5. Commitments and Contingencies

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, 2017, were as follows (in thousands):

For the fiscal year ending:	Future Lease Payments
2018	$	12,949
2019		11,883
2020		8,988
2021		7,680
2022		7,132
Thereafter		6,162
Total minimum payments	$	54,794

Rent expense was $9.4 million, $8.5 million and $11.1 million in fiscal years 2017, 2016 and 2015, 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, 2017, the Company had non-cancelable commitments to purchase $83.2 million of such inventory, which will be received and consumed during the first half of fiscal 2018

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 cause 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 presently is 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 Brasil Ltda. (“Enterasys Brasil”), based on an alleged underpayment of taxes. The tax authorities also are seeking interest and penalties with respect to such claims (collectively, the “ICMS Tax Assessments”). The State of Sao Paolo, Brazil denied Enterasys Brasil 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 value of the ICMS tax credits disallowed by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration is BRL 3.4 million (US $1.0 million), excluding interest and penalties.

On January 10, 2014, Enterasys Brasil filed a lawsuit to overturn or reduce the ICMS Tax Assessments. As part of this lawsuit, Enterasys Brasil requested a stay of execution, so that no tax foreclosure could be filed and no guarantee would be required until the court issued its final ruling. On or about October 6, 2014, the court granted a preliminary injunction staying any execution on the assessment, but requiring that Enterasys Brasil deposit the assessed amount with the court. Enterasys Brasil appealed this ruling and, on or about January 28, 2015, the appellate court ruled that no cash deposit (or guarantee) was required. The lawsuit remains ongoing. With accrued interest and penalties totaling BRL 18.4 million (US $5.6 million), the disputed assessment is 21.9 million BRL (US $6.7 million) as of June 30, 2017. If the Sao Paolo Tax Administration were to prevail in the lawsuit, the court also could order Enterasys Brasil to pay attorneys’ fees ranging from BRL 1.2 million (US $0.4 million) to BRL 1.8 million (US $0.5 million); if Enterasys Brasil elected to pay voluntarily the full assessment amount (including accrued interest and penalties), attorneys’ fees would be BRL 4.4 million (US $1.3 million). All currency conversions in this Legal Proceedings section are as of June 30, 2017.

On or about June 18, 2014, the State of San Paolo notified Enterasys Brasil that it intended to audit its records for tax years 2012 and 2013. In addition, Enterasys Brasil 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 covered the same or very similar issues as the ICMS Tax Assessments for tax years 2002-2009; however, Enterasys Brasil had changed its ICMS procedures effective May 2009. This audit was recently completed, and in March 2017, Enterasys Brasil paid BRL 0.2 million (US $0.1 million) in expenses related to the audit.

Based on the currently available information, the Company believes the ultimate outcome of the above 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 Enterasys Brasil are without merit, and Enterasys Brasil is defending the claims vigorously. However, due to the complexities and uncertainty surrounding the judicial process in Brazil and the nature of the claims asserted, the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome against Enterasys Brasil, which recorded an accrual of BRL 9.4 million (US $2.9 million) as of the date the Company acquired 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, Inc. (“Seller”) in connection with 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 and indemnification-related lawsuit with the Seller on June 18, 2015, Seller 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 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 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 the expenses related to the audit.

In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation

On October 23 and 29, 2015, putative class action complaints alleging violations of securities laws were filed 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 (In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:15-CY-04883-BLF). Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and concealing material adverse facts regarding the Company’s financial condition, business operations and growth prospects. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock from September 12, 2013 through April 9, 2015. On June 28, 2016, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. On September 26, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On November 10, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted with leave to amend on April 27, 2017. On June 2, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which, on July 10, 2017, defendants again moved to dismiss. Defendants’ motion to dismiss currently is scheduled to be heard on December 14, 2017. The Company believes plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.

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 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 the court signed a stipulation and order to that effect.

Plectrum LLC v. Extreme Networks, Inc. Patent Infringement Suit

On February 2, 2017, Plectrum LLC (“Plectrum”) sued the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Plectrum LLC v. Extreme Networks, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-0079). The complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,978,951, 6,205,149, and 6,751,677 based on the Company’s manufacture, use, sale, and/or offer for sale of its S-Series and Summit Series Switch products. Plectrum sought an injunction and unspecified damages. On June 24, 2017, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice after the parties advised that they had resolved the matter.

XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies v. Extreme Networks, Inc. Patent Infringement Suit

On April 19, 2017, XR Communications, LLC (“XR”) (d/b/a Vivato Technologies) sued the Company in the Central District of California (XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies v. Extreme Networks, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-2953-AG). The operative Second Amended Complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,062,296, 7,729,728, and 6,611,231 based on the Company’s manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation into the United States of certain access points and routers supporting multi-user, multiple-input, multiple-output technology. XR seeks unspecified damages, on-going royalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees (but no injunction). On July 24, 2017, the Company filed its answer. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.

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 applicable 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 certain legal matters. For example, the Company currently is paying or reimbursing legal expenses being incurred by certain current and former officers and directors in connection with the shareholder litigation described above. The Company also procures Directors and Officers insurance to help cover its defense and/or indemnification costs, although its ability to recover such costs through insurance is uncertain. While it is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount that could be owed under these indemnification agreements due to the Company’s limited history with prior indemnification claims, indemnification (including defense) costs could, in the future, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. As of June 30, 2017, the Company had no outstanding indemnification claims.