Note 17. Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The Company currently leases office, store facilities, and equipment under various leases through fiscal 2026. As these leases expire, it can be expected that in the normal course of business they will be renewed or replaced. Most lease agreements contain renewal options and rent escalation clauses and require the Company to pay real estate taxes, insurance, common area maintenance and operating expenses applicable to the leased properties. The Company has also entered into leases that are on a month-to-month basis. These leases are classified as either capital leases, operating leases or subleases, as appropriate.

As of June 30, 2013 future minimum payments under non-cancelable operating leases with initial terms of one year or more consist of the following:

	Operating Leases
	(in thousands)

2014	$	12,818
2015	8,781
2016	8,393
2017	7,490
2018	5,194
Thereafter	11,396
Total minimum lease payments	$	54,072

At June 30, 2013, the aggregate future sublease rental income under long-term operating sub-leases for land and buildings and corresponding rental expense under long-term operating leases were as follows:

	Sublease Income		Sublease Expense
	(in thousands)

2013	$	1,249	$	1,249
2014	654		654
2015	443		443
2016	236		236
Thereafter	—		—
	$	2,582	$	2,582

Rent expense was approximately $17.7 million, $17.4 million, and $17.7 million for the years ended June 30, 2013, July 1, 2012 and July 3, 2011, respectively.

Litigation

From time to time, the Company is subject to legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business.

On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act among other statutes, and for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction marketing practices in which certain of the Company’s subsidiaries previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors. On December 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice. The court entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the case in its entirety. This case was subsequently refiled in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On March 6, 2012 and March 15, 2012, two additional purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010. In each case, plaintiffs seek to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0 million. On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were consolidated with a third case previously pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in which the Company is not a party (the “Consolidated Action”). A consolidated amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs on September 7, 2012, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those originally asserted. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December 7, 2012, which was subsequently refiled at the direction of the Court on January 16, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint (the “Frank Action”). On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed on December 5, 2012 with the Consolidated Action. The Company intends to defend each of these actions vigorously.

On January 31, 2013, the court issued an order to show cause directing plaintiffs’ counsel in the Frank Action, also counsel for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, to show cause why the Frank Action is distinguishable from the Consolidated Action such that it may be maintained despite the prior-pending action doctrine. On June 13, 2013 the court issued an order in the Frank Action suspending deadlines to answer or to otherwise respond to the complaint until 21 days after the court decides whether the Frank Action should be consolidated with the Consolidated Action. On July 24, 2013 the Frank Action was reassigned to Judge Vanessa Bryant, before whom the Consolidated Action is currently pending, for all further proceedings.

On August 14, 2013, other defendants filed a motion for clarification in the Frank Action requesting that Judge Bryant clarify the order suspending deadlines.

There has been no ruling on (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate, (2) the Order to Show Cause, (3) the Motion for Clarification, or (4) the Company’s Motion Seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Amended Consolidated Complaint. Oral argument thereon is scheduled for September 25, 2013.

There are no assurances that additional legal actions will not be instituted in connection with the Company’s former post-transaction marketing practices involving third party vendors nor can we predict the outcome of any such legal action. At this time, we are unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss for the aforementioned actions for various reasons, including, among others: (i) the damages sought are indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the very early stages and the court has not yet ruled as to whether the classes will be certified, and (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending motions. As a result of the foregoing, we have determined that the amount of possible loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable. However, legal matters are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, some of which may be beyond our control.