Commitments and Contingencies

Leases: Estimated future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases with an initial or remaining term of one year or more are $0.8 million, $0.3 million, $0.3 million, $0.2 million, and $0.1 million for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively.

Operating Lease Obligations: We lease certain 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 $1.4 million, $1.3 million and $1.7 million for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. There are no off-balance sheet arrangements other than our operating leases.

Asset Retirement Obligation: We have known conditional AROs, such as certain asset decommissioning and restoration of rented facilities to be performed in the future. Our ARO's 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 ARO's in the period incurred in long-term liabilities. The fair value of the ARO is also capitalized as property, plant and equipment.

In future periods, the ARO 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 ARO changes, an adjustment will be recorded to both the ARO 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 ARO's. The fair value of our ARO's were estimated by discounting projected cash flows over the estimated life of the related assets using credit adjusted risk-free rates which ranged from 1.20% to 4.20%. There were no ARO's settled during the fiscal years ended September 30, 2015 and 2014. See discussion below regarding ARO settlements during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016. Accretion expense of $0.1 million, $0.1 million and $0.2 million was recorded during the fiscal years ended September 30, 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively.

EMCORE leases a major facility in Alhambra, California covering six buildings where manufacturing, research and development, and general and administrative work is performed. Several leases related to these facilities expired in 2011, and 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 and clarified the obligations and restoration work necessary to restore the buildings back to the requirements in the lease.

The Company’s ARO consists of legal requirements to return the existing leased facilities to their 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.

During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, the Company completed an analysis of the new Alhambra lease and revised its estimated future cash flows of its ARO's. The analysis required estimating the probability 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 ARO liability. This change in the estimated cash flows resulted in a reduction in the ARO liability by $2.9 million with an offsetting reduction to property, plant, and equipment, net of $2.1 million, and a gain from change in estimate of ARO liability 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 ARO's were established. The amount of the remaining reduction to the ARO's was recorded as a reduction to operating expenses.

In May 2016, which was retroactively effective on February 1, 2016, the Company entered into a five year lease agreement for facilities in Beijing, China where some manufacturing work is to be performed. In connection with the lease agreement, the Company has recorded an ARO asset and liability in the amount of $48,000 at September 30, 2016.

During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, the Company entered into an agreement to terminate the lease and related obligations, including ARO, in Newark, California for a one-time settlement payment of $0.2 million. As a result of this agreement and payment, the Company reduced its ARO associated with the Newark facility by $0.3 million. The following table summarizes ARO activity:



Asset Retirement Obligations	September 30,
(in thousands)	2016
Balance at September 30, 2015	$	1,774
Accretion expense	66
Additions in current year	48
Payments and revision in estimated cash flows	(270		)
Balance at September 30, 2016	$	1,618

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 September 30, 2016, 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. Under the terms of the Master Purchase Agreement, we 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 a result of these contingencies.

On September 23, 2014, SEI filed for arbitration against EMCORE, in accordance with the terms of the Master Purchase Agreement between the parties. SEI was seeking $47.5 million from EMCORE, relating to numerous claims. On April 12, 2016, the International Court of Arbitration tribunal rejected SEI's claims. The panel ruled that EMCORE owes SEI none of the amounts SEI sought in the arbitration and that the Company was entitled to collect the $1.9 million held in escrow, which was received in June 2016. The Company was also entitled to recover $2.6 million in fees and costs from SEI, which was received in June 2016. During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, we recognized a gain associated with the release of $3.4 million of previously recorded gain associated with the sale of assets and reversal of other liabilities of $0.4 million, resulting in a credit of $3.8 million to recognition of previously deferred gain on sale of assets within discontinued operations of the Digital Products Business. During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, we recognized the $2.6 million recovery of previously incurred litigation fees and costs incurred by EMCORE within operating income as such represented the recovery of previously incurred legal expenses. See Note 4 - Discontinued Operations.

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 to 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) Mirasol Class Action

On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff Christina Mirasol (“Mirasol”), on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals composed of current and former non-exempt employees of the Company working in California since December 15, 2011, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The complaint alleges seven causes of action related to: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to pay minimum wages; (4) failure to timely pay wages upon termination; (5) failure to provide compliant wage statements; (6) unfair competition under the California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and (7) penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. The claims are premised primarily on the allegation that Mirasol and the putative class members were not provided with their legally required meal periods. Mirasol seeks recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for compensatory and liquidated damages as well as for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, statutory penalties, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.

In exchange for a one-time cash payment offered by the Company, certain current and former employees have agreed to release the Company from all potential claims related to the matters alleged in the Mirasol lawsuit. The Company has recorded an accrual for these amounts at September 30, 2016 that is not material to the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, which has been recorded within Operating Expenses for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the claims asserted in the lawsuit. While the Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses with respect to the allegations, the ultimate liability to the Company, including penalties and fines associated with the remaining claims, is subject to many uncertainties and may range from $39,000 to $2.6 million.

c) Mirasol Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

In August 2016, EMCORE was served with a second lawsuit by its former employee, Christina Mirsaol, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles alleging that the Company violated California’s employment laws in terminating her employment in November 2015. By her unverified Complaint, Mirasol asserts five causes of action: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) discrimination on the basis of disability and/or medical condition; (3) failure to accommodate; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. On September 26, 2016, Mirasol dismissed the fifth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mirasol alleges that EMCORE wrongfully terminated her at the conclusion of a Family and Medical Act leave, without engaging in the interactive process of offering to provide her with reasonable accommodations. The plaintiff is seeking general, special, and punitive damages. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the claims asserted in the lawsuit.