PART I

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements within this Annual Report on Form 10-K may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”).  These statements are being made pursuant to the PSLRA, with the intention of obtaining the benefits of the “safe harbor” provisions of the PSLRA, and, other than as required by law, we assume no obligation to update or supplement such statements.  Forward-looking statements are those that do not relate solely to historical fact.  They include, but are not limited to, any statement that may predict, forecast, indicate or imply future results, performance, achievements or events.  You can identify these statements by the use of words such as “may,” “would,” “could,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “continue,” “further,” “plan,” “seek,” “intend,” “predict” or “project” and variations of these words or comparable words or phrases of similar meaning.  These forward-looking statements reflect our current beliefs and expectations with respect to future events.  They are based on assumptions and are subject to risks and uncertainties and other factors outside our control that may cause actual results to differ materially from those projected.  We undertake no obligation to update publicly or review any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.

Item 1. Business

Our History

ICON Leasing Fund Eleven, LLC (the “LLC” or “Fund Eleven”) was formed on December 2, 2004 as a Delaware limited liability company. The LLC will continue until December 31, 2024, unless terminated sooner. When used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the terms “we,” “us,” “our” or similar terms refer to the LLC and its consolidated subsidiaries.

Our manager is ICON Capital, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Manager”). Our Manager manages and controls our business affairs, including, but not limited to, our equipment leases and other financing transactions, pursuant to the terms of our amended and restated limited liability company agreement (the “LLC Agreement”).

Our offering period began in April 2005 and ended in April 2007. We initially offered shares of limited liability company interests (“Shares”) with the intention of raising up to $200,000,000 of capital. On March 8, 2006, we commenced a consent solicitation of our members to amend and restate our LLC Agreement in order to increase the maximum offering amount from up to $200,000,000 to up to $375,000,000. The consent solicitation was completed on April 21, 2006 with the requisite consents received from our members. We filed a new registration statement (the “New Registration Statement”) to register up to an additional $175,000,000 of Shares with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on May 2, 2006. The New Registration Statement was declared effective by the SEC on July 3, 2006, and we commenced the offering of the additional 175,000 Shares thereafter.

Our initial closing was on May 6, 2005 with the sale of 1,200 Shares, representing $1,200,000 of capital contributions. Through the end of our offering period on April 21, 2007, we sold 365,199 Shares, representing $365,198,690 of capital contributions. In addition, pursuant to the terms of our offering, we established a cash reserve in the amount of 0.5% of the gross offering proceeds, or $1,825,993. Through December 31, 2015, we repurchased 2,543 Shares, bringing the total number of outstanding Shares to 362,656. During the period from May 6, 2005 through December 31, 2007, we paid the following commissions and fees in connection with the offering of Shares: (i) $29,210,870 of sales commissions to third parties, (ii) $6,978,355 of organizational and offering expenses to our Manager and (iii) $7,304,473 of dealer-manager fees to CĪON Securities, LLC, formerly known as ICON Securities LLC, our dealer-manager in the offering and an affiliate of our Manager.

Our operating period ended on April 30, 2014 after having been extended for two years. On May 1, 2014, we commenced our liquidation period, which has continued for more than one year. During our liquidation period, we have sold and will continue to sell our assets and/or let our investments mature in the ordinary course of business. Our liquidation period will continue if the sale of our remaining assets is not in the best interests of our members due to, among other things, current market conditions.

Our Business

We operated as an equipment leasing and finance program in which the capital our members invested was pooled together to make investments, pay fees and establish a small reserve. We primarily acquired equipment subject to lease, purchased equipment and leased it to third parties, provided equipment and other financing and, to a lesser degree, acquired ownership rights to items of leased equipment at lease expiration. Some of our equipment leases were acquired for cash and were expected

to provide current cash flow, which we refer to as “income” leases. For our other equipment leases, we financed the majority of the purchase price through borrowings from third parties. We refer to these leases as “growth” leases. These growth leases generated little or no current cash flow because substantially all of the rental payments received from the lessee were used to service the indebtedness associated with acquiring or financing the lease. For these leases, we anticipated that the future value of the leased equipment would exceed our cash portion of the purchase price.

We divide the life of the LLC into three distinct phases:

(1)           Offering Period: The period during which we offered and sold Shares to investors. We invested most of the net proceeds from the sale of Shares in equipment leases and other financing transactions.

(2)           Operating Period: After the close of the offering period on April 21, 2007, we reinvested the cash generated from our investments to the extent that cash was not needed for our expenses, reserves and distributions to members. The operating period ended on April 30, 2014.

(3)           Liquidation Period: On May 1, 2014, we commenced our liquidation period, which has continued for more than one year. During our liquidation period, we have sold and will continue to sell our assets and/or let our investments mature in the ordinary course of business. Our liquidation period will continue if the sale of our remaining assets is not in the best interests of our members due to, among other things, current market conditions.

At December 31, 2015 and 2014, we had total assets of $5,885,335 and $33,574,889, respectively.  For the year ended December 31, 2015, one lessee accounted for all of our total rental income of $6,360,041.  We had a net loss attributable to us for the year ended December 31, 2015 of $12,424,431.  For the year ended December 31, 2014, one lessee and one borrower accounted for 94.9% of our total rental and finance income of $9,517,066.  We had net income attributable to us for the year ended December 31, 2014 of $703,275. 

At December 31, 2015, our portfolio consisted of a 39% ownership interest in a joint venture that purchased a portion of a subordinated credit facility for Jurong Aromatics Corporation Pte. Ltd. (“JAC”) from Standard Chartered Bank (“Standard Chartered”), which matures in January 2021. The subordinated credit facility is secured by a second priority security interest in all equipment, plant and machinery associated with a condensate splitter and aromatics complex.

For a discussion of the significant transactions that we engaged in during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, please refer to “Item 7. Manager’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

Segment Information

We engaged in one business segment, the business of purchasing equipment and leasing it to third parties, providing equipment and other financing, acquiring equipment subject to lease and, to a lesser degree, acquiring ownership rights to items of leased equipment at lease expiration.

Competition

The commercial leasing and financing industry is highly competitive and is characterized by competitive factors that vary based upon product and geographic region. When we made our investments we competed, and as we seek to liquidate our portfolio we compete, with a variety of competitors including other equipment leasing and finance funds, hedge funds, private equity funds, captive and independent finance companies, commercial and industrial banks, manufacturers and vendors. Such competitors may have been and/or may be in a position to offer equipment to prospective customers on financial terms that were or are more favorable than those that we could offer or that we can offer in liquidating our portfolio, which may have affected our ability to make our investments and may affect our ability to liquidate our portfolio, in each case, in a manner that would enable us to achieve our investment objectives.

Employees

We have no direct employees. Our Manager has full and exclusive control over our management and operations.

Available Information

Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, our most recent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and our Current Reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports, are available free of charge on our Manager’s internet website at http://www.iconinvestments.com as soon as reasonably practicable after such reports are electronically filed with or furnished

to the SEC.  The information contained on our Manager’s website is not deemed part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  Our reports are also available on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov. 

Financial Information Regarding Geographic Areas

Certain of our investments generate revenue in geographic areas outside of the United States. For additional information, see Note 12 to our consolidated financial statements.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Smaller reporting companies are not required to provide the information required by this item.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

Not applicable.

Item 2. Properties  

We neither own nor lease office space or any other real property in our business at the present time.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings  

In the ordinary course of conducting our business, we may be subject to certain claims, suits and complaints filed against us. See “Item 7. Manager’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Commitments and Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Transactions” located elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a complete discussion of the Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc. (“EAR”) matter. Notwithstanding our Manager’s belief that the EAR trustee’s claims against us are unsupported by the facts, an adverse ruling or settlement may have a material impact on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. We are not aware of any other material legal proceedings that are currently pending against us or against any of our assets.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant's Securities, Related Security Holder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Overview

We, at our Manager’s discretion, paid monthly distributions to each of our additional members beginning the first month after each such member was admitted through May 2012. We did not pay any distributions during our extended operating period. During our liquidation period, we have paid and may continue to pay distributions in accordance with the terms of our LLC Agreement. We expect that distributions paid during the liquidation period will vary, depending on the timing of the sale of our asset and/or the maturity of our investment, and our receipt of finance and other income from our investment. We paid distributions to additional members totaling $6,999,866 and $28,004,466 for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Additionally, we paid our Manager distributions of $70,705 and $282,873 for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Our Shares are not publicly traded and there is no established public trading market for our Shares. Given that it is unlikely that any such market will develop, our Shares are generally considered illiquid. Even if an additional member is able to sell our Shares, the price received may be less than our estimated value (“Value”) per Share indicated below.

Our estimated Value per Share as of December 31, 2015 (the “Valuation Date”) has been determined to be $12.70 per Share. The estimated Value per Share is based upon the estimated fair market value of our assets and liabilities as of the Valuation Date, divided by the total number of our Shares outstanding as of the Valuation Date. Since our only remaining investment is owned by a joint venture, we only include our share of assets and liabilities based on our ownership percentage in such joint venture.*  The information used to generate the estimated Value per Share, including, but not limited to, market information, investment and asset-level data and other information provided by third parties, was the most recent information practically available as of the Valuation Date. This estimated Value per Share is provided to assist (i) plan fiduciaries in fulfilling their annual valuation obligations as required by The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), and (ii) broker-dealers that participated in our offering of Shares in meeting their customer account statement reporting obligations as required by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”).

The estimated Value per Share was calculated by our Manager partly based on the fair market value provided by Hilco Enterprise Valuation Services, LLC (“Hilco”), a third-party independent valuation and consulting firm engaged by our Manager to provide material assistance related to the valuation of our only remaining investment, as further described below. The engagement of Hilco was approved by our Manager. Hilco is one of the world’s largest and most diversified business asset appraisers and valuation advisors, providing valuation opinions across virtually every business asset category.

Process and Methodology

Our Manager established the estimated Value per Share as of the Valuation Date partly based on the fair market value of our only remaining investment provided by Hilco. In arriving at its fair market value, Hilco utilized valuation methodologies that both our Manager and Hilco believe are standard and acceptable in the equipment financing industry for the types of assets held by us. The valuation was performed in accordance with standard industry practice and the provisions of NASD Rule 2340 and FINRA Rule 2310. The valuation was also performed in accordance with the provisions of the guidelines established by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The fair market value provided by Hilco is in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 820.

A summary of the methodology used by Hilco, as well as the assumptions and limitations of their work for us and of our determination of estimated Value, are presented below.

Discounted Cash Flow

The discounted cash flow (“DCF”) method was used to estimate Value using the concept of the time value of money. All projected future cash flows accruing to the asset were estimated and discounted to give their present values. The sum of all projected future cash flows, both incoming and outgoing, comprises the net present value, which was recognized as the value or price of the cash flows.

Valuation of Note Receivable

The estimated fair market value of our note receivable at the Valuation Date was derived by applying the DCF method to the projected cash flows accruing to the asset using a discount rate reflecting the risks associated with such asset and the time value of money. The discounted projected cash flows included all unpaid principal, interest, and fee payments for the scheduled term period of the asset. An analysis of the borrower was conducted to determine viability of payment and total debt coverage, as well as to ascertain the borrower's risk level, with such considerations reflected in the implied discount rate used in discounting the cash flows.

The discount rate used was 12.3%.

Cash, Other Assets and Other Liabilities

Cash, other assets and other liabilities (collectively, “Other Net Assets”) include our share of items of tangible or monetary value as of the Valuation Date. The fair market values of Other Net Assets as of the Valuation Date were estimated to approximate their carrying values because of their nature or short-term maturities. Excluded from Other Net Assets are our shares of deferred financing costs and deferred revenue, which our Manager estimated as having a minimal fair value as of the Valuation Date.

Assumptions and Limitations

As with any valuation methodology, the methodologies used to determine our estimated Value per Share are based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that may prove later to be inaccurate or incomplete. Further, different market participants using different assumptions and estimates could derive different estimated values. Our estimated Value per Share may also not represent the price that our Shares would trade at on a national securities exchange, the amount realized in a sale, merger or liquidation, or the amount an additional member would realize in a private sale of our Shares.

The estimated Value per Share calculated by our Manager is based on economic, market and other conditions and the information available to us and Hilco as of the Valuation Date. The estimated Value per Share is expected to fluctuate over time in response to future events, including, but not limited to, changes in market interest rates, changes in economic, market and regulatory conditions, the prospects of the asset sectors in general or in particular, or the special purpose vehicle in which the asset is held, rental and growth rates, returns on competing investments, changes in administrative expenses and other costs, and the amount of distributions paid on our Shares. The estimated Value per Share may also change as a result of changes in the circumstances of the risks associated with the investment.

There is no assurance that the methodologies used to calculate the estimated Value per Share would be acceptable to FINRA or in compliance with guidelines promulgated under ERISA with respect to their respective reporting requirements.

Our Manager is ultimately and solely responsible for the establishment of our estimated Value per Share. In arriving at its determination of the estimated Value per Share, our Manager considered all information provided in light of its own familiarity with our assets and liabilities and the estimated fair market value recommended by Hilco.

We currently expect that our next estimated Value per Share will be based upon our assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2016 and such value will be included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2016. We intend to publish an updated estimated Value per Share annually in our subsequent Annual Reports on Form 10-K.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

Smaller reporting companies are not required to provide the information required by this item.

Item 7. Manager's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Our Manager’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations relates to our consolidated financial statements and should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  Statements made in this section may be considered forward-looking. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and are based on current expectations and assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially because of these risks and assumptions.  Please refer to “Part I. Forward-Looking Statements” located elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Overview

We operated as an equipment leasing and finance program in which the capital our members invested was pooled together to make investments, pay fees and establish a small reserve. We primarily acquired equipment subject to lease, purchased equipment and leased it to third parties, provided equipment and other financing and, to a lesser degree, acquired ownership rights to items of leased equipment at lease expiration. Some of our equipment leases were acquired for cash and were expected to provide current cash flow, which we refer to as “income” leases. For our other equipment leases, we financed the majority of the purchase price through borrowings from third parties. We refer to these leases as “growth” leases. These growth leases generated little or no current cash flow because substantially all of the rental payments received from the lessee were used to service the indebtedness associated with acquiring or financing the lease. For these leases, we anticipated that the future value of the leased equipment would exceed our cash portion of the purchase price.

Our Manager manages and controls our business affairs, including, but not limited to, our equipment leases and other financing transactions, under the terms of our LLC Agreement.

Our operating period ended on April 30, 2014 after having been extended for two years. During our operating period, additional investments were made with the cash generated from our investments to the extent that the cash was not needed for expenses, reserves and distributions to members. On May 1, 2014, we commenced our liquidation period, which has continued for more than one year. During our liquidation period, we have sold and will continue to sell our assets and/or let our investments mature in the ordinary course of business. Our liquidation period will continue if the sale of our remaining assets is not in the best interests of our members due to, among other things, current market conditions.

Current Business Environment

Recent trends indicate that domestic and global equipment financing volume is correlated to overall business investments in equipment, which are typically impacted by general economic conditions. As the economy slows or builds momentum, the demand for productive equipment generally slows or builds and equipment financing volume generally decreases or increases, depending on a number of factors. These factors include the availability of liquidity to provide equipment financing and/or provide it on terms satisfactory to borrowers, lessees, and other counterparties, as well as the desire to upgrade equipment and/or expand operations during times of growth, but also in times of recession in order to, among other things, seize the opportunity to obtain competitive advantage over distressed competitors and/or increase business as the economy recovers.

Our Manager believes the global economic recovery is likely to slow down in 2016, primarily due to a weakness in foreign growth and a reduction of global demand.  As of December 31, 2015, our only remaining investment, which we hold through a joint venture, consisted of a 39% ownership interest in a note receivable secured by a second priority security interest in all equipment, plant and machinery associated with a condensate splitter and aromatics complex located in Singapore. A general economic slow-down in China and India leading to lower demand from such countries, as well as the price decline of energy and other commodities, has had, among other things, a negative impact on this investment, which has resulted in the joint venture recording credit losses (see “Significant Transactions” below). These factors may continue to have an impact on the performance of this investment.

Significant Transactions

We engaged in the following significant transactions during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014:

Assets Held for Sale

During 2008, we invested approximately $13,427,000 in semiconductor manufacturing equipment, partly through our wholly-owned subsidiary, ICON EAR II, LLC (“ICON EAR II”), and partly through a joint venture, ICON EAR, LLC (“ICON EAR”), owned 45% by us and 55% by ICON Leasing Fund Twelve, LLC (“Fund Twelve”), an entity also managed by our Manager. ICON EAR II and ICON EAR are collectively referred to as the “ICON EAR entities.” All of the equipment was leased to EAR. As additional security for the leases, the ICON EAR entities received mortgages on certain parcels of real property located in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

In October 2009, certain facts came to light that led our Manager to believe that EAR was perpetrating a fraud against EAR’s lenders, including the ICON EAR entities. On October 23, 2009, EAR filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

On June 7, 2010, the ICON EAR entities received judgments in the New York State Supreme Court against two principals of EAR who had guaranteed EAR’s lease obligations. The ICON EAR entities have had the New York State Supreme Court judgments recognized in Illinois, where the principals live, but do not currently anticipate being able to collect on such judgments.

On October 21, 2011, the Chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee for EAR filed an adversary complaint against the ICON EAR entities seeking the recovery of the lease payments that the trustee alleged were fraudulently transferred from EAR to the ICON EAR entities.  The complaint also sought the recovery of payments made by EAR to the ICON EAR entities during the 90-day period preceding EAR’s bankruptcy filing, alleging that those payments constituted a preference under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.  Additionally, the complaint sought the imposition of a constructive trust over certain real property and the proceeds from the sale that the ICON EAR entities received as security in connection with their investment.  Our Manager filed an answer to the complaint that included certain affirmative defenses. Since that time, substantial discovery was completed. Our Manager still believes these claims are unsupported by the facts, but given the risks, costs and uncertainty surrounding litigation in bankruptcy, our Manager would engage in prudent settlement discussions to resolve this matter expeditiously. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of this action or loss therefrom, if any; however, an adverse ruling or settlement may have a material impact on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

Subsequent to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, EAR disclaimed any right to its equipment and such equipment became the subject of an Illinois State Court proceeding. The equipment was subsequently sold as part of the Illinois State Court proceeding. On March 6, 2012, one of the creditors in the Illinois State Court proceeding won a summary judgment motion filed against the ICON EAR entities, thereby dismissing the ICON EAR entities’ claims to the proceeds resulting from the sale of the EAR equipment. The ICON EAR entities appealed this decision.  On September 16, 2013, the lower court’s ruling was affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court.  On October 21, 2013, the ICON EAR entities filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Supreme Court of Illinois appealing the decision of the Illinois Appellate Court, which petition was denied on January 29, 2014. During the year ended December 31, 2014, ICON EAR II sold its only remaining asset consisting of the real property for $84,932. No material gain or loss was recorded as a result of this sale. Prior to the sale, ICON EAR II recognized an impairment charge of $28,407 based on the then estimated fair value less cost to sell the real property.

On April 8, 2013, Heuliez SA and Heuliez Investissements SNC (collectively, “Heuliez”) filed for “Redressement Judiciaire,” a proceeding under French law similar to Chapter 11 reorganization under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.  During the quarter ended September 30, 2013, we were notified by the French bankruptcy court of the court’s intention to liquidate the companies.  Our Manager estimated the amount to be recovered in the liquidation proceedings based on a third-party appraisal and determined that a credit loss reserve in the amount of €1,738,846 (USD $2,323,655) was required. On October 31, 2013, our finance lease with Heuliez was terminated. Effective as of November 1, 2013, we leased our auto parts manufacturing equipment to a third party who purchased most of Heuliez’s other real estate and movable assets pursuant to the bankruptcy proceeding for an amount of €2,000 per month. The auto parts manufacturing equipment in the amount of $1,434,445 was reclassified to assets held for sale as of December 31, 2013.

During the year ended December 31, 2014, we sold all the auto parts manufacturing equipment to Heuliez for $770,908. As a result of the sale, we recorded a loss on sale of equipment of $425,092. Prior to the sale, we recognized an impairment charge of $273,928 based on the then estimated fair value less cost to sell the equipment. The loss was offset by a gain on disposition of assets of foreign investment as a result of reclassifying $178,410 of accumulated gain on currency translation adjustments out of accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”) into gain on disposition of assets of foreign investment within the consolidated statements of comprehensive (loss) income.

Mining Equipment

On August 5, 2013, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary ICON Murray V, LLC (“ICON Murray V”), purchased mining equipment for $1,979,268.  The equipment was subject to a 36-month lease with Murray Energy Corporation (“Murray”) and its affiliate that was scheduled to expire on August 31, 2016. On June 30, 2014, we sold 100% of the limited liability company interests of ICON Murray V to Hardwood Partners, LLC for $1,621,200. As a result, we recorded a gain on sale of $74,809.

On September 12, 2013, a joint venture owned by us, Fund Twelve and ICON ECI Fund Sixteen (“Fund Sixteen”), an entity also managed by our Manager, purchased mining equipment for $15,106,570. The equipment was subject to a 24-month lease with Murray and certain of its affiliates. On December 1, 2013 and February 1, 2014, Fund Sixteen contributed capital of $933,678 and $1,725,517, respectively, to the joint venture, inclusive of acquisition fees. Subsequent to Fund Sixteen’s second capital contribution, the joint venture was owned 67% by us, 13.2% by Fund Twelve and 19.8% by Fund Sixteen. The lease was scheduled to expire on September 30, 2015, but was extended for one month with an additional lease payment of $635,512. On October 29, 2015, Murray purchased the equipment pursuant to the terms of the lease for $2,991,400. As a result, a gain on sale of assets of $448,710 was recognized by the joint venture. Pursuant to a remarketing agreement with a third party, the joint venture paid an aggregate remarketing fee of $766,466 as part of the transaction.

Notes Receivable

On November 28, 2012, we made a secured term loan in the amount of $5,400,000 to SAExploration, Inc., SAExploration Seismic Services (US), LLC and NES, LLC (collectively, “SAE”) as part of an $80,000,000 term loan facility. The loan bore interest at 13.5% per year and was for a period of 48 months. The loan was secured by, among other things, a first priority security interest in all existing and thereafter acquired assets, including seismic testing equipment, of SAE and its parent company, SAExploration Holdings, Inc. (“SAE Holdings”), and a pledge of all the equity interests in SAE and SAE Holdings. In addition, we acquired warrants, exercisable until December 5, 2022, to purchase 0.0675% of the outstanding common stock of SAE Holdings. On October 31, 2013, we entered into an amendment to the loan agreement with SAE to amend certain provisions and covenant ratios. As a result of the amendment, we received an amendment fee of $40,915. On July 2, 2014, SAE satisfied its obligation in connection with the loan by making a prepayment of $6,122,031, comprised of all outstanding principal, accrued interest and prepayment fees of $599,185. The prepayment fees were recognized as additional finance income. On July 21, 2014, we exercised the warrants and received net cash proceeds of $18,943, which resulted in a loss of $57,501 that was recorded in loss on derivative financial instruments.

On February 12, 2013, we made a secured term loan in the amount of $3,300,000 to NTS Communications, Inc. and certain of its affiliates (collectively, “NTS”) as part of a $6,000,000 facility. On March 28, 2013, NTS borrowed $935,000 and on June 27, 2013, NTS drew down the remaining $2,365,000 from the facility. The loan bore interest at 12.75% per year and was scheduled to mature on July 1, 2017. The loan was secured by a first priority security interest in all equipment and assets of NTS. On June 6, 2014, NTS satisfied their obligations in connection with the loan by making a prepayment of $3,301,481, comprised of all outstanding principal, accrued interest and a prepayment fee of $125,400. The prepayment fee was recognized as additional finance income.

On May 15, 2013, a joint venture owned 39% by us, 21% by Fund Twelve and 40% by ICON ECI Fund Fifteen, L.P. (“Fund Fifteen”), an entity also managed by our Manager, purchased a portion of a $208,038,290 subordinated credit facility for JAC from Standard Chartered for $28,462,500. The subordinated credit facility initially bore interest at rates ranging between 12.5% and 15.0% per year and matures in January 2021. The subordinated credit facility is secured by a second priority security interest in all of JAC’s assets, which include, among other things, all equipment, plant and machinery associated with a condensate splitter and aromatics complex. Our initial contribution to the joint venture was $11,100,376.  

As of March 31, 2015, JAC was in technical default of the facility as a result of its failure to provide certain financial data to the joint venture. In addition, JAC realized lower than expected operating results caused in part by a temporary shutdown of its manufacturing facility due to technical constraints that have since been resolved. As a result, JAC failed to make the expected payment that was due to the joint venture during the three months ended March 31, 2015. Although this delayed payment did not trigger a payment default under the facility agreement, the interest rate payable by JAC under the facility increased from 12.5% to 15.5%.

During the three months ended June 30, 2015, an expected tolling arrangement did not commence and JAC’s stakeholders were unable to agree upon a restructuring plan. As a result, the manufacturing facility had not yet resumed operations and JAC continued to experience liquidity constraints. Accordingly, our Manager determined that there was doubt regarding the joint

venture’s ultimate collectability of the facility. Our Manager visited JAC’s facility and engaged in discussions with JAC’s other stakeholders to agree upon a restructuring plan. Based upon such discussions, which included a potential conversion of a portion of the facility to equity and/or a restructuring of the facility, our Manager believed that the joint venture may potentially not be able to recover approximately $7,200,000 to $25,000,000 of the outstanding balance due from JAC as of June 30, 2015. During the three months ended June 30, 2015, the joint venture recognized a credit loss of $17,342,915, which our Manager believed was the most likely outcome based upon the negotiations at the time. Our share of the credit loss for the three months ended June 30, 2015 was $6,421,388. During the three months ended June 30, 2015, the joint venture placed the facility on non-accrual status and no finance income was recognized.

During the three months ended September 30, 2015, JAC continued to be non-operational and therefore not able to service interest payments under the facility. Discussions between the senior lenders and certain other stakeholders of JAC ended as the senior lenders did not agree to amendments to their credit facilities as part of the broader restructuring that was being contemplated.  As a result, JAC entered receivership on September 28, 2015. At September 30, 2015, our Manager reassessed the collectability of the facility by considering the following factors: (i) what a potential buyer may be willing to pay to acquire JAC based on a comparable enterprise value derived from EBITDA multiples and (ii) the average trading price of unsecured distressed debt in comparable industries. Our Manager also considered the proposed plan of converting a portion of the facility to equity and/or restructuring the facility in the event that JAC’s stakeholders recommenced discussions. Based upon such reassessment, our Manager believed that the joint venture may potentially not be able to recover approximately $21,800,000 to $27,000,000 of the outstanding balance due from JAC prior to recording the initial credit loss. During the three months ended September 30, 2015, the joint venture recognized a credit loss of $8,928,735, which our Manager believed was the most likely outcome derived from its reassessment. Our share of the credit loss for the three months ended September 30, 2015 was $3,482,207. In January 2016, our Manager engaged in further discussions with JAC’s other subordinated lenders and the Receiver regarding a near term plan for JAC’s manufacturing facility. Based upon such discussions, our Manager anticipates that a one-year tolling arrangement with JAC’s suppliers will be implemented during the first half of 2016 to allow JAC’s facility to recommence operations. Although our Manager believes that the marketability of JAC’s facility should improve if and when the facility recommences operations, our Manager does not anticipate that JAC will make any payments to the joint venture while operating under the expected tolling arrangement. Our Manager updated the collectability analysis under the facility as of December 31, 2015 and determined that comparable enterprise values derived from EBITDA multiples and trading prices of unsecured distressed debt in comparable industries each decreased. In addition, our Manager considered that, as of December 31, 2015, (i) a tolling arrangement with JAC’s suppliers did not commence as originally anticipated; (ii) no further discussions occurred between JAC, the joint venture, the senior lenders and certain other stakeholders of JAC regarding a restructuring plan and (iii) JAC’s manufacturing facility continues to be non-operational. Based upon these factors, our Manager believes that the joint venture’s ultimate collectability of the facility may result in less of a recovery from its prior estimate. As a result, our Manager determined to record an additional credit loss of $5,365,776, which our Manager believes is the most likely outcome derived from its reassessment as of December 31, 2015. Our share of the credit loss for the three months ended December 31, 2015 was $2,092,652. An additional credit loss may be recorded in future periods based upon future developments of the receivership process or if the joint venture’s ultimate collectability of the facility results in less of a recovery from its current estimate. Our Manager has also assessed impairment under the equity method of accounting for our investment in the joint venture and concluded that it is not impaired. For the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, the joint venture recognized finance income of $1,152,580 and $4,000,314, respectively, prior to the facility being placed on non-accrual status. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the net investment in note receivable held by the joint venture was $5,365,776 and $35,363,995, respectively, and our investment in the joint venture was $2,098,529 and $13,605,567, respectively.

As of December 31, 2014, we had two notes receivable with ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. (“ZIM”) totaling $5,350,503 that were due in full. The loans bore interest at 15% per year and matured on September 30, 2014. The loans were placed on non-accrual status during 2014. While there was no credit loss reserve recorded for the loans, we recorded a loss on litigation of $650,503 during the year ended December 31, 2014 to increase our accrued obligation on the seller’s credits to $5,350,503 in light of the denial of the right to appeal the arbitration panel’s ruling on August 7, 2014 (see “Commitments and Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Transactions” below). On January 19, 2015, we entered into a letter of mutual release with ZIM to release and discharge ZIM’s obligation on our notes receivable as well as our accrued obligation on the seller’s credits in the same amount.

Foreign Income Taxes

As of December 31, 2013, we had an income tax receivable of $1,525,563 relating to expected income tax refunds primarily due to carrying back to previous tax years the loss realized for income tax purposes upon Teal Jones Group and Teal Jones Lumber Services, Inc. (collectively, “Teal Jones”) satisfying their obligations in connection with the mortgage note

receivable and finance lease during the year ended December 31, 2013. In July 2014, we received the income tax refund of CAD $1,627,520 (USD $1,525,563).

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“ASU 2014-09”), requiring revenue to be recognized in an amount that reflects the consideration expected to be received in exchange for goods and services. This new revenue standard may be applied retrospectively to each prior period presented, or retrospectively with the cumulative effect recognized as of the date of adoption. In August 2015, FASB issued ASU No. 2015-14, Revenue from Contracts with Customers – Deferral of the Effective Date (“ASU 2015-14”), which defers implementation of ASU 2014-09 by one year. Under such deferral, the adoption of ASU 2014-09 becomes effective for us on January 1, 2018, including interim periods within that reporting period. Early adoption is permitted, but not before our original effective date of January 1, 2017.  We are currently in the process of evaluating the impact of the adoption of ASU 2014-09 on our consolidated financial statements.

In August 2014, FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements – Going Concern: Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern (“ASU 2014-15”), which provides guidance about management's responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about an entity's ability to continue as a going concern and to provide related footnote disclosures. The adoption of ASU 2014-15 becomes effective for us on our fiscal year ending December 31, 2016, and all subsequent annual and interim periods. Early adoption is permitted. The adoption of ASU 2014-15 is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

In January 2015, FASB issued ASU No. 2015-01, Income Statement – Extraordinary and Unusual Items: Simplifying Income Statement Presentation by Eliminating the Concept of Extraordinary Items (“ASU 2015-01”), which simplifies income statement presentation by eliminating the concept of extraordinary items.  The adoption of ASU 2015-01 becomes effective for us on January 1, 2016, including interim periods within that reporting period.  Early adoption is permitted.  The adoption of ASU 2015-01 is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

In February 2015, FASB issued ASU No. 2015-02, Consolidation – Amendments to the Consolidation Analysis (“ASU 2015-02”), which modifies the evaluation of whether limited partnerships and similar legal entities are variable interest entities or voting interest entities, eliminates the presumption that a general partner should consolidate a limited partnership, and affects the consolidation analysis by reducing the frequency of application of related party guidance and excluding certain fees in the primary beneficiary determination. The adoption of ASU 2015-02 becomes effective for us on January 1, 2016, including interim periods within that reporting period. Early adoption is permitted. The adoption of ASU 2015-02 is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

In November 2015, FASB issued ASU No. 2015-17, Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes (“ASU 2015-17”), which simplifies the presentation of deferred taxes by requiring deferred tax assets and liabilities to be classified as non-current on a classified balance sheet. The adoption of ASU 2015-17 becomes effective for us on January 1, 2017, including interim periods within that reporting period. ASU 2015-17 may be adopted prospectively or retrospectively and early adoption is permitted.  The adoption of ASU 2015-17 is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

In January 2016, FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, Financial Instruments - Overall: Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities (“ASU 2016-01”), which provides guidance related to accounting for equity investments, financial liabilities under the fair value option, and the presentation and disclosure requirements for financial instruments. In addition, FASB clarified guidance related to the valuation allowance assessment when recognizing deferred tax assets resulting from unrealized losses on available-for-sale debt securities. The adoption of ASU 2016-01 becomes effective for us on January 1, 2018, including interim periods within that reporting period. We are currently in the process of evaluating the impact of the adoption of ASU 2016-01 on our consolidated financial statements.

We do not believe any other recently issued, but not yet effective, accounting pronouncements, if currently adopted, would have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Critical Accounting Policies

An understanding of our critical accounting policies is necessary to understand our financial results. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires our Manager to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of

the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Significant estimates primarily include the determination of credit loss reserves, impairment losses, deferred tax valuation allowances, estimated useful lives and residual values.  Actual results could differ from those estimates. We applied our critical accounting policies and estimation methods consistently in all periods presented.  We consider the following accounting policies to be critical to our business:

·               Lease classification and revenue recognition;

·               Asset impairments;

·               Depreciation;  

·               Notes receivable and revenue recognition;

·               Credit quality of notes receivable and finance leases and credit loss reserve; and

·               Valuation allowance on deferred tax assets or liabilities.

Lease Classification and Revenue Recognition

Each equipment lease we enter into is classified as either a finance lease or an operating lease, based upon the terms of each lease.  The estimated residual value is a critical component of and can directly influence the determination as to whether a lease is classified as an operating or a finance lease.

Our Manager has an investment committee that approves each new equipment lease and other financing transaction. As part of its process, the investment committee determines the estimated residual value, if any, to be used once the investment has been approved.  The factors considered in determining the residual value include, but are not limited to, the creditworthiness of the potential lessee, the type of equipment considered, how the equipment is integrated into the potential lessee’s business, the length of the lease and the industry in which the potential lessee operates.  Residual values are reviewed for impairment in accordance with our impairment review policy.

The residual value assumes, among other things, that the asset is utilized normally in an open, unrestricted and stable market. Short-term fluctuations in the marketplace are disregarded and it is assumed that there is no necessity either to dispose of a significant number of the assets, if held in quantity, simultaneously or to dispose of the asset quickly.  The residual value is calculated using information from various external sources, such as trade publications, auction data, equipment dealers, wholesalers and industry experts, as well as inspection of the physical asset and other economic indicators.

For finance leases, we capitalize, at lease inception, the total minimum lease payments receivable from the lessee, the estimated unguaranteed residual value of the equipment at lease termination and the initial direct costs related to the lease less unearned income.  Unearned income represents the difference between the sum of the minimum lease payments receivable, plus the estimated unguaranteed residual value, minus the cost of the leased equipment.  Unearned income is recognized as finance income over the term of the lease using the effective interest rate method.

For operating leases, rental income is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term.  Billed operating lease receivables are included in accounts receivable until collected or written off. We record a reserve if we deem any receivable not collectible. The difference between the timing of the cash received and the income recognized on a straight-line basis is recognized as either deferred revenue or other assets, as appropriate. Initial direct costs are capitalized as a component of the cost of the equipment and depreciated over the lease term.

Asset Impairments

The significant assets in our portfolio are periodically reviewed, no less frequently than annually or when indicators of impairment exist, to determine whether events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of an asset may not be recoverable. An impairment loss will be recognized only if the carrying value of a long-lived asset is not recoverable and exceeds its fair market value.  If there is an indication of impairment, we will estimate the future cash flows (undiscounted and without interest charges) expected from the use of the asset and its eventual disposition. Future cash flows are the future cash inflows expected to be generated by an asset less the future outflows expected to be necessary to obtain those inflows. If an impairment is determined to exist, the impairment loss will be measured as the amount by which the carrying value of a long-lived asset exceeds its fair value and recorded in the consolidated statements of comprehensive (loss) income in the period the determination is made.

The events or changes in circumstances that generally indicate that an asset may be impaired are (i) the estimated fair value of the underlying asset is less than its carrying value or (ii) the lessee is experiencing financial difficulties and it does not appear likely that the estimated proceeds from the disposition of the asset will be sufficient to satisfy the residual position in the asset.

The preparation of the undiscounted cash flows requires the use of assumptions and estimates, including the level of future rents, the residual value expected to be realized upon disposition of the asset, estimated downtime between re-leasing events and the amount of re-leasing costs. Our Manager’s review for impairment includes a consideration of the existence of impairment indicators including third-party appraisals, published values for similar assets, recent transactions for similar assets, adverse changes in market conditions for specific asset types and the occurrence of significant adverse changes in general industry and market conditions that could affect the fair value of the asset.

Depreciation

We record depreciation expense on equipment when the lease is classified as an operating lease.  In order to calculate depreciation, we first determine the depreciable base, which is the equipment cost less the estimated residual value at lease termination.  Depreciation expense is recorded on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

Notes Receivable and Revenue Recognition

Notes receivable are reported in our consolidated balance sheets at the outstanding principal balance, plus costs incurred to originate the loans, net of any unamortized premiums or discounts on purchased loans. We use the effective interest rate method to recognize finance income, which produces a constant periodic rate of return on the investment. Unearned income, discounts and premiums are amortized to finance income in our consolidated statements of comprehensive (loss) income using the effective interest rate method. Interest receivable related to the unpaid principal is recorded separately from the outstanding balance in our consolidated balance sheets. Upon the prepayment of a note receivable, any prepayment penalties and unamortized loan origination, closing and commitment fees are recorded as part of finance income in our consolidated statements of comprehensive (loss) income. Our notes receivable may contain a paid-in-kind (“PIK”) interest provision. Any PIK interest, if deemed collectible, will be added to the principal balance of the note receivable and is recorded as income.

Credit Quality of Notes Receivable and Finance Leases and Credit Loss Reserve

Our Manager  monitors the ongoing credit quality of our financing receivables by (i) reviewing and analyzing a borrower’s financial performance on a regular basis, including review of financial statements received on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis as prescribed in the loan or lease agreement, (ii) tracking the relevant credit metrics of each financing receivable and a borrower’s compliance with financial and non-financial covenants, (iii) monitoring a borrower’s payment history and public credit rating, if available, and (iv) assessing our exposure based on the current investment mix. As part of the monitoring process, our Manager may physically inspect the collateral or a borrower’s facility and meet with a borrower’s management to better understand such borrower’s financial performance and its future plans on an as-needed basis. 

As our financing receivables, generally notes receivable and finance leases, are limited in number, our Manager is able to estimate the credit loss reserve based on a detailed analysis of each financing receivable as opposed to using portfolio-based metrics. Our Manager does not use a system of assigning internal risk ratings to each of our financing receivables. Rather, each financing receivable is analyzed quarterly and categorized as either performing or non-performing based on certain factors including, but not limited to, financial results, satisfying scheduled payments and compliance with financial covenants. A financing receivable is usually categorized as non-performing only when a borrower experiences financial difficulties and has failed to make scheduled payments. Our Manager then analyzes whether the financing receivable should be placed on a non-accrual status, a credit loss reserve should be established or the financing receivable should be restructured. As part of the assessment, updated collateral value is usually considered and such collateral value can be based on a third party industry expert appraisal or, depending on the type of collateral and accessibility to relevant published guides or market sales data, internally derived fair value. Material events would be specifically disclosed in the discussion of each financing receivable held. 

Financing receivables are generally placed in a non-accrual status when payments are more than 90 days past due. Additionally, our Manager periodically reviews the creditworthiness of companies with payments outstanding less than 90 days and based upon our Manager’s judgment, these accounts may be placed in a non-accrual status.

In accordance with the cost recovery method, payments received on non-accrual financing receivables are applied to principal if there is doubt regarding the ultimate collectability of principal. If collection of the principal of non-accrual financing receivables is not in doubt, interest income is recognized on a cash basis. Financing receivables in non-accrual status may not be restored to accrual status until all delinquent payments have been received, and we believe recovery of the remaining unpaid receivable is probable.

When our Manager  deems it is probable that we will not be able to collect all contractual principal and interest on a non-performing financing receivable, we perform an analysis to determine if a credit loss reserve is necessary. This analysis considers the estimated cash flows from the financing receivable, and/or the collateral value of the asset underlying the financing receivable when financing receivable repayment is collateral dependent. If it is determined that the impaired value of the non-performing financing receivable is less than the net carrying value, we will recognize a credit loss reserve or adjust the existing credit loss reserve with a corresponding charge to earnings.  We then charge off a financing receivable in the period that it is deemed uncollectible by reducing the credit loss reserve and the balance of the financing receivable.

Valuation allowance on deferred tax assets or liabilities

Some of our wholly-owned foreign subsidiaries are taxed as corporations in their local tax jurisdictions. For these entities, we use the asset and liability method of accounting for income taxes. Under this method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on differences between financial reporting and tax basis of assets and liabilities. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates and laws that will be in effect when the differences are expected to reverse. Valuation allowances are established when it is determined that it is more likely than not that the deferred tax assets will not be realized.

Results of Operations for the Years Ended December 31, 2015 (“2015”) and 2014 (“2014”)

The following percentages are only as of a stated period and are not expected to be comparable in future periods.  Further, these percentages are only representative of the percentage of the carrying value of such assets, finance income or rental income as of each stated period, and as such are not indicative of the concentration of any asset type or customer by the amount of equity invested or our investment portfolio as a whole.  

Financing Transactions

The following tables set forth the types of assets securing the financing transactions in our portfolio:

The net carrying value of our financing transactions represents the balance of our net investment in notes receivable as of each reporting date.

During 2015, we did not recognize any finance income. During 2014, certain customers generated significant portions (defined as 10% or more) of our total finance income as follows:

Interest income from our net investment in notes receivable is included in finance income in our consolidated statements of comprehensive (loss) income.

Non-performing Assets within Financing Transactions

As of December 31, 2014, the net carrying value of our non-accrual loans related to ZIM was $5,350,503. The loans, which matured on September 30, 2014, were placed on non-accrual status during the three months ended March 31, 2014. While there was no credit loss reserve recorded for the loans, we recorded a total accrued obligation of $5,350,503 related to

the seller’s credits in light of the denial of the right to appeal the arbitration panel’s ruling (see “Commitments and Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Transactions” below). No finance income was recognized in 2015. Finance income recognized on the loans in 2014 prior to being placed on non-accrual status was $128,955. On January 19, 2015, we entered into a letter of mutual release with ZIM to release and discharge ZIM’s obligation on our notes receivable as well as our accrued obligation on the seller’s credits in the same amount.

Operating Lease Transaction

The following tables set forth the type of equipment subject to the operating lease in our portfolio:

The net carrying value of our operating lease transaction represents the balance of our leased equipment at cost as of each reporting date.

During 2015 and 2014, one customer generated all of our total rental income as follows:

Revenue and other income for 2015 and 2014 is summarized as follows:

Total revenue and other (loss) income for 2015 decreased $15,401,541, or 142.9%, as compared to 2014. The decrease was primarily due to (i) the loss from investment in joint ventures in 2015 as compared to income in 2014 due to the credit loss recorded during 2015 by our joint venture related to JAC (see “Significant Transactions” above), (ii) a decrease in rental income primarily due to the expiration of our lease with Murray during 2015 and (iii) a decrease in finance income primarily due to prepayments of secured term loans by SAE and NTS during 2014. The decrease was partially offset by a gain recognized on the sale of assets previously on lease to Murray during 2015 as compared to a loss recognized on the sale of assets previously on lease to Heuliez during 2014.

Expenses for 2015 and 2014 are summarized as follows:

Total expenses for 2015 decreased $2,317,922, or 24.1%, as compared to 2014.  The decrease in total expenses was primarily due to (i) a decrease in depreciation expense as a result of the sale of assets previously on lease to Murray during 2015, (ii) a loss on litigation recorded during 2014 as a result of the ZIM arbitration ruling and subsequent denial of the right to appeal (see “Commitments and Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Transactions” below) and (iii) an impairment loss recognized during 2014 related to equipment previously on lease to Heuliez with no comparable impairment loss recognized during 2015. These decreases were partially offset by the gain on disposition of assets of foreign investment in 2014 due to the sale of equipment previously on lease to Heuliez, with no comparable gain in 2015.

Income Tax Expense

Certain of our direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries are unlimited liability companies and are taxed as corporations under the laws of Canada. Other indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries are taxed as corporations in Barbados. For 2015, income tax expense of $15,793 was primarily due to state withholding income taxes on income related to Murray, partially offset by a favorable foreign exchange fluctuation on our foreign withholding tax payable. For 2014, income tax expense of $113,983 was due to withholding taxes related to Teal Jones distributions.

Net Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests

Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests increased $142,277, from $338,538 in 2014 to $480,815 in 2015. The increase was primarily due to the gain on sale of equipment previously on lease to Murray during 2015.

Other Comprehensive Loss

Other comprehensive loss for 2015 and 2014 was $0 and $279,991, respectively. This change was primarily due to the release of the accumulation of currency translation adjustments in connection with the sale of equipment previously on lease to Heuliez during 2014 and unfavorable movements in foreign currency exchange rates related to Heuliez in 2014.

Net (Loss) Income Attributable to Fund Eleven

As a result of the foregoing factors, net (loss) income attributable to us for 2015 and 2014 was $(12,424,431) and $703,275, respectively.  Net (loss) income attributable to us per weighted average additional Share outstanding for 2015 and 2014 was $(33.92) and $1.92, respectively.

Financial Condition

This section discusses the major balance sheet variances at December 31, 2015 compared to December 31, 2014.

Total Assets

Total assets decreased $27,689,554, from $33,574,889 at December 31, 2014 to $5,885,335 at December 31, 2015. The decrease was primarily the result of (i) the use of existing cash and cash generated from our investments to pay distributions to our members and noncontrolling interests, (ii) our share of the net loss from our joint venture related to JAC, (iii) our release and discharge during 2015 of ZIM’s obligation on the notes receivable that was due in full as of December 31, 2014 (see “Commitments and Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Transactions” below) and (iv) depreciation recognized in 2015 related to the equipment previously on lease to Murray.

Current Assets

Current assets decreased $8,620,398, from $12,407,204 at December 31, 2014 to $3,786,806 at December 31, 2015. The decrease was primarily due to our release and discharge during 2015 of ZIM’s obligation on the notes receivable that was due in full as of December 31, 2014 (see “Commitments and Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Transactions” below) and a decrease in cash to pay distributions and operating expenses during 2015.

Total Liabilities

Total liabilities decreased $5,858,400, from $6,439,526 at December 31, 2014 to $581,126 at December 31, 2015. The decrease was primarily a result of ZIM’s release and discharge during 2015 of our accrued obligation on the seller’s credits (see “Commitments and Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Transactions” below) and satisfying the remarketing liability associated with the equipment previously on lease to Murray in 2015.

Equity

Equity decreased $21,831,154, from $27,135,363 at December 31, 2014 to $5,304,209 at December 31, 2015. The decrease was due to our net loss during 2015 and distributions paid to our members and noncontrolling interests.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Summary

At December 31, 2015 and 2014, we had cash and cash equivalents of $3,459,766 and $7,056,701, respectively. During the year ended December 31, 2015, our main source of cash was from collections on our operating lease and proceeds from the sale of leased equipment. Our main use of cash was distributions to our members and noncontrolling interests. During our liquidation period, which commenced on May 1, 2014, we expect our main sources of cash will be from the collection of income and proceeds from the sale of assets held directly by us or indirectly by our joint ventures and our main use of cash will be for distributions to our members and noncontrolling interests. Our liquidity will vary in the future, increasing to the extent cash flows from investments and proceeds from the sale of our investments exceed expenses and decreasing as we pay distributions and to the extent that expenses exceed cash flows from operations and the proceeds from the sale of our investments.

We anticipate being able to meet our liquidity requirements into the foreseeable future using cash on hand as of December 31, 2015. Our ability to generate cash in the future is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, regulatory and other factors that affect us and our lessees’ and borrowers’ businesses that are beyond our control.

Pursuant to the terms of our offering, we established a cash reserve in the amount of 0.5% of the gross offering proceeds.  As of December 31, 2015, the cash reserve was $1,825,993.

As we previously indicated to our members, we experienced liquidity pressures in our portfolio after the U.S. economy entered into a recession in December 2007, coupled with our prior investment strategy that, among other things, relied significantly on third parties to originate investments, used a substantial amount of long-term debt to make investments, and was highly dependent on the residual value of equipment to achieve investment returns. As a result, we reduced our distribution rate from 9.1% per year to 4.0% per year effective January 1, 2011 through April 2012. We extended our operating period two years and did not pay any distributions during this extended operating period. We commenced our liquidation period on May 1, 2014, which has continued for more than one year. While we believe that these actions taken by our Manager have improved our financial position, we will be unable to meet our investment objectives.

Cash Flows

The following table sets forth summary cash flow data:

Note: See the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows included in “Item 8. Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information.

Operating Activities

Cash provided by operating activities decreased $5,399,590, from $8,716,290 in 2014 to $3,316,700 in 2015. This decrease was primarily a result of (i) the collection of an income tax receivable related to Teal Jones in 2014, (ii) a decrease in rental receipts due to the expiration of an operating lease in 2015 and the sale of our interest in an operating lease in 2014, (iii) a decrease in finance income receipts due to the prepayment of two notes receivable in 2014 and (iv) the timing of payments of our liabilities.

Investing Activities

Cash provided by investing activities decreased $9,635,735, from $12,609,638 in 2014 to $2,973,903 in 2015. This decrease was primarily due to the prepayment of two notes receivable in 2014, partially offset by higher proceeds received from the sale of leased equipment during 2015 as compared to 2014.

Financing Activities

Cash used in financing activities decreased $20,863,080, from $30,750,618 in 2014 to $9,887,538 in 2015. This decrease was due to lower distributions paid to our members during 2015 as compared to 2014.

Financing and Borrowings

Revolving Line of Credit, Recourse

We entered into an agreement with California Bank & Trust (“CB&T”) for a revolving line of credit through March 31, 2015 of up to $5,000,000 (the “Facility”), which was secured by all of our assets not subject to a first priority lien. Amounts available under the Facility were subject to a borrowing base that was determined, subject to certain limitations, by the present value of future receivables under certain loans and lease agreements in which we had a beneficial interest.

The interest rate for general advances under the Facility was CB&T’s prime rate. We could have elected to designate up to five advances on the outstanding principal balance of the Facility to bear interest at the current London Interbank Offered Rate plus 2.5% per year. In all instances, borrowings under the Facility were subject to an interest rate floor of 4.0% per year. In addition, we were obligated to pay an annualized 0.5% fee on unused commitments under the Facility.

On January 8, 2014, the Facility with CB&T was terminated. There were no obligations outstanding as of the date of the termination.

Distributions

We, at our Manager’s discretion, paid monthly distributions to our members and noncontrolling interests starting with the first month after each member’s admission and the commencement of our joint venture operations, respectively. We paid distributions to our additional members of $6,999,866 and $28,004,466 for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. We paid distributions to our Manager of $70,705 and $282,873 for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Additionally, we paid distributions to our noncontrolling interests of $2,816,967 and $2,463,279 for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Distributions paid during the liquidation period will vary, depending on the timing of the sale of our asset and/or the maturity of our investment and our receipt of finance and other income from our investment.

Commitments and Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Transactions

Commitments and Contingencies

At the time we acquire or divest of our interest in an equipment lease or other financing transaction, we may, under very limited circumstances, agree to indemnify the seller or buyer for specific contingent liabilities. Our Manager believes that any liability of ours that may arise as a result of any such indemnification obligations will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations taken as a whole.

From November 2010 through March 2011, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiaries, sold four container vessels

previously on bareboat charter to ZIM to unaffiliated third parties. During June 2011, we received notices from ZIM claiming it was allegedly owed various amounts for unpaid seller’s credits in the aggregate amount of approximately $7,300,000. Our Manager believed any obligation to repay the seller’s credits was extinguished when ZIM defaulted by failing to fulfill certain of its obligations under the bareboat charters. On August 8, 2011, our Manager agreed to a three party arbitration panel to hear such claims. On April 19, 2012, ZIM filed arbitration claim submissions. On June 26, 2012, our Manager filed a defense and counterclaim. On February 21, 2014, the arbitration panel ruled that the seller’s credits were forfeited by virtue of ZIM’s default but that such forfeiture was not proved to be an accurate representation of genuine loss suffered from such default and thus, could not be enforced under English law. Taking into consideration the arbitration panel’s ruling, we accrued $4,700,000 during the year ended December 31, 2013. We filed for the right to appeal the arbitration panel’s ruling, which was denied on August 7, 2014. In light of such denial, we increased our accrual to $5,350,503 during the year ended December 31, 2014, which is included in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. On January 19, 2015, we entered into a letter of mutual release with ZIM to release and discharge ZIM’s obligation on our notes receivable that was due in full as of December 31, 2014, as well as our accrued obligation on the seller’s credits in the same amount.

During 2008, ICON EAR purchased and simultaneously leased semiconductor manufacturing equipment to EAR for $15,729,500. In addition, ICON EAR II purchased and simultaneously leased semiconductor manufacturing equipment to EAR for a purchase price of $6,347,500.  On October 23, 2009, EAR filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. On October 21, 2011, the Chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee for EAR filed an adversary complaint against the ICON EAR entities seeking the recovery of the lease payments that the trustee alleged were fraudulently transferred from EAR to the ICON EAR entities. The complaint also sought the recovery of payments made by EAR to the ICON EAR entities during the 90-day period preceding EAR’s bankruptcy filing, alleging that those payments constituted a preference under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Additionally, the complaint sought the imposition of a constructive trust over certain real property and the proceeds from the sale that the ICON EAR entities received as security in connection with their investment. Our Manager filed an answer to the complaint that included certain affirmative defenses. Since that time, substantial discovery was completed. Our Manager still believes these claims are unsupported by the facts, but given the risks, costs and uncertainty surrounding litigation in bankruptcy, our Manager would engage in prudent settlement discussions to resolve this matter expeditiously. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of this action or loss therefrom, if any; however, an adverse ruling or settlement may have a material impact on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

Subsequent to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, EAR disclaimed any right to its equipment and such equipment became the subject of an Illinois State Court proceeding. The equipment was subsequently sold as part of the Illinois State Court proceeding. On March 6, 2012, one of the creditors in the Illinois State Court proceeding won a summary judgment motion filed against the ICON EAR entities, thereby dismissing the ICON EAR entities’ claims to the proceeds resulting from the sale of the EAR equipment. The ICON EAR entities appealed this decision. On September 16, 2013, the lower court’s ruling was affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court. On October 21, 2013, the ICON EAR entities filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Supreme Court of Illinois appealing the decision of the Illinois Appellate Court, which petition was denied on January 29, 2014.

On January 4, 2012, MW Universal, Inc. (“MWU”) and certain of its subsidiaries satisfied their obligations relating to two of the three lease schedules. On August 20, 2012, we sold the automotive manufacturing equipment subject to lease with LC Manufacturing, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of MWU (“LC Manufacturing”), and terminated warrants issued to us for aggregate proceeds of approximately $8,300,000. As a result, based on our 6.33% ownership interest in ICON MW, LLC (“ICON MW”), our joint venture with Fund Twelve, we received proceeds in the amount of approximately $525,000 and recognized a loss on the sale of approximately $6,000. In addition, our Manager evaluated the collectability of the personal guaranty of a previous owner of LC Manufacturing and, based on the findings, ICON MW recorded a credit loss of approximately $5,411,000, of which our portion was approximately $343,000. In February 2013, ICON MW commenced an action against the guarantor. On October 5, 2015, ICON MW received summary judgment against the guarantor on the issue of liability. A hearing to determine damages is scheduled for May 2016. 

In 2011, Kreif Group (“Kreif”) entered into an agreement with ICON French Equipment I, LLC, our wholly owned subsidiary (“ICON French Equipment”), to acquire certain assets from ICON French Equipment.  Subsequently, Kreif breached its purchase obligation to acquire such assets, which resulted in ICON French Equipment filing a legal claim against Kreif.  In 2013, a court awarded ICON French Equipment €1,484,956 to be paid over a period of 10 years.  Gain on litigation will be recognized to the extent cash is received. We received our first payment of €74,248 (USD $82,298) on April 1, 2015.

Off-Balance Sheet Transactions

None.

Inflation and Interest Rates

As of December 31, 2015, we have one investment in a note receivable held through a joint venture that contains a fixed interest rate. If interest rates increase or decrease, our note receivable held through this joint venture would not be affected.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

Smaller reporting companies are not required to provide the information required by this item.

Item 8. Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Members

ICON Leasing Fund Eleven, LLC

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of ICON Leasing Fund Eleven, LLC (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of comprehensive (loss) income, changes in equity and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2015. Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15(a)(2). These financial statements and schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and schedule based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of ICON Leasing Fund Eleven, LLC at December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2015, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York

March 25, 2016