Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Lease Commitments

We lease office and warehouse facilities and equipment under various operating leases. Facility leases generally include renewal options. Rent expense was as follows (table in millions):



	2015			2014			2013
Rent expense	$	451		$	361		$	328
Sublease proceeds	(4		)	(2		)	(2		)
Net rent expense	$	447		$	359		$	326

Our future operating lease commitments as of December 31, 2015 are as follows (table in millions):



2016	$	338
2017	287
2018	223
2019	172
2020	136
Thereafter	852
Total minimum lease payments	$	2,008

We sublet certain of our office facilities. Expected future non-cancelable sublease proceeds range from approximately $1 million to $5 million per year for the next four years with total sublease proceeds of $11 million as of December 31, 2015.

Outstanding Purchase Orders

At December 31, 2015, we had outstanding purchase orders aggregating approximately $3.2 billion. The purchase orders are for manufacturing and non-manufacturing related goods and services. While the purchase orders are generally cancelable without penalty, certain vendor agreements provide for percentage-based cancellation fees or minimum restocking charges based on the nature of the product or service.

Guarantees and Indemnification Obligations

EMC’s subsidiaries have entered into arrangements with financial institutions for such institutions to provide guarantees for rent, taxes, insurance, leases, performance bonds, bid bonds and customs duties aggregating approximately $150 million as of December 31, 2015. The guarantees vary in length of time. In connection with these arrangements, we have agreed to guarantee substantially all of the guarantees provided by these financial institutions. EMC and certain of its subsidiaries have also entered into arrangements with financial institutions in order to facilitate the management of currency risk. EMC has agreed to guarantee the obligations of its subsidiaries under these arrangements.

We enter into agreements in the ordinary course of business with, among others, customers, resellers, original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”), systems integrators and distributors. Most of these agreements require us to indemnify the other party against third-party claims alleging that an EMC product infringes a patent and/or copyright. Certain agreements in which we grant limited licenses to specific EMC-trademarks require us to indemnify the other party against third-party claims alleging that the use of the licensed trademark infringes a third-party trademark. Certain of these agreements require us to indemnify the other party against certain claims relating to the loss or processing of data, to real or tangible personal property damage, personal injury or the acts or omissions of EMC, its employees, agents or representatives. In addition, from time to time, we have made certain guarantees regarding the performance of our systems to our customers. We have also made certain guarantees for obligations of our subsidiaries.

We have agreements with certain vendors, financial institutions, lessors and service providers pursuant to which we have agreed to indemnify the other party for specified matters, such as acts and omissions of EMC, its employees, agents or representatives.

We have procurement or license agreements with respect to technology that is used in our products and agreements in which we obtain rights to a product from an OEM. Under some of these agreements, we have agreed to indemnify the supplier for certain claims that may be brought against such party with respect to our acts or omissions relating to the supplied products or technologies.

We have agreed to indemnify the directors, executive officers and certain other officers of EMC and our subsidiaries, to the extent legally permissible, against all liabilities reasonably incurred in connection with any action in which such individual may be involved by reason of such individual being or having been a director or officer.

In connection with certain acquisitions, we have agreed to indemnify the current and former directors, officers and employees of the acquired company in accordance with the acquired company’s by-laws and charter in effect immediately prior to the acquisition or in accordance with indemnification or similar agreements entered into by the acquired company and such persons. In a substantial majority of instances, we have maintained the acquired company’s directors’ and officers’ insurance, which should enable us to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. These indemnities vary in length of time.

Based upon our historical experience and information known as of December 31, 2015, we believe our liability on the above guarantees and indemnities at December 31, 2015 is not material.

Litigation

We are involved in a variety of claims, demands, suits, investigations and proceedings that arise from time to time relating to matters incidental to the ordinary course of our business, including actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, product liability, employment, benefits and securities matters. As required by authoritative guidance, we have estimated the amount of probable losses that may result from all currently pending matters, and such amounts are reflected in our consolidated financial statements. These recorded amounts are not material to our consolidated financial position or results of operations and no additional material losses related to these pending matters are reasonably possible. While it is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters with certainty, we do not expect the results of any of these actions to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable, however, the actual amounts of loss may prove to be larger or smaller than the amounts reflected in our consolidated financial statements, and we could incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could adversely affect our operating results or cash flows in a particular period.

Merger-Related Litigation

As of February 23, 2016, fifteen putative shareholder class action lawsuits challenging the Merger have been filed, of which thirteen were filed purportedly on behalf of Company shareholders and two purportedly on behalf of VMware shareholders. The lawsuits name various combinations of the Company, its current and former directors, VMware, certain of VMware’s directors, Denali, Dell and Merger Sub, among others, as defendants. The fifteen lawsuits seek, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, rescission of the Merger if consummated, an award of fees and costs and/or an award of monetary damages. The suits are captioned as follows:



Case		Court	Filing Date
1.	IBEW Local No. 129 Benefit Fund v. Tucci, Civ. No. 1584-3130-BLS1	Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County	10/15/2015
2.	Barrett v. Tucci, Civ. No. 15-6023-A	Mass. Superior Court, Middlesex County	10/16/2015
3.	Graulich v. Tucci, Civ. No. 1584-3169-BLS1	Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County	10/19/2015
4.	Vassallo v. EMC Corp., Civ. No. 1584-3173-BLS1	Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County	10/19/2015
5.	City of Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund v. Tucci, Civ. No. 1584-3174-BLS1	Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County	10/19/2015
6.	Lasker v. EMC Corp., Civ. No. 1584-3214-BLS1	Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County	10/23/2015
7.	Walsh v. EMC Corp., Civ. No. 15-13654	U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts	10/27/2015
8.	Local Union No. 373 U.A. Pension Plan v. EMC Corp., Civ. No. 1584-3253-BLS1	Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County	10/28/2015
9.	City of Lakeland Emps.’ Pension & Ret. Fund v. Tucci, Civ. No. 1584-3269-BLS1	Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County	10/28/2015
10.	Ma v. Tucci, Civ. No. 1584-3281-BLS1	Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County	10/29/2015
11.	Stull v. EMC Corp., Civ. No. 15-13692	U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts	10/30/2015
12.	Jacobs v. EMC Corp., Civ. No. 15-6318-H	Mass. Superior Court, Middlesex County	11/12/2015
13.	Ford v. VMware, Inc., C.A. No. 11714-VCL	Delaware Chancery Court	11/17/2015
14.	Pancake v. EMC Corp., Civ. No. 16-10040	U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts	1/11/2016
15.	Booth Family Trust v. EMC Corp., Civ. No. 16-10114	U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts	1/26/2016

Of the thirteen lawsuits filed purportedly on behalf of Company shareholders, nine were filed in Massachusetts state court, and four in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Eleven of the lawsuits initially advanced substantially the same allegations that the Merger Agreement was adopted in violation of the fiduciary duties of the Company’s directors. Certain of those lawsuits also alleged that the Company, Denali, Dell, Merger Sub, Silver Lake Partners, LLC, and/or MSD Partners, LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors.

On November 5, 2015, pursuant to a motion made by the Company and its directors, the nine lawsuits then pending in state court in Massachusetts were consolidated with and into the first-filed of those actions, IBEW Local No. 129 Benefit Fund v. Joseph M. Tucci, et al. That action, brought in the Business Litigation Session of the Suffolk County Superior Court, named as defendants the Company and each member of its Board of Directors (as constituted as of October 12, 2015), Denali, Dell and Merger Sub.

The Company and its directors moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the IBEW matter pursuant to provisions of the Massachusetts Business Corporation Act, M.G.L. c. 156D, § 7.40 et seq., and Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, on the basis that the complaint asserts a derivative action on behalf of the Company and should be dismissed for failure to make the requisite pre-suit demand on the Company. On December 7, 2015 the Court granted this motion and on December 24, 2015 the court entered judgment dismissing each of the consolidated actions. On January 21, 2016, three of the plaintiffs served notice that they will appeal this judgment. The appeal has not yet been docketed.

On January 11, 2016, following the state court judgment and a motion by the Company and its directors to stay or dismiss the two lawsuits then pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the plaintiffs in those cases amended their complaints to eliminate the initial claims based on Massachusetts state law and substitute allegations that the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus dated December 14, 2015 omits and/or misrepresents material information and that such omissions and misrepresentations constitute violations of Section 14(a) of, and Rule 14a-9 under, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Two additional lawsuits have since been filed in the same court advancing substantially the same proxy-disclosure-based allegations.

Of the two lawsuits filed purportedly on behalf of VMware shareholders, one was filed in Middlesex County Superior Court in Massachusetts, and the other in Delaware Chancery Court. Both generally allege that the Company, in its capacity as the majority shareholder of VMware, and individual defendants who are directors of the Company, VMware, or both, breached their fiduciary duties to minority shareholders of VMware in connection with the Merger. Both further allege that various combinations of defendants aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain, and additional lawsuits may be brought or additional claims advanced concerning the Merger. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an adverse effect on the Company’s operations. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger.