In January 2018, Gemini Technologies, Incorporated, or Gemini, commenced an action against us and Smith & Wesson Corp. in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, or District Court. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached the earn-out and other provisions of the Asset Purchase Agreement and ancillary agreements between the parties in connection with Smith & Wesson Corp.’s acquisition of the Gemtech business from Gemini. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment interpreting various terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement and damages in the sum of $18.6 million. In May 2018, the District Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens. In June 2018, Gemini appealed the decision dismissing its complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We believe the claims asserted in the complaint have no merit, and we intend to aggressively defend this action.

We are a defendant in six product liability cases and are aware of seven other product liability claims, primarily alleging defective product design, defective manufacturing, or failure to provide adequate warnings. In addition, we are a co-defendant in a case filed on August 27, 1999 by the city of Gary, Indiana against numerous firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers seeking to recover monetary damages, as well as injunctive relief, allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third parties. In January 2018, the trial court granted defendants’ Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings, dismissing the case in its entirety. In February 2018, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. In May 2018, we were named in an action related to the Parkland, Florida shooting, filed in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, seeking a declaratory judgement that a Florida statute that provides firearm manufacturers and dealers immunity from liability when their legally manufactured and lawfully sold firearms are later used in criminal acts only applies to civil actions commenced by governmental agencies not private litigants. In August 2018, we moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it seeks an impermissible advisory opinion.

We believe that the various allegations as described above are unfounded, and, in addition, that any incident and any results from them were due to negligence or misuse of the firearm by the claimant or a third party.

In addition, from time to time, we are involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings, including commercial, environmental, and employment matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business.

The relief sought in individual cases primarily includes compensatory and, sometimes, punitive damages. Certain of the cases and claims seek unspecified compensatory or punitive damages. In others, compensatory damages sought may range from less than $75,000 to approximately $350,000. In our experience, initial demands do not generally bear a reasonable relationship to the facts and circumstances of a particular matter. We believe that our accruals for product liability cases and claims, as described below, are a reasonable quantitative measure of the cost to us of product liability cases and claims.

We are vigorously defending ourselves in the lawsuits to which we are subject. An unfavorable outcome or prolonged litigation could harm our business. Litigation of this nature also is expensive, time consuming, and diverts the time and attention of our management.

We monitor the status of known claims and the related product liability accrual, which includes amounts for defense costs for asserted and unasserted claims. After consultation with litigation counsel and a review of the merit of each claim, we have concluded that we are unable to reasonably estimate the probability or the estimated range of reasonably possible losses related to material adverse judgments related to such claims and, therefore, we have not accrued for any such judgments. In the future, should we determine that a loss (or an additional loss in excess of our accrual) is at least reasonably possible and material, we would then disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate could be made, or disclose that an estimate could not be made. We believe that we have provided adequate accruals for defense costs.

We have recorded our liability for defense costs before consideration for reimbursement from insurance carriers. We have also recorded the amount due as reimbursement under existing policies from the insurance carriers as a receivable shown in other current assets and other assets.

At this time, an estimated range of reasonably possible additional losses relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made.

In fiscal 2017, we announced a plan to establish a national logistics facility in Boone County, Missouri. We ultimately plan to rely on this logistics facility for substantially all of our product distribution. In fiscal 2018, we broke ground on our new 633,000 square foot facility, which was completed in November 2018 and will become operational over the course of the remainder of the fiscal year. As part of the completion of the building, we entered into a lease agreement with the developer of the building for $46.2 million. The lease has an effective interest rate of approximately 5.0% and is payable in 240 monthly installments through fiscal 2039. Leases are accounted for under the provisions of ASC 840-10, Leases, which requires that leases be evaluated and classified as operating or capital leases for financial reporting purposes. Based on our evaluation under ASC 840-10, we determined that the lease qualified as a capital lease because the net present value of future lease payments exceeded 90% of the fair market value of the leased building. The building is pledged to secure the amounts outstanding. We included $615,000 of short-term capital lease obligation in accrued expenses and $45.6 million in long-term capital lease obligation on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. As noted above, we plan to adopt ASU 2016-02 - Leases, in our first quarter of fiscal 2020. Upon adoption, we plan to remove the current finance obligation and capital lease asset and record a right of use asset and lease liability equal to the net present value of future minimum lease payments. We expect the lease liability to be $40.8 million and right of use asset to be $41.6 million upon adoption of ASU 2016-02.

Future minimum lease payments, including all our capital leases, for the remainder of fiscal 2019 and the succeeding fiscal years is as follows (in thousands):

	Capital Lease Obligation
2019		804
2020		2,965
2021		3,016
2022		3,056
2023		3,072
Thereafter		66,320
Total future minimum lease payments		79,233
Less amounts representing interest		(32,993	)
Present value of minimum lease payments		46,240
Less current maturities of capital lease		(660	)
Long-term maturities of capital lease	$	45,580

In August 2018, we announced a plan to transition our Ultimate Survival Technologies, LLC, or UST, business and operations into our Columbia, Missouri facility. That plan includes (i) closing our Jacksonville, Florida facility as part of our previously announced strategy to consolidate warehousing and logistics operations into the national logistics facility that we are constructing in Missouri and (ii) relocating our Jacksonville-based UST sales, marketing, and research and development activities to Columbia, Missouri. In connection with the integration, we expect to incur restructuring charges of approximately $1.5 million to $2.5 million relating to tangible asset impairment, severance, retention, and relocation beginning in our second quarter of fiscal 2019 and concluding in our first quarter of fiscal 2020, with cash outlays primarily being incurred in our first quarter of fiscal 2020. For the nine months ended January 31, 2019, we have recorded approximately $741,000 of costs associated with this transition.