Commitments and Contingencies
|9 Months Ended|
Sep. 30, 2017
|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. At September 30, 2017, minimum annual rental commitments under non-cancellable operating leases were as follows for the years ending December 31, in thousands:
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 September 30, 2017 or December 31, 2016.
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 September 30, 2017 or December 31, 2016.
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 our 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. On October 19, 2016, the U.S. District Court denied the motion to dismiss.
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. On October 19, 2016, the U.S. District Court denied the motion to dismiss.
On June 19, 2017, the court in both the Stokes case and Jenkins case consolidated the cases for purposes of settlement. On June 30, 2017, the parties signed a Settlement Agreement and Release covering both cases and the plaintiffs in the consolidated cases filed an uncontested motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement and the notice to the class. On August 3, 2017, the court issued a written order preliminarily approving the proposed class settlement. The final approval hearing is set for February 6, 2018.
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 responded to the request and requests for additional information by the FTC. On November 2, 2017, the FTC staff informed us of its belief that there is a basis for claims that could include monetary and injunctive relief against us for failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of our tenant screening reports. We are continuing to assess the matter and plan to have further discussions with the FTC. We believe that our business practices did not, and do not, violate the FCRA or any other laws, and we intend to vigorously defend our position. However, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter at this time.
At September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we had accrued amounts for estimated settlement losses related to legal matters. The Company does not believe there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss exceeding amounts already recognized may have been incurred as of the date of the balance sheets presented herein.
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