Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

The following table summarizes the Company’s future principal contractual obligations as of December 31, 2011 (in millions):



			Years Ending December 31,
	Total		2012		2013		2014		2015		2016		Thereafter		Other
Operating leases	$	352.7	$	57.9	$	50.8	$	63.8	$	53.4	$	26.6	$	100.2	$	—
Purchase commitments	150.6		150.6		—		—		—		—		—		—
Tax liabilities	108.5		—		—		—		—		—		—		108.5
Long-term debt	1,000.0		—		—		—		—		300.0		700.0		—
Interest payment on long-term debt	873.1		46.9		46.9		46.9		46.9		41.9		643.6		—
Other contractual obligations	73.1		63.3		4.8		3.0		2.0		—		—		—
Total	$	2,558.0	$	318.7	$	102.5	$	113.7	$	102.3	$	368.5	$	1,443.8	$	108.5

Operating Leases

The Company leases its facilities under operating leases that expire at various times, the longest of which expires on November 30, 2022. Future minimum payments under the non-cancelable operating leases totaled $352.7 million as of December 31, 2011. Rent expense for 2011, 2010, and 2009 was approximately $65.7 million, $55.9 million, and $56.5 million, respectively.

Purchase Commitments

In order to reduce manufacturing lead times and ensure adequate component supply, contract manufacturers utilized by the Company place non-cancelable, non-returnable (“NCNR”) orders for components based on the Company’s build forecasts. As of December 31, 2011, there were NCNR component orders placed by the contract manufacturers with a value of $150.6 million. The contract manufacturers use the components to build products based on the Company’s forecasts and customer purchase orders received by the Company. Generally, the Company does not own the components and title to the products transfers from the contract manufacturers to the Company and immediately to the Company’s customers upon delivery at a designated shipment location. If the components remain unused or the products remain unsold for specified periods, the Company may incur carrying charges or obsolete materials charges for components that the contract manufacturers purchased to build products to meet the Company’s forecast or customer orders. As of December 31, 2011, the Company had accrued $14.8 million based on its estimate of such charges.

Tax Liabilities

As of December 31, 2011, the Company had $108.5 million included in long-term liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet for unrecognized tax positions. At this time, the Company is unable to make a reasonably reliable estimate of the timing of payments related to the $108.5 million due to uncertainties in the timing of tax audit outcomes.

Long-Term Debt and Interest Payment on Long-Term Debt

As of December 31, 2011, the Company held long-term debt with a carrying value of $999.0 million. Of these Notes, $300.0 million will mature in 2016 and bears interest at a fixed rate of 3.10%, $300.0 million will mature in 2021 and bears interest at a fixed rate of 4.60%, and $400.0 million will mature in 2041 and bears interest at 5.95%. Interest on the Notes is payable semiannually. See Note 10, Financing, for further discussion of the Company's long-term debt.

Other Contractual Obligations

As of December 31, 2011, other contractual obligations primarily consisted of $25.1 million in indemnity-related and service related escrows, required by certain acquisitions completed in 2005, 2010 and 2011, $30.7 million in obligations related to a office campus build-out adjacent to the Company's headquarters, and other miscellaneous commitments.

Guarantees

The Company enters into agreements with customers that contain indemnification provisions relating to potential situations where claims could be alleged that the Company’s products infringe the intellectual property rights of a third-party. The Company also has financial guarantees consisting of guarantees of product and service performance, guarantees related to third-party customer-financing arrangements, customs and duties guarantees, and standby letters of credit for certain lease facilities. As of December 31, 2011, and 2010, the Company had $19.9 million and $21.6 million, respectively, in bank guarantees and standby letters of credit related to these financial guarantees.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved in disputes, litigation, and other legal actions, including, but not limited to, the matters described below. The Company is aggressively defending its current litigation matters, and while the Company currently believes that there are no existing claims or proceedings that are likely to have a material adverse effect on its financial position, the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable. There are many uncertainties associated with any litigation, and these actions or other third-party claims against the Company may cause the Company to incur costly litigation and/or substantial settlement charges. In addition, the resolution of any intellectual property litigation may require the Company to make royalty payments, which could adversely affect gross margins in future periods. If any of those events were to occur, the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely affected. The actual liability in any such matters may be materially different from the Company's estimates, which could result in the need to adjust the liability and record additional expenses.

IPO Allocation Case

In December 2001, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., Royal Bank of Canada (Dain Rauscher Wessels), SG Cowen Securities Corporation, UBS Warburg LLC (Warburg Dillon Read LLC), Chase (Hambrecht & Quist LLC), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Lehman Brothers, Inc., Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated (collectively, the “Underwriters”), Juniper Networks and certain of Juniper Networks' officers. This action was brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock in its initial public offering in June 1999 and the Company's secondary offering in September 1999. Specifically, among other things, this complaint alleged that the prospectus pursuant to which shares of common stock were sold in the Company's initial public offering and the Company's subsequent secondary offering contained certain false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the practices of the Underwriters with respect to their allocation of shares of common stock in these offerings and their receipt of commissions from customers related to such allocations. Various plaintiffs have filed actions asserting similar allegations concerning the initial public offerings of approximately 300 other issuers. These various cases pending in the Southern District of New York have been coordinated for pretrial proceedings as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92. In April 2002, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the action against the Company, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The defendants in the coordinated proceeding filed motions to dismiss. On February 19, 2003, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, but declined to dismiss the claims against the Company.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation. Under the settlement, the insurers are to pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company will bear no financial liability. The Company and other defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case. In October 2009, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting final approval of the settlement. Certain objectors appealed; these appeals have now been dismissed or withdrawn. As a result, the case is now settled.

2011 Federal Securities Class Action

On August 15, 2011, a purported securities class action lawsuit, captioned City of Royal Oak Retirement System v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-04003-LHK, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California naming the Company and certain of its officers and directors as defendants. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. On January 9, 2012 the Court appointed City of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System and City of Bristol Pension Fund as lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2012. The amended complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements about Juniper's business and future prospects, and failed to adequately disclose the impact of certain changes in accounting rules. The amended complaint purports to assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Juniper's common stock between July 20, 2010 and July 26, 2011, inclusive.

2011 California State Derivative Lawsuits

Between August 22 and September 9, 2011, four purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, naming certain of the Company's officers and directors as defendants. The Company is named only as a nominal defendant in the actions. The actions were consolidated as In re Juniper Networks, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 1-11-CV-207701 (Lead Case), by order dated September 12, 2011. The complaints are generally based upon the disclosures and alleged omissions challenged in the securities class action. The complaints purport to assert claims against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The complaints seek, among other relief, damages in an unspecified amount, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs.

2011 Federal Derivative Lawsuit

On September 27, 2011 and December 28, 2011, two purported shareholder derivative actions, captioned Ratinova v. Johnson, et al., Case No. 11-cv-04792 and Lisa E. Coppola, ERA v. Johnson, et al., Case No. 11-cv-06667, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California naming certain of the Company's officers and directors as defendants. The Company is named only as a nominal defendant in the action. Like the state derivative actions, the federal derivative lawsuits are generally based upon the disclosures and alleged omissions challenged in the securities class action. The complaints purport to assert claims against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. The complaints seek, among other relief, damages in an unspecified amount, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs. By order dated January 30, 2012, the Court consolidated the actions as In re Juniper Networks, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Master File No. 11-cv-04792-LHK. On February 3, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation in which the parties requested that the Court stay the action until such time as the Court entered an order denying a motion to dismiss in the related federal securities class action described above. On February 6, 2012, the Court granted the parties' stipulation.

IRS Notices of Proposed Adjustments

In May 2011, as a result of its audit of the Company's U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2005 and 2006 fiscal years, the IRS issued a Preliminary Notice of Deficiency (“PNOD”) regarding the Company's transfer pricing transactions under its intercompany R&D cost sharing arrangement related to the license of intangibles acquired in 2005. The asserted changes would affect the Company's income tax liabilities for tax years subsequent to 2004. Because of the PNOD, the estimated incremental tax liabilities for all relative tax years would be approximately $92.0 million, excluding interest and penalties. The Company has filed a protest to the proposed deficiency with the IRS, which is under review by the Appeals Division of the IRS.

In 2009, the Company received a PNOD from the IRS claiming that the Company owes additional taxes, plus interest and possible penalties, for the 2004 tax year based on a transfer pricing transaction related to the license of acquired intangibles under an intercompany R&D cost sharing arrangement. The asserted changes to the Company's 2004 tax year would affect the Company's income tax liabilities in tax years subsequent to 2003. In addition, the Company has not reached a final resolution with the IRS on an adjustment the IRS proposed for the 1999 and 2000 tax years. Because of the PNOD, the estimated incremental tax liability would be approximately $807.0 million, excluding interest and penalties. The Company has filed a protest to the proposed deficiency with the IRS, which is under review by the Appeals Division of the IRS.

The Company strongly believes the IRS' position with regard to transfer pricing transactions for the Company's 2004 through 2006 fiscal years are inconsistent with applicable tax laws, judicial precedent and existing Treasury regulations, and that the Company's previously reported income tax provisions for the years in question are appropriate. However, there can be no assurance that these matters will be resolved in the Company's favor. Regardless of whether these matters are resolved in the Company's favor, the final resolution of these matters could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and/or settle. While the Company believes it has provided adequately for these matters, there is still a possibility that an adverse outcome from these matters could have a material effect on its results of operations and financial condition.

In September 2008, as part of its ongoing audit of the U.S. federal income tax return for the 2004 fiscal year, the IRS issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment (“NOPA”) regarding the Company's business credits. The Company believes that it has adequately provided for any reasonable foreseeable outcome related to this proposed adjustment.

The Company is also under routine examination by certain state and non-U.S. tax authorities. The Company believes that it has adequately provided for any reasonably foreseeable outcome related to these audits.