Commitments and Contingencies
|6 Months Ended|
Jun. 30, 2016
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
Commitments and Contingencies
The Company leases office facilities and equipment for various terms under long-term, non-cancellable operating lease agreements. The leases expire at various dates through 2028 and provide for renewal options. The agreements generally require the Company to pay for executory costs such as real estate taxes, insurance, and repairs.
In connection with the acquisition of NWP, the Company assumed non-cancellable operating leases for equipment and office space. Office leases assumed include locations in Costa Mesa, California; Tampa, Florida; Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Bloomington, Minnesota. The office leases expire at various dates through 2020 and have terms substantially similar to our other office leasing arrangements. Some of the lease agreements assumed contain provisions for future rent increases. For these leases, the total amount of rental payments due over the lease term is charged to rent expense on the straight-line method over the term of the lease. The difference between rent expense recorded and the amount paid is credited or charged to “Accrued lease liability,” which is included in “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities” or “Other long-term liabilities” in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, depending upon when the liability is expected to be relieved.
Equipment leases assumed by the Company include leases for equipment used in the general operation of the business and have lease terms expiring throughout 2020. These agreements have terms substantially similar to our other equipment leasing arrangements.
Minimum annual rental commitments under non-cancellable operating leases and total minimum rentals to be received under non-cancellable subleases, including leases assumed in business combinations, were as follows at June 30, 2016:
We have agreements whereby we indemnify our officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is or was serving at our request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer or director’s lifetime. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, we have a director and officer insurance policy that limits our exposure and enables us to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. As a result of our insurance policy coverage, we believe the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. Accordingly, we had no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of June 30, 2016 or December 31, 2015.
In the ordinary course of our business, we include standard indemnification provisions in our agreements with clients. Pursuant to these provisions, we indemnify our clients for losses suffered or incurred in connection with third-party claims that our products infringed upon any U.S. patent, copyright, trademark or other intellectual property right. Where applicable, we generally limit such infringement indemnities to those claims directed solely to our products and not in combination with other software or products. With respect to our products, we also generally reserve the right to resolve any such claims by designing a non-infringing alternative, by obtaining a license on reasonable terms or by terminating our relationship with the client and refunding the client’s fees.
The potential amount of future payments to defend lawsuits or settle indemnified claims under these indemnification provisions is unlimited in certain agreements; however, we believe the estimated fair value of these indemnification provisions is minimal, and, accordingly, we had no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of June 30, 2016 or December 31, 2015.
From time to time, in the normal course of our business, we are a party to litigation matters and claims. Litigation can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and our view of these matters may change in the future as the litigation and events related thereto unfold. We expense legal fees as incurred. Insurance recoveries associated with legal costs incurred are recorded when they are deemed probable of recovery.
In March 2015, we were named in a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled Stokes v. RealPage, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01520. The claims in this purported class action relate to alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) in connection with background screens of prospective tenants of our clients. On January 25, 2016, the court entered an order placing the case on hold until the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which case addressed issues related to standing to bring claims related to the FCRA. On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Spokeo litigation, vacating the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remanding the case for further consideration by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, the judge in the Stokes case lifted the stay. On June 24, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss certain claims made in the case based upon the Spokeo decision. The motion to dismiss is pending before the U.S. District Court. We intend to defend this case vigorously.
In November 2014, we were named in a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, styled Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc., Case No. 3:14cv758. The claims in this purported class action relate to alleged violations of the FCRA in connection with background screens of prospective tenants of our clients. This case has since been transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On January 25, 2016, the court entered an order placing the case on hold until the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the Spokeo case. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, the judge in the Jenkins case lifted the stay. On June 24, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss certain claims made in the case based upon the Spokeo decision. The motion to dismiss is pending before the U.S. District Court. We intend to defend this case vigorously.
On February 23, 2015, we received from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) a Civil Investigative Demand consisting of interrogatories and a request to produce documents relating to our compliance with the FCRA. We have responded to the request and requests for additional information by the FTC. At this time, we do not have sufficient information to evaluate the likelihood or merits of any potential enforcement action, or to predict the outcome or costs of responding to, or the costs, if any, of resolving this investigation.
At June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we had accrued amounts for estimated settlement losses related to legal matters.
We are involved in other litigation matters not described above that are not likely to be material either individually or in the aggregate based on information available at this time. Our view of these matters may change as the litigation and events related thereto unfold.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef