XML 81 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Commitments And Contingencies
12 Months Ended
Jan. 31, 2012
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]  
Commitments And Contingencies

NOTE 13 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Leases

The Company leases logistics centers, office facilities and certain equipment under non-cancelable operating leases, the majority of which expire at various dates through fiscal 2019. Fair value renewal and escalation clauses exist for a substantial portion of the operating leases. Rental expense for all operating leases, including minimum commitments under IT outsourcing agreements, totaled $56.5 million, $53.5 million and $55.5 million in fiscal years 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Future minimum lease payments at January 31, 2012, under all such leases, including minimum commitments under IT outsourcing agreements, for succeeding fiscal years and thereafter are as follows (in thousands):

 

Fiscal year:

  

2013

   $ 58,500   

2014

     49,800   

2015

     43,600   

2016

     35,100   

2017

     14,000   

Thereafter

     20,200   
  

 

 

 

Total payments

   $ 221,200   
  

 

 

 

Synthetic Lease Facility

The Company has a synthetic lease facility (the "Synthetic Lease") with a group of financial institutions under which the Company leases certain logistics centers and office facilities from a third-party lessor. During the second quarter of fiscal 2009, the Company renewed its existing Synthetic Lease with a new lease agreement that expires in June 2013. Properties leased under the Synthetic Lease are located in Clearwater and Miami, Florida; Fort Worth, Texas; Fontana, California; Suwanee, Georgia; Swedesboro, New Jersey; and South Bend, Indiana. The Synthetic Lease has been accounted for as an operating lease and rental payments are calculated at the applicable LIBOR rate plus a margin based on the Company's credit ratings.

During the first four years of the lease term, the Company may, at its option, purchase any combination of the seven properties, at an amount equal to each of the property's cost, as long as the lease balance does not decrease below a defined amount. During the last year of the lease term, until 180 days prior to the lease expiration, the Company may, at its option, i) purchase a minimum of two of the seven properties, at an amount equal to each of the property's cost, ii) exercise the option to renew the lease for a minimum of two of the seven properties or iii) exercise the option to remarket a minimum of two of the seven properties and cause a sale of the properties. If the Company elects to remarket the properties, it has guaranteed the lessor a percentage of the cost of each property, in the aggregate amount of approximately $107.4 million (the "residual value"). The Company's residual value guarantee related to the Synthetic Lease has been recorded at the estimated fair value of the residual guarantee.

The sum of future minimum lease payments under the Synthetic Lease at January 31, 2012, which are included in the future minimum lease payments presented above, was approximately $2.7 million.

The Synthetic Lease contains covenants that must be complied with, similar to the covenants described in certain of the credit facilities discussed in Note 7—Debt. As of January 31, 2012, the Company was in compliance with all such covenants.

Contingencies

Prior to fiscal 2004, one of the Company's European subsidiaries was audited in relation to various value-added tax ("VAT") matters. As a result of those audits, the subsidiary received notices of assessment that allege the subsidiary did not properly collect and remit VAT. It is management's opinion, based upon the opinion of outside legal counsel, that the Company has valid defenses related to a substantial portion of these assessments. Although the Company is vigorously pursuing administrative and judicial action to challenge the assessments, no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome. The resolution of such assessments will not be material to the Company's consolidated financial position or liquidity; however, it could be material to the Company's operating results for any particular period, depending upon the level of income for such period.

In December 2010, in a non-unanimous decision, a Brazilian appellate court overturned a 2003 trial court which had previously ruled in favor of the Company's Brazilian subsidiary related to the imposition of certain taxes on payments abroad related to the licensing of commercial software products, commonly referred to as "CIDE tax". The Company estimates the total exposure where the CIDE tax, including interest, may be considered due, to be approximately $32.0 million as of January 31, 2012. The Brazilian subsidiary has moved for clarification of the ruling and intends to appeal if the court does not rule in its favor. However, in order to pursue the next level of appeal, the Brazilian subsidiary may be required to make a deposit or to provide a guarantee to the courts for the payment of the CIDE tax pending the outcome of the appeal. Based on the legal opinion of outside counsel, the Company believes that the chances of success on appeal of this matter are favorable and the Brazilian subsidiary intends to vigorously defend its position that the CIDE tax is not due. However, no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter. The resolution of this litigation will not be material to the Company's consolidated financial position or liquidity; however, it could be material to the Company's operating results for any particular period, depending upon the level of income for such period. In addition to the discussion regarding the CIDE tax above, the Company's Brazilian subsidiary has been undergoing several examinations of non-income related taxes. Due to the complex nature of the Brazilian tax system, the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of these examinations resulting in assessments. Such assessments cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, but could be material to the Company's consolidated results of operations for any particular period, depending upon the level of income for such period. However, the Company believes such assessments, if they were to occur, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or liquidity.

The Company is subject to various other legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company's management does not expect that the outcome in any of these other legal proceedings, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Guarantees

As is customary in the technology industry, to encourage certain customers to purchase products from Tech Data, the Company has arrangements with certain finance companies that provide inventory financing facilities to the Company's customers. In conjunction with certain of these arrangements, the Company would be required to purchase certain inventory in the event the inventory is repossessed from the customers by the finance companies. As the Company does not have access to information regarding the amount of inventory purchased from the Company still on hand with the customer at any point in time, the Company's repurchase obligations relating to inventory cannot be reasonably estimated. Repurchases of inventory by the Company under these arrangements have been insignificant to date. The Company believes that, based on historical experience, the likelihood of a material loss pursuant to these inventory repurchase obligations is remote.

The Company provides additional financial guarantees to finance companies on behalf of certain customers. The majority of these guarantees are for an indefinite period of time, where the Company would be required to perform if the customer is in default with the finance company related to purchases made from the Company. The Company reviews the underlying credit for these guarantees on at least an annual basis. As of January 31, 2012 and 2011, the aggregate amount of guarantees under these arrangements totaled $65.4 million and $62.1 million, respectively, of which $28.4 million and $43.0 million, respectively, was outstanding. The Company believes that, based on historical experience, the likelihood of a material loss pursuant to the above guarantees is remote.