11. Commitments and Contingencies

On December 3, 2018, Selwyn Mould resigned as chief operating officer. Mr. Mould’s resignation as an officer of the Company was treated as a termination without cause under his employment agreement with the Company. Pursuant to his employment agreement, Mr. Mould was entitled to one-time severance benefits that includes severance and benefits continuation expense of approximately $0.9 million paid out over a 2-year period in consideration of his execution of a customary release and separation agreement. Pursuant to a Separation Agreement and Release between the Company and Mr. Mould, Mr. Mould agreed to receive, in lieu of two years of salary, a cash severance payment of $100,000 payable in six equal installments in accordance with the Company's regular payroll practices, plus an award of restricted stock units that entitle him to receive, for each of the 21 consecutive months commencing on March 1, 2019, $33,333 of the Company's common shares based on volume-weighted average price over the 20 trading days preceding the first business day of the respective month. The Company has reserved the right, at its option, to pay Mr. Mould $33,333 of cash in lieu of any of the 21 monthly share issuances. The Separation Agreement and Release includes customary indemnification, confidentiality, non-disparagement and non-solicitation covenants and agreements of the parties.

Legal proceedings

Beginning on December 15, 2017, three purported class action lawsuits were filed in the United Stated District Court for the Northern District California against the Company, Stephen Clarke, Thomas Murphy and Mark Weinswig. On March 23, 2018, the cases were consolidated under the caption In Re: Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation Case No 3:17-cv-07142. On May 23, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and approved counsel for the lead plaintiffs. On July 20, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint (“Amended Complaint”), on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company’s securities between May 19, 2016 and November 9, 2017, against us, Stephen Clarke, Thomas Murphy and Selwyn Mould. The Amended Complaint alleges the defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s lead recycling operations in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks to hold the individual defendants as control persons pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint also alleges a violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) based on alleged false and misleading statements concerning our lead recycling operations contained in, or incorporated by reference in, our Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed in connection with the Company’s November 2016 public offering. That claim is asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased shares pursuant to, or that are traceable to, that Registration Statement. The Amended Complaint seeks to hold the individual defendants liable as control persons pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Act. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 18, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety and the plaintiff subsequently filed its opposition to the motion. In an Order dated August 14, 2019, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the Securities Act Section 11 claim and the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim based on alleged false and misleading statements and gave the plaintiffs leave to amend to address the deficiencies. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims regarding site visits. On September 20, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint that dropped the Securities Act Section 11 claim but otherwise alleges the same claims as were alleged previously. The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs. On November 1, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims in the Second Amended Complaint based on alleged false and misleading statements, but not the claims regarding site visits. The motion is under consideration by the Court. the Company denies that the claims in the Second Amended Complaint have any merit and the Company intends to vigorously defend the action.

Beginning on February 2, 2018, five purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers and directors, Stephen R. Clarke, Selwyn Mould, Thomas Murphy, Mark Weinswig, Vincent DiVito, Mark Slade and Mark Stevenson. On May 3, 2018, the cases were consolidated under the caption In re Aqua Metals, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:18-cv-00201-LPS (D. Del.). The complaints were filed by persons claiming to be stockholders of Aqua Metals and generally allege that certain of the Company’s officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to us by violating the federal securities laws and exposing us to possible financial liability. The complaints seek unspecified damages and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties have entered into a stipulation staying the action until 30 days after a decision on our motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the class action described above. The individual defendants deny that the claims in the shareholder derivative action have any merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.

The Company is not party to any other legal proceedings. The Company may, from time to time, be party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business. As the Company’s growth continues, it may become party to an increasing number of litigation matters and claims. The outcome of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, and the resolution of any future matters could materially affect the Company’s future financial position, results of operations or cash flows.