COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Minimum Future Rental Payments

Minimum future rental payments under non-cancelable operating leases having remaining terms in excess of one year as of March 31, 2019 are as follows:



(in thousands)
Fiscal Year Ending March 31,	Gross Minimum Lease Payments	Sublease Receipts		Net Minimum Lease Payments
2020	18,882	(5,238	)	13,644
2021	17,883	(5,481	)	12,402
2022	15,239	(5,645	)	9,594
2023	5,800	(1,160	)	4,640
2024	1,281	—		1,281
Thereafter	601	—		601
Total minimum future rental payments	59,686	(17,524	)	42,162

Total rent expense for operating leases was approximately $2.8 million, $2.6 million, and $17.8 million in Fiscal Years 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively.

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

The Company purchases services and components from a variety of suppliers and manufacturers. During the normal course of business and to manage manufacturing operations and general and administrative activities, the Company may enter into firm, non-cancelable, and unconditional purchase obligations for which amounts are not recorded on the consolidated balance sheets. As of March 31, 2019, the Company had outstanding off-balance sheet third-party manufacturing, component purchase, and other general and administrative commitments of $399.0 million.

Other Guarantees and Obligations

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, business partners, purchasers of assets or subsidiaries and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of the Company's breach of agreements or representations and warranties made by the Company, services to be provided by the Company, intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties or, with respect to the sale of assets of a subsidiary, matters related to the Company's conduct of business and tax matters prior to the sale. From time to time, the Company indemnifies customers against combinations of loss, expense, or liability arising from various triggering events relating to the sale and use of its products and services.

In addition, the Company also provides indemnification to customers against claims related to undiscovered liabilities, additional product liability, or environmental obligations. The Company has also entered into indemnification agreements with its directors, officers and certain other personnel that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers of the Company or certain of its affiliated entities. The Company maintains director and officer liability insurance, which may cover certain liabilities arising from its obligation to indemnify its directors, officers and certain other personnel in certain circumstances. It is not possible to determine the aggregate maximum potential loss under these agreements due to the limited history of prior claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular claim. Such indemnification obligations might not be subject to maximum loss clauses. Historically, the Company has not incurred material costs as a result of obligations under these agreements and it has not accrued any liabilities related to such indemnification obligations in the consolidated financial statements.

Claims and Litigation

On October 12, 2012, GN Netcom, Inc. (“GN”) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“Court”), alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 3 of the Clayton Act, and tortious interference with business relations in connection with the Company’s distribution of corded and wireless headsets. The case was assigned to Judge Leonard P. Stark. GN sought injunctive relief, total damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as unspecified legal and equitable relief. GN generally alleged that the Company’s alleged exclusive dealing arrangements with certain distributors stifled competition in the relevant market. In July 2016, the Court issued a sanctions order against Plantronics in the amount of approximately $4.9 million for allegations of spoliation of evidence. The case was tried to a jury in October 2017, resulting in a verdict in favor of the Company. GN filed a motion for new trial in November 2017, and that motion was denied by the Court in January 2018. The Company filed a motion for attorneys’ fees in November 2017, and that motion was denied by the Court in January 2018. The Company also filed a motion for certain recoverable costs, and the parties stipulated to an amount of approximately $0.2 million which GN paid the Company. If the jury verdict were to be appealed and later overturned on appeal, the Company would have to repay that amount to GN. On February 12, 2018, GN filed a notice of intent to appeal both the denial of the new trial motion and the Court’s July 2016 spoliation order. The appellate court heard argument on the matter on December 11, 2018 and its decision is pending.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) have concluded their investigations into possible violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by Polycom, relating to conduct prior to its July 2, 2018 acquisition by the Company. Polycom and the Company cooperated fully with these agencies regarding these matters. In December 2018, the DOJ issued a declination to prosecute the matter. Polycom also agreed to settle the matter with the SEC and DOJ upon payment of $38.1 million comprised of $31.0 million for disgorgement, $1.8 million for prejudgment interest, and $3.8 million for civil money penalties. The Company was reimbursed for the entire settlement amount as well as an additional $1.4 million for legal fees and expenses through funds retained in escrow under the Stock Purchase Agreement between Plantronics, Polycom and Triangle Private Holdings II, LLP. This matter is now concluded.

On September 13, 2018, Mr. Phil Shin filed on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, a purported Class Action Complaint in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California alleging violations of various federal and state consumer protection laws in addition to unfair competition and fraud claims in connection with the Company’s BackBeat FIT headphones. The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in November 2018. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on December 14, 2018. The matter has now been resolved.

On January 23, 2018, FullView, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California against Polycom, Inc. alleging infringement of two patents and thereafter filed a similar complaint in connection with the same patents in Canada. Polycom thereafter filed an inter partes reexamination of one of the patents, which was then appealed to the Federal Circuit Court. Oral argument occurred on March 6, 2019. Litigation in both matters in the United States and Canada, respectively, has been stayed pending the results of that appeal. Polycom also filed an inter partes review of the second patent on January 31, 2019, which is now pending institution. FullView had also initiated arbitration proceedings under a terminated license agreement with Polycom alleging that Polycom had failed to pay certain royalties due under that agreement. An arbitration hearing occurred on December 10, 2018, and the arbitration panel awarded $374,475 to FullView. On April 29, 2019 the Federal Circuit rendered its opinion affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board opinion regarding the inter partes reexamination.

In June 2018, Ashton Bentley Technology Limited filed a complaint against Polycom, Inc. in the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Court, Commercial Court (QBD), London, United Kingdom, alleging breach of contract. The Company disputes the allegations and on October 5, 2018, Ashton Bentley filed its Reply and Defence to Counterclaim to the Company’s September 6, 2018 Defence and Counterclaims. The Company’s responded to Ashton Bentley’s Reply in November 2018. This matter has now been resolved.

On June 21, 2018, directPacket Research Inc. filed a complaint alleging patent infringement by Polycom in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division. The Company disputes the allegations. Polycom filed a motion to change venue which was denied in October 2018. Polycom filed its Answer to the Complaint on October 18, 2018. Discovery is ongoing.

On March 21, 2019, Performance Design Products filed a complaint against Plantronics alleging trademark infringement. Plantronics filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 12, 2019.

In addition to the specific matters discussed above, the Company is involved in various legal proceedings and investigations arising in the normal course of conducting business. Where applicable, in relation to the matters described above, the Company has accrued an amount that reflects the aggregate liability deemed probable and estimable, but this amount is not material to the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company is not able to estimate an amount or range of any reasonably possible loss, including in excess of any amount accrued, because of the preliminary nature of many of these proceedings, the difficulty in ascertaining the applicable facts relating to many of these proceedings, the variable treatment of claims made in many of these proceedings, and the difficulty of predicting the settlement value of many of these proceedings. However, based upon the Company's historical experience, the resolution of these proceedings is not expected to have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company may incur substantial legal fees, which are expensed as incurred, in defending against these legal proceedings.