XML 96 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT  v2.3.0.11
Commitments And Contingencies
12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments And Contingencies  
Commitments And Contingencies

11.  Commitments and contingencies:

 

Leases

      The Company and its subsidiaries lease office space under operating leases expiring at various dates through 2022 and lease equipment under both operating and capital leases.  The capital leases are primarily international automobile leases used by sales and installation personnel.  Rent expense under the operating leases was as follows:

 

Fiscal Year Ended June 30,

(in thousands)

Rent

Expense

Sublease Income

Net Rent Expense

2011

$ 30,039

$ (955)

$ 29,084

2010

$ 29,338

$ (937)

$ 28,401

2009

$ 30,772

$ (952)

$ 29,820

 

As of June 30, 2011, future minimum lease payments for those leases having an initial or remaining non-cancelable lease term in excess of one year are as follows:

 

Fiscal Year Ended June 30,

(in thousands)

 

Operating Leases

Less

Sublease Rentals

Net

Operating Leases

 

Capital

Leases

2012

$ 31,176

$    (972)

$ 30,204

$ 144

2013

25,067

(911)

24,156

87

2014

18,506

(923)

17,583

49

2015

13,747

(654)

13,093

2

2016

7,940

0

7,940

2

2017 and thereafter

1,644

0

1,644

1

 

$ 98,080

$ (3,460)

$ 94,620

285

Less:  current portion

 

 

 

144

Long-term obligations under capital lease

 

 

 

$ 141

 

Legal proceedings

      On May 22, 2008, a jury returned verdicts totaling $7.5 million against the Company in the consolidated actions of Roth Cash Register v. MICROS Systems, Inc., et al. and Shenango Systems Solutions v. MICROS Systems, Inc., et al.  The cases initially were filed in 2000 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.  The complaints both related to the non-renewal of dealership agreements in the year 2000 between the Company and the respective plaintiffs.  The agreements were non-renewed as part of a restructuring of the dealer channel.  There is no other outstanding litigation relating to the restructuring of the dealer channel in the year 2000.  The plaintiffs alleged that the Company and certain of its subsidiaries and employees entered into a plan to eliminate the plaintiffs as authorized dealers and improperly interfere with the plaintiffs' relationships with their respective existing and potential future clients and customers without compensation to the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs claimed that, as a result, the Company was liable for, among other things, breach of contract and tortious interference with existing and prospective contractual relationships.  The Company and the plaintiffs appealed the verdicts on various grounds.  On December 30, 2010, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued an opinion reversing and remanding $4.5 million of the award and affirming $3.0 million of the award.  In January 2011, both the Company and the plaintiffs filed motions seeking reconsideration of certain aspects of the appellate court decision.  On April 1, 2011, the Superior Court denied all of the motions for reconsideration.  Subsequently, on April 13, 2011, the Company and one of the plaintiffs filed petitions with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seeking the ability to appeal certain issues in the litigation.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not yet ruled on either of the petitions.  During the three months ended December 31, 2010, the Company reserved an additional $3.0 million for any potential liability relating to these matters, which is included in its selling, general and administrative expenses.  The Company has also recognized interest expense of approximately $0.5 million related to the judgment as the amount payable will be subject to interest accruing at the statutory rate of 6% per annum.

      The Company is and has been involved in legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business, and, subject to the outcome of the matter referenced above, the Company is of the opinion, based upon presently available information and the advice of counsel concerning pertinent legal matters, that any resulting liability should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.