CONTINGENCIES

Products Corporation currently leases facilities for executive offices, warehousing, research and development and sales operations and leases various types of equipment under operating and capital lease agreements. Rental expense was $20.1 million, $18.5 million and $18.6 million for 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Minimum rental commitments under all non-cancelable leases, including those pertaining to idled facilities, are presented in the following table:



Minimum Rental Commitments	Total		2018		2019		2020		2021		2022		Thereafter
Capital leases	$	2.9	$	1.4	$	0.9	$	0.4	$	0.1	$	0.1	$	—
Operating leases	245.4		48.0		39.3		31.3		27.1		21.1		78.6

The Company is involved in various routine legal proceedings incidental to the ordinary course of its business. The Company believes that the outcome of all pending legal proceedings in the aggregate is not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

As previously disclosed, following the announcement of the execution of the Elizabeth Arden Merger Agreement, several putative shareholder class action lawsuits and a derivative lawsuit were filed challenging the Merger. In addition to the complaints filed on behalf of plaintiffs Parker, Christiansen, Ross and Stein on July 25, 2016, a lawsuit (Hutson v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-16-013566) (referred to as the "Hutson complaint") was filed in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (the "Court") against Elizabeth Arden, the members of the board of directors of Elizabeth Arden, Revlon, Products Corporation and Acquisition Sub. In general, the Hutson complaint alleges that: (i) the members of Elizabeth Arden’s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Elizabeth Arden’s shareholders with respect to the Merger, by, among other things, approving the Merger pursuant to an unfair process and at an inadequate and unfair price; and (ii) Revlon, Products Corporation and Acquisition Sub aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of Elizabeth Arden’s board of directors. The plaintiff seeks relief similar to that sought in the Parker case.

By Order dated August 4, 2016, all five cases were consolidated by the Court into a Consolidated Amended Class Action. Thereafter, on August 11, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed, seeking to enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger and/or from soliciting shareholder votes. To the extent that the Merger was consummated, the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint seeks to rescind the Merger or recover rescissory or other compensatory damages, along with costs and fees. The grounds for relief set forth in the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in large part track those grounds as asserted in the five individual complaints, as previously disclosed. Class counsel advised that post-consummation of the Merger they were going to file a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (which superseded the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint) was ultimately filed on or about January 26, 2017. Like the Consolidated Amended Class Action complaint, the grounds for relief set forth in the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in large part track those grounds as asserted in the five individual complaints.

The defendants' motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint were filed on March 28, 2017. Plaintiffs' response was filed on June 6, 2017 and defendants' replies were filed on July 13, 2017. A hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss was held on September 19, 2017 and on November 20, 2017, the defendants’ motion was granted and the case was dismissed, with leave to amend under limited circumstances. On December 8, 2017, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint, seeking relief on the same grounds sought in the First and Second Amended Complaints, but alleged as direct, as opposed to derivative, claims. On January 12, 2018, the defendants once again moved to dismiss. The Company anticipates briefing, followed by a hearing that is expected to occur in the next few months. The Company believes the allegations contained in the Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend against them. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in the future.

The Company believes that the outcome of all pending legal proceedings in the aggregate is not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. However, in light of the uncertainties involved in legal proceedings generally, the ultimate outcome of a particular matter could be material to the Company’s operating results for a particular period depending on, among other things, the size of the loss or the nature of the liability imposed and the level of the Company’s income for that particular period.