Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

We lease two facilities in Denver, CO and Oxnard, CA that are under operating leases through December 2018 and March 2020, respectively. Both of these leases require us to pay increases in real estate taxes, operating costs and repairs over certain base year amounts. Lease payments for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 were $74,000 and $126,000, respectively. The Company terminated a month-to-month lease in New Jersey on March 31, 2016 and is no longer leasing any space in New Jersey.

Future minimum rental commitments under all non-cancelable operating leases as of March 31, 2016, are as follows (in thousands):



Year Ending December 31,
Remaining 2016	$	220
2017	301
2018	308
2019	88
2020	23
	$	940

Commercial Commitments

We have entered into a number of agreements with our suppliers to purchase communications and consulting services. Some of the agreements require a minimum amount of services to be purchased over the life of the agreement, or during a specified period of time. Glowpoint believes that it will meet its commercial commitments. Historically, in certain instances where Glowpoint did not meet the minimum commitments, no penalties for minimum commitments have been assessed and the Company has entered into new agreements. It has been our experience that the prices and terms of successor agreements are similar to those offered by other suppliers. Glowpoint does not believe that any loss contingency related to a potential shortfall should be recorded in the consolidated financial statements because it is not probable, from the information available and from prior experience, that Glowpoint has incurred a liability.

Contingencies

On July 23, 2015, UTC Associates Inc. (“UTC”) filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company. On September 22, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 13, 2015, in response to the Company’s motion, UTC filed an amended complaint. On November 2, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 1, 2016, the Court partially granted and partially denied the dismissal motion. The Court dismissed with prejudice the fraud claim and declined to dismiss the two breach of contract claims. This matter involves allegations that Glowpoint has failed to pay amounts allegedly due under a Technology Development & Operations Outsourcing arrangement dated June 30, 2010 (the “Proposal”). UTC seeks monetary damages totaling $2,107,000, including $1,107,000 for damages arising from the breach of an alleged guaranteed minimum provision, and $1,000,000 for damages arising from the breach of an alleged exclusivity provision. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Accordingly, on April 1, 2016, the Company filed its answer to UTC’s Complaint and asserted counterclaims against UTC, including for breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, fraud in the execution and fraud, pursuant to which the Company is seeking a judgment awarding monetary damages against UTC in an amount to be determined at trial, voiding the Proposal ab initio and awarding the Company its costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in defending the action. On April 25, 2016, UTC filed an answer to the Company’s counterclaims, denying such counterclaims and asserting purported defenses to them.

Letters of Credit

As of March 31, 2016, the Company had an outstanding irrevocable standby letter of credit with Comerica Bank for $83,000 to serve as our security deposit for our lease of office space in Colorado. See Note 4.