COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

The following table summarizes the Company's contractual operating leases and other purchase commitments as of June 30, 2015 (in thousands):



Fiscal Years Ending March 31,	Operating Leases		Purchase Commitments		*	Total
2016 (remainder of year)	$	1,890	$	18,635		$	20,525
2017	2,240		3,440			5,680
2018	825		3,032			3,857
2019	467		—			467
Total minimum payments	$	5,422	$	25,107		$	30,529

* Includes open purchase orders with terms that generally allow us the option to cancel or reschedule the order, subject to various restrictions and limitations. Also includes the licensing fees relating to the Company's R&D efforts, including licensed intellectual property, or IP, technology, product design, test and verification tools, of $13.0 million.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is currently a party to certain legal proceedings, including those noted in this section. While the Company presently believes that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will not materially harm the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows, legal proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties, unfavorable rulings or other events that could occur. In addition, legal proceedings are expensive to prosecute and defend against and can divert management attention and Company resources away from the Company's business objectives. Unfavorable resolutions could include monetary damages against the Company or injunctions or other restrictions on the conduct of the Company’s business, or preclude the Company from recovering the damages it seeks in legal proceedings it has commenced. It is also possible that the Company could conclude it is in the best interests of its stockholders, employees, and customers to settle one or more such matters, and any such settlement could include substantial payments or the surrender of rights to collect payments from third parties. However, the Company has not reached this conclusion with respect to any material matter at this time.

In 1993, the Company was named as a Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”) along with more than 100 other companies that used an Omega Chemical Corporation waste treatment facility in Whittier, California (the “Omega Site”). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has alleged that Omega failed to properly treat and dispose of certain hazardous waste materials at the Omega Site. The Company is a member of a large group of PRPs, known as the Omega Chemical Site PRP Organized Group (“OPOG”), that has agreed to fund certain on-going remediation efforts at the Omega Site. In February 2001, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) approved a consent decree between EPA and OPOG to study the contamination and evaluate cleanup options at the Omega Site (the Operable Unit 1 or “OU1”). In January 2009, the Court approved two amendments to the consent decree, the first expanding the scope of work to mitigate volatile organic compounds affecting indoor air quality near the Omega Site (the Operable Unit 3 or “OU3”) and the second adding settling parties to the consent decree. Removal of waste materials from the Omega Site has been completed. As part of OU1 and OU3, efforts to remediate the soil and groundwater at the Omega Site, as well as the extraction of chemical vapors from the soil and improving indoor air quality in and around the site, are underway and are expected to be ongoing for several years. In addition, OPOG and EPA are investigating a regional groundwater contamination plume allegedly originating at the Omega Site (the Operable Unit 2 or “OU2”). In September 2011, EPA issued an interim Record of Decision specifying the interim clean-up actions EPA has chosen for OU2, and in September 2012, it issued a special notice letter that triggered the commencement of good faith settlement negotiations with OPOG. In November 2014, EPA submitted a term sheet, accepted by OPOG in December 2014, describing the settlement terms and remediation actions for OU2 that will be set forth in a final consent decree to be filed with the Court. It is anticipated that EPA and OPOG will finalize the remediation consent decree in fiscal year 2016. In December 2013, OPOG retained legal counsel to pursue claims against other PRPs for the regional groundwater contamination and, in December 2014, OPOG retained legal counsel to protect its interests in connection with the bankruptcy proceedings filed by an OPOG member. In November 2007, Angeles Chemical Company, located downstream from the Omega Site, filed a lawsuit (the “Angeles Litigation”) in the Court against OPOG and the PRPs for cost recovery and indemnification for future response costs allegedly resulting from the regional groundwater contamination plume described above. In March 2008, the Court granted OPOG’s motion to stay the Angeles Litigation pending EPA’s determination of how to investigate and remediate the regional groundwater. In January 2012, as a result of challenges made by certain PRPs to the criteria previously used to allocate liability among OPOG members, and of the departure of certain PRPs from OPOG, OPOG approved changes to the cost allocation structure that resulted in an increase to the Company’s proportional allocation of liability. In addition, the subsequent departure or bankruptcy of one or more other PRPs from OPOG could have the effect of increasing the proportional liability of the remaining PRPs, including the Company. Although the Company considers a loss relating to the Omega Site probable, its share of any financial obligations for the remediation of the Omega Site, including taking into account the allocation increases described above, is not currently believed to be material to the Company’s financial statements, based on the Company’s approximately 0.5% contribution to the total waste tonnage sent to the site and current estimates of the potential remediation costs. Based on currently available information, the Company has a loss accrual that is not material and believes that the actual amount of its costs will not be materially different from the amount accrued. However, proceedings are ongoing and the eventual outcome of the clean-up efforts and the pending litigation matters is uncertain at this time. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe that any eventual outcome will have a material adverse effect on its operations.