5. Commitments, Contingencies and Leases

Leases

The Company currently leases its current headquarters, research and development facilities and office spaces for its various United States and international operations. Certain leases contain rent escalation clauses and renewal options. As part of the Company’s existing leased facilities, the Company has received lease incentives which take the form of a fixed allowance towards lease improvements on the respective facility. The Company used the allowance to make leasehold improvements which are being depreciated over the useful life of the assets or the lease term, whichever is shorter. The offsetting lease incentives liability is being amortized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease as an offset to rent expense.

Future annual minimum lease payments under all non-cancelable operating leases having initial or remaining lease terms in excess of one year at June 30, 2016 were as follows (in thousands):

For the fiscal year ending:	Future Lease Payments
2017	$	9,733
2018		8,794
2019		8,322
2020		8,065
2021		7,401
Thereafter		13,076
Total minimum payments	$	55,391

Rent expense was $8.5 million, $11.1 million and $10.2 million in fiscal years 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Purchase Commitments

The Company currently has arrangements with contract manufacturers and suppliers for the manufacture of its products. The arrangements allow them to procure long lead-time component inventory based upon a rolling production forecast provided by the Company. The Company is obligated to the purchase of long lead-time component inventory that its contract manufacturer procures in accordance with the forecast, unless the Company gives notice of order cancellation outside of applicable component lead-times. As of June 30, 2016, the Company had non-cancelable commitments to purchase $63.7 million of such inventory, which will be received and consumed during the first half of fiscal 2017

Legal Proceedings

The Company may from time to time be party to litigation arising in the course of its business, including, without limitation, allegations relating to commercial transactions, business relationships or intellectual property rights. Such claims, even if not meritorious, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. Litigation in general and intellectual property and securities litigation in particular, can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of legal proceedings are difficult to predict.

In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company records accruals for certain of its outstanding legal proceedings, investigations or claims when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, at least on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings, investigations or claims that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as any developments that would result in a loss contingency to become both probable and reasonably estimable. When a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not record a loss accrual. However, if the loss (or an additional loss in excess of any prior accrual) is at least a reasonable possibility and material, then the Company would disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate can be made, or disclose that an estimate cannot be made. The assessment whether a loss is probable or a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Even if a loss is reasonably possible, the Company may not be able to estimate a range of possible loss, particularly where (i) the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (iii) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories or a large number of parties. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including the amount of any possible loss, fine or penalty. Accordingly, for current proceedings, except as noted below, the Company is currently unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss. However, an adverse resolution of one or more of such matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year.

Brazilian Tax Assessment Matters

Certain Brazilian tax authorities have made tax assessments against our Brazilian subsidiary, Enterasys Networks do Brazil Ltda., based on an alleged underpayment of taxes. The tax authorities are also seeking interest and penalties with respect to such claims (collectively, the “ICMS Tax Assessments”). The State of Sao Paolo, Brazil denied Enterasys Networks do Brazil Ltda. the use of certain tax credits granted by the State of Espirito Santo, Brazil under the terms of the FUNDAP program for the tax years of 2002 through 2009. The Company’s application to resolve the ICMS Tax Assessments at the administrative level of the Sao Paolo Tax Department under the amnesty relief program (Reference No 3.056.963-1) was denied in March, 2014, by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration. The value of the ICMS tax credits that were disallowed by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration is BRL 3.4 million (US $1.0 million), plus interest and penalties BRL 16.6 million (US $5.1 million). Possible court fees are estimated to be BRL 4.0 million (US $1.2 million). All currency conversions in this Legal Proceedings section are as of June 30, 2016. On January 10, 2014, the Company filed a lawsuit to overturn or reduce the ICMS Assessments, which lawsuit remains on-going. As part of this lawsuit, the Company made a request for a stay of execution, so that no tax foreclosure can be filed until a final ruling is made and no guarantee needs to be presented. On or about October 6, 2014, the preliminary injunction was granted with regard to the stay of execution, and in response to an appeal on the guarantee requirement, the appellant court further ruled on or about January 28, 2015 that no cash deposit (or guarantee) need be made by the Company.

On or about June 18, 2014, the State of San Paolo notified Enterasys Networks do Brazil Ltda. that it intends to audit the records of such entity for tax years 2012 and 2013. In addition, the Company received a similar notice in December 2015 with respect to an audit by the State of San Paolo of tax years 2011-2014. The audits are expected to cover the same or very similar issues as the ICMS Tax Assessments for tax years 2002-2009, however, the Company changed its ICMS procedures effective May 2009 and a similar tax assessment is not anticipated. The Company has provided the requested information for these tax years to the Brazilian tax authorities, but has received no further response from the Brazilian tax authorities.

Based on the currently available information, the Company believes the ultimate outcome of the above audits and assessments will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or overall results of operations. The Company believes that the ICMS Tax Assessments against our Brazilian subsidiary are without merit and the Company is defending the claims vigorously. While the Company believes there is no legal basis for the alleged liability, due to the complexities and uncertainty surrounding the judicial process in Brazil and the nature of the claims asserted, it is unable to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome against our Brazilian subsidiary and estimate the potential tax liability related to the ICMS Tax Assessments, if any, may be up to BRL 24.0 million (US $7.3 million). The Company does not expect a final judicial determination for several years. The Company believes BRL 9.4 million (US $2.9 million) is the best estimate within the range and has recorded an accrual as of the Acquisition Date of Enterasys Networks as such matter relates to the period before the acquisition.

The Company made a demand on April 11, 2014 for a defense from, and indemnification by, the former equity holder of Enterasys Networks (“Seller”) of the ICMS Tax Assessments. Seller agreed to assume the defense of the ICMS Tax Assessments on May 20, 2014. In addition, through the settlement of the Unify Indemnification Suit on June 18, 2015, Seller has agreed to continue to defend the Company with respect to the ICMS Tax Assessments and to indemnify the Company for losses related thereto subject to certain conditions. In addition, the Seller has agreed to indemnify the Company in connection with tax assessments up to a specified cap related to the 2012 and 2013 tax years subject to certain conditions. These conditions include the offsetting of foreign income tax benefits realized by the Company in the connection with the acquisition of Enterasys. Based upon current projections of the foreign income tax benefits to be realized, the Company does not anticipate that any amounts under the indemnification will be due from the Seller in connection with either the ICMS Tax Assessments or any potential tax assessments for tax years 2012 and 2013.

In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation

On October 23 and 29, 2015, complaints were filed for violations of securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and three of its former officers (Charles W. Berger, Kenneth B. Arola, and John T. Kurtzweil). Subsequently, the cases were consolidated. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and concealing material adverse facts regarding Extreme Networks' current financial condition and growth prospects. Plaintiffs seek damages of an unspecified amount on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock from November 4, 2013 through April 9, 2015. On June 28, 2016, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff will file a consolidated complaint, which the defendants expect to move to dismiss. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the claims.

On February 18, 2016, a shareholder derivative case was filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, Shaffer v. Kispert et al., No. 16 CV 291726. The complaint names current and former officers and members of the Board of Directors as defendants and seeks recovery on behalf of the Company based on substantially the same allegations as the securities class action litigation described above. The parties have agreed to stay the case pending further activities in the securities class action litigation, and have submitted a stipulation to that effect to the court.

Indemnification Obligations

Subject to certain limitations, the Company may be obligated to indemnify its current and former directors, officers and employees. These obligations arise under the terms of its certificate of incorporation, its bylaws, applicable contracts, and Delaware law. The obligation to indemnify, where applicable, generally means that the Company is required to pay or reimburse, and in certain circumstances the Company has paid or reimbursed, the individuals' reasonable legal expenses and possibly damages and other liabilities incurred in connection with these matters. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of these claims. The cost to defend the Company and the named individuals could have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows in the future. Recovery of such costs under its director and officers’ insurance coverage is uncertain. As of June 30, 2016, the Company had no outstanding indemnification claims.