Commitments and Contingencies
|12 Months Ended|
Dec. 31, 2013
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
Commitments and Contingencies
We lease office space and equipment under capital and operating leases that expire at various times through 2020. We recognize lease expense for these leases on a straight-line basis over the lease terms.
The assets under capital lease are as follows:
Aggregate annual rental commitments at December 31, 2013, under operating leases with initial or remaining non-cancelable lease terms greater than one year are as follows:
Rent expense was $9.7 million, $8.4 million and $7.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
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 December 31, 2013 or 2012.
In the ordinary course of our business, we enter into standard indemnification provisions in our agreements with our customers. Pursuant to these provisions, we indemnify our customers 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 such claims by designing a non-infringing alternative, by obtaining a license on reasonable terms, or by terminating our relationship with the customer and refunding the customer’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 indemnity provisions is minimal, and, accordingly, we had no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of December 31, 2013 or 2012.
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.
We review the status of each matter and record a provision for a liability when we consider both that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and that the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available. If either or both of the criteria are not met, we assess whether there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional losses beyond those already accrued, may be incurred. If there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss (or additional material loss in excess of any existing accrual) may be incurred, we disclose an estimate of the amount of loss or range of losses, either individually or in the aggregate, as appropriate, if such an estimate can be made, or disclose that an estimate of loss cannot be made. An unfavorable outcome in any legal matter, if material, could have an adverse effect on our operations, financial position, liquidity and results of operations.
On January 24, 2011, Yardi Systems, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against RealPage, Inc. and DC Consulting, Inc. (the “Yardi Lawsuit”). We answered and filed counterclaims against Yardi, and on July 1, 2012, the Company and Yardi entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) resolving all outstanding litigation between the parties. The Settlement Agreement also includes a license of certain Yardi intellectual property to the Company and a license of certain of our intellectual property to Yardi.
The Settlement Agreement is a multiple element arrangement for accounting purposes. The Company identified each element of the arrangement and determined when those elements should be recognized. The Company allocated the consideration to each element using the estimated fair value of the elements. The Company considered several factors in determining the accounting fair value of the elements of the Settlement Agreement. The inputs and assumptions used in this valuation were from a market participant perspective and included projected revenue, estimated discount rates, useful lives and income tax rates, among others. The development of a number of these inputs and assumptions in the model requires a significant amount of management judgment and is based upon a number of factors. Changes in any number of these assumptions may have had a substantial impact on the fair value as assigned to each element. These inputs and assumptions represent management’s best estimates at the time of the transaction. Based on the estimated fair value, we have recognized the following: $3.0 million for the license from Yardi, which was capitalized as an intangible asset upon execution of the Settlement Agreement and amortized as a cost of revenue over its estimated useful life, beginning in July 2012; $1.0 million for the license sold to Yardi, which will be recognized as revenue over the estimated useful life of the technology, beginning in July 2012; and $8.5 million inclusive of the settlement and other related legal costs, which were expensed in the second quarter of 2012.
In connection with the Yardi Lawsuit, the Company made claims for reimbursement against each of its primary and excess layer general liability and errors and omissions liability insurance carriers. Each of our primary and excess layer errors and omissions liability insurance carriers other than Homeland Insurance of New York (“Homeland”) reimbursed the Company up to each of its policy limits. On July 19, 2012, we became aware of assertions by one of our primary layer errors and omissions insurance carriers, Ace European Group, Ltd. d/b/a Ace European Group, Barbican Syndicate 1995 at Lloyds’s (“Ace”), that Ace no longer considered the previously reimbursed $5.0 million payment covered under such policy, and that Ace demanded reimbursement of the $5.0 million payment that it had previously reimbursed to us. On August 12, 2012, our first excess layer errors and omissions insurance carrier, Axis Surplus Insurance Company (“Axis”), informed us that if Ace’s policy is deemed void, then Axis’ first excess layer policy was void on the same basis which would result in the Company’s obligation to reimburse to Axis $5.0 million in payments that Axis had previously reimbursed to us. The Company disputes these assertions by these carriers and intends to vigorously protect its coverage. Accordingly, on August 14, 2012, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Ace and Axis (the “Ace Lawsuit”) seeking a declaration by the court that Ace and Axis have no right to, and no lawful reason to demand reimbursement of, the amounts paid to the Company’s counsel in connection with the Yardi Lawsuit. On September 5, 2012, Ace filed a motion to dismiss the Ace Lawsuit and on September 6, 2012, defendant Axis filed a motion to dismiss the Ace Lawsuit. On September 24, 2012, the Company filed our opposition to the motions to dismiss and separately filed our motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that each of Ace’s and Axis’ notice of rescission was untimely under applicable statutory law. On May 20, 2013, the court entered an order directing the parties to engage in the alternative dispute resolution procedure set forth in the policies at issue, and staying the lawsuit until such procedure has been completed. The court did not rule on the substance of Company’s motion for summary judgment, denying that motion with leave to re-file if the court-ordered non-binding dispute resolution procedures do not result in a settlement of the action. On February 25, 2014, RealPage and Axis entered into a confidential settlement and mutual release of claims, as a result of which Axis was dismissed from the Ace Lawsuit. On February 28, 2014, the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment and another related motion against Ace. We intend to continue to pursue coverage and other appropriate relief in connection with the Ace insurance policies. We believe that it is remote that we will have a material loss in connection with the settlement or the reimbursement demands.
We are involved in other litigation matters not listed above but we believe that any reasonably possible adverse outcome of these matters would not be material either individually or in the aggregate at this time. Our view of the matters not listed may change in the future as the litigation and events related thereto unfold.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef