9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

We have certain other obligations for various contractual agreements that secure future rights to goods and services to be used in the normal course of operations. These include purchase commitments for printing outsource agreements, planned capital expenditures, lease commitments and self‑ insurance obligations.

The following table summarizes our minimum annual contractual obligations as of December 27, 2015:


	Payments Due By Period
(in thousands)	2016		2017		2018		2019		2020		Thereafter		Total
Purchase obligations (1)	$	19,364	$	10,035	$	6,669	$	5,829	$	5,031	$	23,581	$	70,509
Operating leases (2)
Lease obligations		11,467		10,146		8,819		7,122		5,219		24,735		67,508
Sublease income		(3,336)		(2,342)		(1,441)		(1,028)		(611)		(1,748)		(10,506)
Net lease obligation		8,131		7,804		7,378		6,094		4,608		22,987		57,002
Workers’ compensation obligations (3)		3,599		2,425		1,822		1,356		1,045		6,361		16,608
Total (4)	$	31,094	$	20,264	$	15,869	$	13,279	$	10,684	$	52,929	$	144,119

(1)

Represents our purchase obligations primarily related to printing outsource agreements and capital expenditures for property, plant and equipment expiring at various dates through 2028.

(2)

Represents minimum rental commitments under operating leases with non‑cancelable terms in excess of one year and sublease income from leased space. We rent certain facilities and equipment under operating leases expiring at various dates through 2028. Total rental expense, included in other operating expenses, from continuing operations amounted to $11.6 million, $12.5 million and $11.2 million in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Most of the leases provide that we pay taxes, maintenance, insurance and certain other operating expenses applicable to the leased premises in addition to the minimum monthly payments. Some of the operating leases have built in escalation clauses. We sublease office space to other companies under noncancellable agreements that expire at various dates through 2024. Sublease income from operating leases totaled $4.6 million, $2.2 million and $3.9 million in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

(3)

Represents the expected insurance payments of undiscounted ultimate losses, net of estimated insurance recoveries of approximately $3.2 million, and was based on our historical payment patterns. We retain the risk for workers’ compensation resulting from uninsured deductibles per accident or occurrence that are subject to annual aggregate limits. Losses up to the deductible amounts are accrued based upon known claims incurred and an estimate of claims incurred but not reported. For the year ended December 27, 2015, we compiled our historical data pertaining to the self‑insurance experiences and actuarially developed the ultimate loss associated with our self‑insurance programs for workers’ compensation liability. We believe that the actuarial valuation provides the best estimate of the ultimate losses to be expected under these programs. The undiscounted ultimate losses of all our self‑insurance reserves related to our workers’ compensation liabilities, net of insurance recoveries at December 27, 2015, and December 28, 2014, were $16.6 million and $18.0 million, respectively. We discount the net amount above to present value using an approximate risk‑free rate over the average life of our insurance claims. For the years ended December 27, 2015, and December 28, 2014, the discount rate used was 1.8% and 2.0%, respectively. The present value of all self‑insurance reserves, net of estimated insurance recoveries, for our workers’ compensation liability recorded at December 27, 2015, and December 28, 2014, was $15.3 million and $17.5 million, respectively.

Legal Proceedings and other contingent claims

In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a purported class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno Bee in the Superior Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned Becerra v. The McClatchy Company (“Fresno case”) alleging that the carriers were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking mileage reimbursement. In February 2009, a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company, involving similar allegations was filed by carriers of The Sacramento Bee (“Sacramento case”) in the Superior Court of the State of California in Sacramento County. Both courts have certified the class in these cases. The class consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers in the Fresno case. The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified restitution for mileage reimbursement. With respect to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code. In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code.

The court in the Sacramento case has trifurcated the trial into three separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status, the second phase will address liability, if any, and the third phase will address restitution, if any. On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as independent contractors. We objected to the tentative decision but the court ultimately adopted it as final. The court has not yet established a date for the second and third phases of trial concerning whether The Sacramento Bee is liable to the carriers in the class for mileage reimbursement or owes any restitution.

The court in the Fresno case has bifurcated the trial into two separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the second phase will address restitution, if any. The first phase of the Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of 2014 and concluded in late March 2015. The parties are awaiting a ruling on the first phase.

We are defending these actions vigorously and expect that we will ultimately prevail. As a result, we have not established a reserve in connection with the cases. While we believe that a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows from these claims is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a possibility exists that future adverse rulings or unfavorable developments could result in future charges that could have a material impact. We have and will continue to periodically reexamine our estimates of probable liabilities and any associated expenses and make appropriate adjustments to such estimates based on experience and developments in litigation.

Other than the cases described above, we are subject to a variety of legal proceedings (including libel, employment, wage and hour, independent contractor and other legal actions) and governmental proceedings (including environmental matters) that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. We are unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible losses for these matters. However, we currently believe, after reviewing such actions with counsel, that the expected outcome of pending actions will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements. No material amounts for any losses from litigation that may ultimately occur have been recorded in the consolidated financial statements as we believe that any such losses are not probable.

We have certain indemnification obligations related to the sale of assets including but not limited to insurance claims and multi‑employer pension plans of disposed newspaper operations. We believe the remaining obligations related to disposed assets will not be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

As of December 27, 2015, we had $33.0 million of standby letters of credit secured under the LC Agreement (see Note 5 for further discussion).