the Term Loans for the three and nine months ended December 31, 2014, was $0.4 million, and $1.4 million, respectively, which included $0.1 million and $0.5 million, respectively, of non-cash interest expense related to the amortization of the debt discount on the Term Loans.  

14

11. Warrants and Derivative Liabilities

Senior Convertible Note Warrant

On April 4, 2012, the Company entered into the Purchase Agreement with CVI. The Purchase Agreement included a warrant (the “Original Warrant”) to purchase 309,406 shares of the Company’s common stock. The Original Warrant is exercisable at any time on or after the date that is six months after the issuance of the Original Warrant and entitles CVI to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock for a period of five years from the initial date the original warrant becomes exercisable at an initial exercise price equal to $54.50 per share, subject to certain price-based and other anti-dilution adjustments. On October 9, 2013, the Company amended the Purchase Agreement with CVI (the “Amendment”). Pursuant to the Amendment, the Company exchanged the Original Warrant for a new warrant (the “Exchanged Warrant”), with a reduced exercise price of $26.10 per share of common stock. Other than the reduced exercise price, the Exchanged Warrant has the same terms and conditions as the Original Warrant.  As a result of the sales of common stock under an At Market Sales Arrangement (“ATM”) and the 909,090 units, each consisting of one share of common stock and 0.90 of a warrant to purchase one share of common stock, sold to Hudson Bay Capital during the three months ended December 31, 2014, the exercise price of the Exchanged Warrant was further reduced to $22.10 per share.  As a result of the April 2015 equity offering (See Note 12, “Stockholders Equity”), the exercise price of the Exchanged Warrant was further reduced to $15.94 per share.  The Exchanged Warrant may not be exercised if, after giving effect to the conversion, CVI together with its affiliates, would beneficially own in excess of 4.99% of the Company’s common stock. This percentage may be raised to any other percentage not in excess of 9.99% at the option of CVI, upon at least 61-days prior notice to the Company, or lowered to any other percentage, at the option of CVI, at any time.

The Company calculated the fair value of the Exchanged Warrant, (See Note 4, “Fair Value Measurements” for further discussion), utilizing an integrated lattice model. The lattice model is an option pricing model that involves the construction of a binomial tree to show the different paths that the underlying asset may take over the option’s life. A lattice model can take into account expected changes in various parameters such as volatility over the life of the options, providing more accurate estimates of option prices than the Black-Scholes model.

The Company accounts for the Exchanged Warrant as a liability due to certain adjustment provisions within the warrant, which requires that it be recorded at fair value. The Exchanged Warrant is subject to revaluation at each balance sheet date and any change in fair value is recorded as a change in fair value of derivatives and warrants until the earlier of its expiration or its exercise at which time the warrant liability will be reclassified to equity.

Following is a summary of the key assumptions used to calculate the fair value of the Exchanged Warrant:

The Company recorded a net loss, resulting from an increase in the fair value of the Exchanged Warrant, of $0.2 million during the three months ended December 31, 2015, and a net gain, resulting from a decrease in the fair value of the Exchanged Warrant, of less than $0.1 million to change in fair value of derivatives and warrants during the nine months ended December 31, 2015.  The Company recorded net gains resulting from decreases in the fair value of the Exchanged Warrant of $1.0 million and $1.7 million to the change in fair value of derivatives and warrants during the three and nine months ended December 31, 2014, respectively.

15

Senior Secured Term Loan - New Warrant

On December 19, 2014, the Company entered into the Hercules Second Amendment and entered into the New Term Loan C. (See Note 10, “Debt” for additional information regarding the New Term Loan C).  In conjunction with the agreement, the Company issued the Warrant to purchase 58,823 shares of the Company’s common stock.  The Warrant is exercisable at any time after its issuance at an initial exercise price of $11.00 per share, subject to certain price-based and other anti-dilution adjustments, and expires on June 30, 2020.  As a result of the equity offering on April 29, 2015, (See Note 12, “Stockholders Equity”) the exercise price of the Warrant was reduced to $9.41 per share.  

The Company accounts for the Warrant as a liability due to certain provisions within the Warrant.  The Warrant is subject to revaluation at each balance sheet date and any change in fair value is recorded as a change in fair value of derivatives and warrants until the earlier of its expiration or its exercise, at which time the warrant liability will be reclassified to equity.

Following is a summary of the key assumptions used to calculate the fair value of the Warrant:

The Company recorded a net loss, resulting from an increase in the fair value of the Warrant, of $0.1 million during the three months ended December 31, 2015 and a net gain, resulting from a decrease in the fair value of the Warrant of less than $0.1 million during the nine months ended December 31, 2015 to change in fair value of derivatives and warrants.  The Company recorded no change in the fair value of the Warrant in the three and nine months ended December 31, 2014.

November 2014 Warrant

On November 13, 2014, the Company completed an offering of approximately 909,090 units of the Company’s common stock with Hudson Bay Capital.  (See Note 12, “Stockholder’s Equity”, for further information).  Each unit consisted of one share of the Company’s common stock and 0.9 of a warrant to purchase one share of common stock, or a warrant to purchase in the aggregate 818,181 shares (the “November 2014 Warrant”).  The November 2014 Warrant is exercisable at any time, at an initial exercise price equal to $11.00 per share, subject to certain price-based and other anti-dilution adjustments, and expires on November 13, 2019.  As a result of the April 2015 equity offering, the exercise price of the November 2014 Warrant was reduced to $9.41 per share.  

The Company accounts for the November 2014 Warrant as a liability due to certain provisions within the warrant.  The November 2014 Warrant is subject to revaluation at each balance sheet date and any change in fair value is recorded as a change in fair value of derivatives and warrants until the earlier of its expiration or its exercise, at which time the warrant liability will be reclassified to equity.  

Following is a summary of the key assumptions used to calculate the fair value of the November 2014 Warrant:

16

The Company recorded a net loss, resulting from an increase in the fair value of the November 2014 Warrant, of $0.8 million in the three months ended December 31, 2015, and a net gain, resulting from a decrease in the fair value of the November 2014 Warrant, of $0.4 million to change in fair value of derivatives and warrants during the nine months ended December 31, 2015.  The Company recorded a gain, resulting from the decrease in the fair value of the November 2014 Warrant, of $1.1 million in each of the three and nine months ended December 31, 2014.  

The Company prepared its estimates for the assumptions used to determine the fair value of the warrants issued in conjunction with both the Exchanged Note and the Term Loans, as well as the November 2014 Warrant utilizing the respective terms of the warrants with similar inputs, as described above.

12. Stockholders’ Equity

On April 29, 2015, the Company completed an equity offering with Cowen and Company, LLC, under which the Company sold 4.0 million shares of its common stock at an offering price of $6.00 per share.  After underwriting, commissions and expenses, the Company received net proceeds from the offering of approximately $22.3 million.

13. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is involved in legal and administrative proceedings and claims of various types. The Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for these matters when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company reviews these estimates each accounting period as additional information is known and adjusts the loss provision when appropriate. If a matter is both probable to result in a liability and the amounts of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company estimates and discloses the possible loss or range of loss to the extent necessary to make the consolidated financial statements not misleading. If the loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, a liability is not recorded in its consolidated financial statements.

17

Ghodawat Energy Pvt Ltd (“Ghodawat”), a company registered in India carrying on the business of wind power development, lodged a Request for Arbitration with the ICC Court on May 12, 2011 and named the Company’s wholly-owned Austrian subsidiary, AMSC Austria GmbH (“AMSC Austria”) as the Respondent. Under the Request for Arbitration, Ghodawat alleged that AMSC Austria breached an agreement dated March 19, 2008 pursuant to which AMSC Austria granted a license to Ghodawat to manufacture, use, sell, market, erect, commission and maintain certain wind turbines using its technical information and wind turbine design (the “License Agreement”). Under the Request for Arbitration, Ghodawat’s claims in this arbitration amounted to approximately €18 million ($24 million).  AMSC Austria submitted counterclaims under the License Agreement against Ghodawat in the amount of approximately €6 million ($8 million).  On August 29, 2014, the ICC Court ruled that AMSC Austria was liable for damages and awarded Ghodawat approximately €8.3 million, which includes reimbursement of legal costs and associated expenses.  Interest on this amount accrued at a rate of 5.33% from the date of award until settlement.  The Company had recorded a loss contingency of $0.5 million based on its assessment of probable losses on this claim in a prior period.  As a result of the arbitration award liability, the Company recorded a charge of $10.2 million during the three months ended September 30, 2014.  

On February 4, 2015, AMSC Austria entered into a Settlement Agreement with Ghodawat, which provided for, among other things, (i) a payment by AMSC Austria to Ghodawat of €7.45 million, and (ii) upon payment by AMSC Austria to Ghodawat, the full settlement of any and all disputes and claims between the parties (including their respective parent and affiliated companies), in particular relating to or arising out of the award.  The Company paid the settlement amount during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014.  As a result of this agreement, the Company reversed a portion of the accrued arbitration liability and recorded a gain of approximately $1.2 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014.  The Company’s insurer, Catlin Specialty Insurance Company (“Catlin”) sought and received a ruling from the Massachusetts Superior Court that coverage does not apply to the arbitration award liability.  On January 14, 2015, the Company and AMSC Austria entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release with Catlin, which provided for, among other things, (i) the Company’s and AMSC Austria’s release of all claims against Catlin relating to the arbitration award liability and (ii) Catlin’s release of all claims against the Company and AMSC Austria relating to approximately $2.3 million reimbursed to date under the insurance policy for expenses incurred in connection with the arbitration proceedings.  As a result of the settlement with Catlin, in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company reversed an accrual of approximately $2.2 million for expenses previously reimbursed by Catlin under the policy.  

On September 13, 2011, the Company commenced a series of legal actions in China against Sinovel Wind Group Co. Ltd. (“Sinovel”). The Company’s Chinese subsidiary, Suzhou AMSC Superconductor Co. Ltd., filed a claim for arbitration with the Beijing Arbitration Commission in accordance with the terms of the Company’s supply contracts with Sinovel. The case is captioned (2011) Jing Zhong An Zi No. 0963. On March 31, 2011, Sinovel refused to accept contracted shipments of 1.5 megawatt, (“MW”) and 3 MW wind turbine core electrical components and spare parts that the Company was prepared to deliver. The Company alleges that these actions constitute material breaches of its contracts because Sinovel did not give it notice that it intended to delay deliveries as required under the contracts. Moreover, the Company alleges that Sinovel has refused to pay past due amounts for prior shipments of core electrical components and spare parts. The Company is seeking compensation for past product shipments and retention (including interest) in the amount of approximately RMB 485 million ($76 million) due to Sinovel’s breaches of its contracts. The Company is also seeking specific performance of its existing contracts as well as reimbursement of all costs and reasonable expenses with respect to the arbitration. The value of the undelivered components under the existing contracts, including the deliveries refused by Sinovel in March 2011, amounts to approximately RMB 4.6 billion ($720 million).

On October 8, 2011, Sinovel filed with the Beijing Arbitration Commission an application under the caption (2011) Jing Zhong An Zi No. 0963, for a counterclaim against the Company for breach of the same contracts under which the Company filed its original arbitration claim. Sinovel claimed, among other things, that the goods supplied by the Company do not conform to the standards specified in the contracts and claimed damages in the amount of approximately RMB 370 million ($58 million). On October 17, 2011, Sinovel filed with the Beijing Arbitration Commission a request for change of counterclaim to increase its damage claim to approximately RMB 1 billion ($157 million). On December 22, 2011, Sinovel filed with the Beijing Arbitration Commission an additional request for change of counterclaim to increase its damages claim to approximately RMB 1.2 billion ($190 million). On February 27, 2012, Sinovel filed with the Beijing Arbitration Commission an application under the caption (2012) Jing Zhong An Zi No. 0157, against the Company for breach of the same contracts under which the Company filed its original arbitration claim. Sinovel claimed, among other things, that the goods supplied by the Company do not conform to the standards specified in the contracts and claimed damages in the amount of approximately RMB 105 million ($17 million). The Company believes that Sinovel’s claims are without merit and it intends to defend these actions vigorously. Since the proceedings in this matter are still in the early technical review phase, the Company cannot reasonably estimate possible losses or range of losses at this time.

18

The Company also submitted a civil action application to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court under the caption (2011) Yi Zhong Min Chu Zi No. 15524, against Sinovel for software copyright infringement on September 13, 2011. The application alleges Sinovel’s unauthorized use of portions of the Company’s wind turbine control software source code developed for Sinovel’s 1.5MW wind turbines and the binary code, or upper layer, of the Company’s software for the PM3000 power converters in 1.5MW wind turbines. In July 2011, a former employee of the Company’s Austrian subsidiary was arrested in Austria on charges of economic espionage and fraudulent manipulation of data. In September 2011, the former employee pled guilty to the charges, and was imprisoned. As a result of the Company’s internal investigation and a criminal investigation conducted by Austrian authorities, the Company believes that this former employee was contracted by Sinovel through an intermediary while employed by the Company and improperly obtained and transferred to Sinovel portions of its wind turbine control software source code developed for Sinovel’s 1.5MW wind turbines. Moreover, the Company believes the former employee illegally used source code to develop for Sinovel a software modification to circumvent the encryption and remove technical protection measures on the Company’s PM3000 power converters in 1.5MW wind turbines in the field. The Company is seeking a cease and desist order with respect to the unauthorized copying, installation and use of its software, monetary damages of approximately RMB 38 million ($6 million) for its economic losses and reimbursement of all costs and reasonable expenses. The Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court accepted the case, which was necessary in order for the case to proceed. In November 2011, Sinovel filed a motion to remove this case from the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court and transfer the matter to the Beijing Arbitration Commission. On February 14, 2012, the court denied Sinovel’s motion to remove the case. On February 21, 2012, Sinovel filed an appeal of the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court decision to the Beijing Higher People’s Court. On April 25, 2012, the Beijing Higher People’s Court issued a final Civil Ruling which supports the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court’s civil ruling and rejected Sinovel’s appeal. Sinovel filed an appeal of the Beijing Higher People’s Court’s decision with China’s Supreme People’s Court. A hearing regarding this appeal was held at the Chinese Supreme People’s Court on October 26, 2012. On November 23, 2012, China’s Supreme People’s Court issued a Civil Ruling, holding that (1) it will conduct a re-trial of Sinovel’s appeal, and (2) the lower court’s decision will be stayed pending the re-trial. China’s Supreme People’s Court conducted a re-trial of Sinovel’s appeal on May 29, 2013.  On January 26, 2014, the Supreme People’s Court ruled to uphold the Beijing Higher People’s Court ruling that the dispute shall be heard by the court.  On September 15, 2014, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court held its first substantive hearing in the Beijing case.  At the hearing, the parties presented evidence, reviewed claims, and answered questions from the court.  On April 24, 2015, the Company received notification from the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court that it dismissed the case for what it cited was a lack of evidence.  On May 6, 2015, the Company filed an appeal of the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court decision to dismiss the case with the Beijing Higher People’s Court.  On September 8, 2015, the Beijing Higher People’s Court held its first substantive hearing on the Company’s appeal of the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court’s dismissal of the case.  At the hearing, the parties presented evidence and answered questions from the court.  The Company is awaiting a decision from the Beijing Higher People’s Court.

The Company submitted a civil action application to the Beijing Higher People’s Court against Sinovel and certain of its employees for trade secret infringement on September 13, 2011 under the caption (2011) Gao Min Chu Zi No. 4193. The application alleges the defendants’ unauthorized use of portions of the Company’s wind turbine control software source code developed for Sinovel’s 1.5MW wind turbines as described above with respect to the Copyright Action. The Company is seeking monetary damages of RMB 2.9 billion ($453 million) for the trade secret infringement as well as reimbursement of all costs and reasonable expenses. The Beijing Higher People’s Court accepted the case, which was necessary in order for the case to proceed. On December 22, 2011, the Beijing Higher People’s Court transferred this case to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court under the caption (2011) Gao Min Chu Zi No. 4193. On June 7, 2012, the Company received an Acceptance Notice from the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court under the caption (2012) Yi Zhong Min Chu Zi No.6833. In August 2012, Sinovel filed a motion to remove this case from the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court and transfer the matter to the Beijing Arbitration Commission. On February 24, 2014, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court denied Sinovel’s motion to remove and transfer the case.  On March 13, 2014, Sinovel filed an appeal of the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court decision to the Beijing Higher People’s Court.  On August 7, 2014, the Beijing Higher People’s Court upheld the Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court’s decision and rejected Sinovel’s appeal regarding the jurisdiction opposition.  The Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court held its first substantive hearing on May 11, 2015.  On June 15, 2015, the Company submitted a request for the withdrawal of its complaint to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court.  On June 16, 2015, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court granted its request.  The Company immediately filed a civil action application to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court against the same parties and seeking the same amount of monetary damages for trade secret infringement on June 16, 2015 under the caption (2015) Jin Zhi Min Chu Zi No. 1135.  On January 18, 2016, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held its first substantive hearing on the Company’s trade secret infringement case.  At the hearing, the parties presented evidence, reviewed claims and answered questions from the court.  The Company is awaiting a decision from the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

19

On September 16, 2011, the Company filed a civil copyright infringement complaint in the Hainan Province No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court against Dalian Guotong Electric Co. Ltd. (“Guotong”), a supplier of power converter products to Sinovel, and Huaneng Hainan Power, Inc. (“Huaneng”), a wind farm operator that has purchased Sinovel wind turbines containing Guotong power converter products. The case is captioned (2011) Hainan Yi Zhong Min Chu Zi No. 62. The application alleges that the Company’s PM1000 converters in certain Sinovel wind turbines have been replaced by converters produced by Guotong. Because the Guotong converters are being used in wind turbines containing the Company’s wind turbine control software, the Company believes that its copyrighted software is being infringed. The Company is seeking a cease and desist order with respect to the unauthorized use of its software, monetary damages of RMB 1.2 million ($0.2 million) for its economic losses (with respect to Guotong only) and reimbursement of all costs and reasonable expenses. The court has accepted the case, which was necessary in order for the case to proceed. In addition, upon the request of the defendant Huaneng, Sinovel has been added by the court to this case as a defendant and Huaneng has been released from this case. In December 2011, Sinovel filed a jurisdiction opposition motion requesting dismissal by the Hainan Province No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, saying the case should be governed by the Beijing Arbitration Commission. On February 3, 2012, the Company received the Civil Ruling from the court, which granted Sinovel’s motion, and dismissed the entire case. The Company appealed the court’s ruling to the Hainan Higher Court, which on April 5, 2012 upheld the decision of the Hainan Province No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court. On April 9, 2012, the Company filed an appeal of the Hainan Higher Court’s decision with China’s Supreme People’s Court. China’s Supreme People’s Court accepted the appeal on May 23, 2012. The case is captioned, (2012) Min Shen Zi No. 630. On December 20, 2012, China’s Supreme People’s Court issued a Civil ruling, holding that (1) it will conduct a re-trial of the Company’s appeal and (2) the lower court’s decision will be stayed pending the re-trial. China’s Supreme People’s Court conducted a re-trial of Sinovel’s appeal on May 29, 2013.  On January 26, 2014, the Supreme People’s Court revoked Hainan No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court and Hainan Higher People’s Court rulings and ruled that the case shall be heard by the Hainan No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court.  The Hainan No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court accepted the case under the caption (2014) Hainan Yi Zhong Min San Chu Zi No. 1. On October 21, 2014, the Hainan No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court changed the caption of this case to (2014) Hainan Yi Zhong Zhi Min Chu Zi No. 2.  On November 18, 2014, the Hainan No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court held its first substantive hearing in the Hainan case.    At the hearing, the parties presented evidence, reviewed claims, and answered questions from the court.  On June 3, 2015, the Company received notification from the Hainan No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court that it dismissed the case for what it cited was a lack of evidence.  On June 18, 2015, the Company filed an appeal of the Hainan No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court decision to dismiss the case with the Hainan Higher People’s Court.  On August 20, 2015, the Hainan Higher People’s Court accepted the appeal under the caption (2015) QiongZhi Min Zhong Zi No. 6.  On November 26, 2015, the Hainan Higher People’s Court held its first substantive hearing on the Company’s appeal of the Hainan No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court dismissal of the case.  At the hearing, the parties presented evidence and answered questions from the court.  The Company is awaiting a decision from the Hainan Higher People’s Court.

Other

The Company enters into long-term construction contracts with customers that require the Company to obtain performance bonds. The Company is required to deposit an amount equivalent to some or all the face amount of the performance bonds into an escrow account until the termination of the bond. When the performance conditions are met, amounts deposited as collateral for the performance bonds are returned to the Company. In addition, the Company has various contractual arrangements in which minimum quantities of goods or services have been committed to be purchased on an annual basis.

As of December 31, 2015, the Company had $0.4 million of restricted cash included in current assets and $0.8 million of restricted cash included in long-term assets. These amounts included in restricted cash primarily represent deposits to secure letters of credit for various supply contracts. These deposits are held in interest bearing accounts.

14. Minority Investments

Investment in Tres Amigas LLC

The Company made an investment in Tres Amigas, focused on providing the first common interconnection of America’s three power grids to help the country achieve its renewable energy goals and facilitate the smooth, reliable and efficient transfer of green power from region to region.  The Company’s original investment in Tres Amigas was $5.4 million.  As of December 31, 2015, the Company holds a 26% ownership interest in Tres Amigas.

20

The Company has determined that Tres Amigas is a variable interest entity (“VIE”) and that the Company is not the primary beneficiary of the VIE.  Therefore, the Company has not consolidated Tres Amigas as of December 31, 2015.  The investment was carried at acquisition cost, plus the Company’s equity in undistributed earnings or losses.  The Company’s maximum exposure to loss was limited to the Company’s recorded investment in this VIE.  The Company’s investment in Tres Amigas was included in other assets on the consolidated balance sheet and the equity in undistributed losses of Tres Amigas is included in other expense, net, on the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations.  During the three months ended June 30, 2015, the Company determined that as a result of delays in Tres Amigas securing financing for the project, as well as the Company’s expectation that its investment would not be recoverable based on recent adverse market indicators for potential sales of the Company’s share of the investment, that its investment in Tres Amigas required further analysis for other-than-temporary impairment.  The Company recorded an impairment charge of $0.7 million to fully impair this investment in the three months ended June 30, 2015.

The net investment activity for the nine months ended December 31, 2015 is as follows (in thousands):

Investment in Blade Dynamics Ltd.

The Company acquired (through its Austrian subsidiary), a minority ownership position in Blade Dynamics, a designer and manufacturer of advanced wind turbine blades based on proprietary materials and structural technologies.  The Company’s original investment was for $8.0 million in cash.

The investment was carried at the acquisition cost, plus the Company’s equity in undistributed earnings or losses, through December 1, 2012, the date which the company no longer reported undistributed earnings or losses. The Company’s investment in Blade Dynamics was included in other assets on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet and the equity in undistributed losses of Blade Dynamics was included in other expense, net, on the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations.  During the nine months ended December 31, 2014, the Company impaired its remaining investment in Blade Dynamics and recorded an impairment charge of $3.5 million.

On October 6, 2015, 100% of the outstanding common stock of Blade Dynamics was acquired by a subsidiary of General Electric Company.  After deducting transaction expenses, AMSC received net proceeds of $2.5 million from the sale, which was recorded as a gain during the three months ended December 31, 2015.  Additionally, under the terms of the purchase agreement, AMSC may be entitled to receive up to an additional $1.6 million in proceeds upon the successful achievement of certain milestones by Blade Dynamics over the next three years.

15. Business Segments

The Company reports its financial results in two reportable business segments: Wind and Grid.

Through the Company’s Windtec Solutions, the Wind business segment enables manufacturers to field wind turbines with exceptional power output, reliability and affordability. The Company supplies advanced power electronics and control systems, licenses its highly engineered wind turbine designs, and provides extensive customer support services to wind turbine manufacturers. The Company’s design portfolio includes a broad range of drive trains and power ratings of 2 MWs and higher. The Company provides a broad range of power electronics and software-based control systems that are highly integrated and designed for optimized performance, efficiency, and grid compatibility.

Through the Company’s Gridtec Solutions, the Grid business segment enables electric utilities and renewable energy project developers to connect, transmit and distribute power with exceptional efficiency, reliability and affordability. The sales process is enabled by transmission planning services that allow it to identify power grid congestion, poor power quality and other risks, which helps the Company determine how its solutions can improve network performance. These services often lead to sales of grid interconnection solutions for wind farms and solar power plants, power quality systems, and transmission and distribution cable systems. The Company also sells ship protection products to the U.S. Navy through its Grid business segment.

The operating results for the two business segments are as follows (in thousands):

21