Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Lease Obligations: We lease certain land, facilities, and equipment under non-cancelable operating leases. Operating lease amounts exclude renewal option periods, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance expenses on leased properties. Our facility leases typically provide for rental adjustments for increases in base rent (up to specific limits), property taxes, insurance, and general property maintenance that would be recorded as rent expense. Rent expense was approximately $0.4 million and $0.4 million for the three months ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. There are no off-balance sheet arrangements other than our operating leases.

Asset Retirement Obligations ("ARO"): We have known conditional asset retirement conditions, such as certain asset decommissioning and restoration of rented facilities to be performed in the future. Our asset retirement obligations include assumptions related to renewal option periods for those facilities where we expect to extend lease terms. The Company recognizes its estimate of the fair value of its asset retirement obligations in the period incurred in long-term liabilities. The fair value of the asset retirement obligations is also capitalized as property, plant and equipment.

In future periods, the asset retirement obligation is accreted for the change in its present value and capitalized costs are depreciated over the useful life of the related assets. If the fair value of the estimated asset retirement obligation changes, an adjustment will be recorded to both the asset retirement obligation and the asset retirement capitalized cost. Revisions in estimated liabilities can result from revisions of estimated inflation rates, changes in estimated retirement costs, and changes in the estimated timing of settling asset retirement obligations. The fair value of our asset retirement obligations were estimated by discounting projected cash flows over the estimated life of the related assets using credit adjusted risk-free rates which ranged from 3.25% to 5.78%. There were no asset retirement obligations settled during the three months ended December 31, 2014, and 2013, respectively. Accretion expense of $16,000 and $44,000 was recorded during the three months ended December 31, 2014, and 2013, respectively.

EMCORE leases a major facility in Alhambra, California covering six buildings where manufacturing, research and development, and general and administrative work is provided. Several leases related to these facilities, which expired in 2011, were being maintained on a month-to-month basis. In November 2014, a new lease for four of the six buildings was signed which was retroactively effective on October 1, 2014. The new lease extended the terms of the lease for three years plus a three year option to extend the lease, added an optional exercise period and clarified the obligations and restoration work necessary to restore the buildings back to the requirements in the lease.

The Company’s asset retirement obligation consists of legal requirements to return the existing leased facilities to its original state and certain environmental work to be performed due to the presence of a manufacturing fabrication operation and significant changes to the facilities over the past thirty years. EMCORE had estimated a significant asset retirement obligation associated with this site.

During the first quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company completed an analysis of the new Alhambra lease and revised its estimated future cash flows of its asset retirement obligations. The analysis required estimating the probability or likelihood that the Company will be required to remove certain infrastructure and restore the leased properties as set forth in the new lease, and the timing and amount of those future costs. The analysis resulted in the downward revision of the Company’s asset retirement obligation liability. This change in the estimated cash flows resulted in a reduction in the asset retirement obligations liability by $2.9 million with an offsetting reduction to property, plant, and equipment of $2.1 million, and a gain from change in estimate of ARO obligation of $0.8 million. The Company first reduced the net leasehold improvement asset to the extent of the carrying amount of the related asset initially recorded when the asset retirement obligations were established. The amount of the remaining reduction to the asset retirement obligations was recorded as a reduction to operating expenses.

The following table summarizes asset retirement obligations activity.



Asset retirement obligations:	As of December 31,
(in thousands)	2014
Balance at beginning of period	$	5,263
Asset retirement obligations reclassified to liabilities of discontinued operations	(720		)
Subtotal	4,543
Accretion expense	16
Revision in estimated cash flows	(2,879		)
Balance at end of period	$	1,680

Indemnifications: We have agreed to indemnify certain customers against claims of infringement of the intellectual property rights of others in our sales contracts with these customers. Historically, we have not paid any claims under these indemnification obligations. On September 19, 2013, we received written notice from a customer of our broadband products requesting indemnification relating to a lawsuit brought against them alleging patent infringement of a system incorporating our product. As of December 31, 2014, there has been no resolution to this claim.

In March 2012, we entered into a Master Purchase Agreement with SEI, pursuant to which we agreed to sell certain assets and transfer certain obligations associated with our Fiber Optics segment. Under the terms of the Master Purchase Agreement, we have agreed to indemnify SEI for up to $3.4 million of potential claims and expenses for the two-year period following the sale and we recorded this amount as a deferred gain on our balance sheet as of December 31, 2014 and September 30, 2014 as a result of these contingencies. In April 2013, May 2013 and May 2014, we received letters from SEI asserting indemnification claims under the Master Purchase Agreement. As of December 31, 2014, there has been no resolution to these claims. See Note 1 - Description of Business for additional disclosures related to this asset sale and below for additional disclosures related to the claims.

Legal Proceedings: We are subject to various legal proceedings, claims, and litigation, either asserted or unasserted that arise in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, we do not expect the resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, the results of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty. Professional legal fees are expensed when incurred. We accrue for contingent losses when such losses are probable and reasonably estimable. In the event that estimates or assumptions prove to differ from actual results, adjustments are made in subsequent periods to reflect more current information. Should we fail to prevail in any legal matter or should several legal matters be resolved against the Company in the same reporting period, then the financial results of that particular reporting period could be materially affected.

a) Intellectual Property Lawsuits

We protect our proprietary technology by applying for patents where appropriate and, in other cases, by preserving the technology, related know-how and information as trade secrets. The success and competitive position of our product lines are impacted by our ability to obtain intellectual property protection for our research and development efforts. We have, from time to time, exchanged correspondence with third parties regarding the assertion of patent or other intellectual property rights in connection with certain of our products and processes.

b) Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd.

On September 23, 2014, Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd. ("Sumitomo"), filed for arbitration against EMCORE, as required under the Master Purchase Agreement between the parties (the "MPA"). Sumitomo seeks $40.0 million from EMCORE, relating to claims for quality issues, expenses related to subpoenas issued in litigation against a vendor and customers of SEDU, a claim that EMCORE made fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations to Sumitomo in the MPA, and other breach of contract claims. We believe that the claims in this matter are without merit and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously against them. However, because the matter is in a preliminary stage, we cannot assure you as to its outcome, or that an adverse decision in such action would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operation. On November 14, 2014, EMCORE answered Sumitomo’s complaint and asserted several legal defenses.