We lease facilities and offices under irrevocable operating lease agreements expiring at various dates with rent escalation clauses. Rent expense related to these leases is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease terms. Rent expense for the years ended March 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 was $8,174, $7,551 and $8,610, respectively.

The following table summarizes our significant contractual obligations at March 31, 2019 and the effect that such obligations are expected to have on our liquidity and cash in future periods:

			For the year ended March 31,
Contractual Obligations	Total		2020		2021		2022		2023		2024		2025 and beyond
Operating lease obligations	$	53,477	$	9,615	$	9,781	$	9,503	$	9,194	$	7,438	$	7,946
Remaining lease obligations for vacated properties⁽¹⁾		3,383		896		920		658		466		292		151
Line of credit obligations (Note 9)		11,000		—		—		—		11,000		—		—
Total	$	67,860	$	10,511	$	10,701	$	10,161	$	20,660	$	7,730	$	8,097

⁽¹⁾

Remaining lease obligations for vacated properties relates to remaining lease obligations at certain locations, including Austin, Solana Beach, and portions of Horsham and St. Louis, that we have vacated and are actively marketing the locations for sublease as part of our reorganization efforts. Refer to Note 15 for additional details. Total obligations have not been reduced by projected sublease rentals or by minimum sublease rentals of $282 due in future periods under non-cancelable subleases.

The deferred compensation liability as of March 31, 2019 was $5,905, which is not included in the table above as the timing of future benefit payments to employees is not readily determinable.

The uncertain tax position liability as of March 31, 2019 was $2,894, which is not included in the table above as the timing of expected payments is not readily determinable.

Our software license agreements include a performance guarantee that our software products will substantially operate as described in the applicable program documentation for a period of 365 days after delivery. To date, we have not incurred any significant costs associated with our performance guarantee or other related warranties and do not expect to incur significant warranty costs in the future. Therefore, no accrual has been made for potential costs associated with these warranties. Certain arrangements also include performance guarantees related to response time, availability for operational use, and other performance-related guarantees. Certain arrangements also include penalties in the form of maintenance credits should the performance of the software fail to meet the performance guarantees. To date, we have not incurred any significant costs associated with these warranties and do not expect to incur significant warranty costs in the future. Therefore, no accrual has been made for potential costs associated with these warranties.

We have historically offered short-term rights of return in certain sales arrangements. If we are able to estimate returns for these types of arrangements and all other criteria for revenue recognition have been met, revenue is recognized and these arrangements are recorded in the consolidated financial statements. If we are unable to estimate returns for these types of arrangements, revenue is not recognized in the consolidated financial statements until the rights of return expire, provided also, that all other criteria of revenue recognition have been met.

Our standard sales agreements contain an indemnification provision pursuant to which we shall indemnify, hold harmless, and reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with any United States patent, any copyright or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third-party with respect to our software. As we have not incurred any significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements, we believe that our estimated exposure on these agreements is currently minimal. Accordingly, we have no liabilities recorded for these indemnification obligations.

On October 7, 2013, a complaint was filed against our Company and certain of our officers and directors in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, captioned Ahmed D. Hussein v. Sheldon Razin, Steven Plochocki, Quality Systems, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, No. 30-2013-00679600-CU-NP-CJC, by Ahmed Hussein, a former director and significant shareholder of our Company. We filed a demurrer to the complaint, which the Court granted on April 10, 2014. An amended complaint was filed on April 25, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges fraud and deceit, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial condition and projected future performance. The amended complaint seeks actual damages, exemplary and punitive damages and costs. We filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. On July 29, 2014, the Court sustained the demurrer with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, and overruled the demurrer with respect to the fraud and deceit claims. On August 28, 2014, we filed an answer and also filed a cross-complaint against Hussein, alleging that he breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company, Mr. Razin and Mr. Plochocki. Mr. Razin and Mr. Plochocki have dismissed their claims against Hussein, leaving the Company as the sole plaintiff in the cross-complaint. On June 26, 2015, we filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to Hussein’s claims, which the Court granted on September 16, 2015, dismissing all of Hussein’s claims against us. On September 23, 2015, Hussein filed an application for reconsideration of the Court's summary judgment order, which the Court denied. Hussein filed a renewed application for reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment order on August 3, 2017. The Court again denied Hussein’s application. On October 28, 2015, May 9, 2016, and August 5, 2016, Hussein filed a motion for summary judgment, motion for summary adjudication, and motion for judgment on the pleadings, respectively, seeking to dismiss our cross-complaint. The Court denied each motion. Trial on our cross-complaint began June 12, 2017. On July 26, 2017, the Court issued a statement of decision granting Hussein’s motion for judgment on our cross-complaint. Final judgment over Hussein’s claims and our cross-claims was entered on January 9, 2018. Hussein has noticed his appeal of the order granting summary judgment over his claims, and we noticed a cross-appeal on the court’s statement of decision granting Hussein’s motion for judgment on our cross-complaint. Briefing on the cross-appeals was completed in fall 2018. A hearing on the cross-appeals has not yet been set. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim.

On September 28, 2017, a complaint was filed against our Company and certain of our current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Kusumam Koshy, derivatively on behalf of Quality Systems Inc. vs. Craig Barbarosh, George H. Bristol, James C. Malone, Peter M. Neupert, Morris Panner, D. Russell Pflueger, Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon Razin, Lance E. Rosenzweig, Paul A. Holt, and Quality Systems, Inc., No. 8:17-cv-01694, by Kusumam Koshy, a purported shareholder of ours. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties and abuse of control, as well as unjust enrichment and insider selling by individual directors arising out of the allegations described above under the caption “Hussein Litigation” and a related, now-settled, federal securities class action, as well as the Company’s adoption of revised indemnification agreements, and the resignation of certain officers of the Company. The complaint seeks restitution and disgorgement, court costs and attorneys’ fees, and enhanced corporate governance reforms and internal control procedures. On January 12, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the derivative complaint. On July 25, 2018, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On August 24, 2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and filed her opening brief on January 23, 2019. We filed our response on March 25, 2019, and the plaintiff’s reply is due this spring. We believe that the plaintiff’s appeal is without merit and intend to defend against it vigorously. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim.

Commencing in April 2017, we have received requests for documents and information from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Vermont and other government agencies in connection with an investigation concerning the certification we obtained for our software under the United States Department of Health and Human Services' Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program. The requests for information relate to, among other things: (a) data used to determine objectives and measures under the Meaningful Use (MU) and the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) programs, (b) EHR software code used in certifying our software and information, and (c) payments provided for the referral of EHR business. We continue to cooperate in this investigation. Requests and investigations of this nature may lead to future requests for information and ultimately the assertion of claims or the commencement of legal proceedings against us, as well as other material liabilities. In addition, our responses to these and any future requests require time and effort, which can result in additional cost to us. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this matter. Given the highly-regulated nature of our industry, we may, from time to time, be subject to subpoenas, requests for information, or investigations from various government agencies. It is our practice to respond to such matters in a cooperative, thorough and timely manner. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this matter.