Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

The Company leases facilities, office space, computers and transportation equipment under non-cancelable operating leases expiring between 2018 and 2096. The future minimum commitments under these leases are as follows:



Fiscal Year	Annual Rental
	(In thousands)
2018	$	47,112
2019	39,669
2020	16,614
2021	10,322
2022	8,660
Thereafter	47,803
	$	170,180

The Company leases its corporate offices, which are located in Boca Raton, Florida, under a lease agreement which was amended in November 2015. The current lease expires in March 2019 and has two 5-year renewal options, which if exercised will result in a maximum term ending in March 2029. In 2016, the Company purchased land in Boca Raton, Florida to construct a new corporate office building which is expected to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2018. In addition, the Company leases office space for its regional offices in Charlotte, North Carolina; San Antonio, Texas; and Los Angeles, California. The Company is also currently leasing office space in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Boulder, Colorado and Aurora, Illinois. The Company also leases office space in Sydney, and Melbourne Australia and in Sandton, South Africa through its overseas affiliates to support its Australian and South African operations, respectively. These rental commitments are included in the table above. Certain of these leases contain leasehold improvement incentives, rent holidays, and scheduled rent increases which are included in the Company’s rent expense recognized on a straight-line basis.

Minimum rent expense associated with the Company’s leases having initial or remaining non-cancelable lease terms in excess of one year was $45.4 million, $38.2 million and $36.9 million for fiscal years 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Collective Bargaining Agreements

The Company had approximately 36% of its workforce covered by collective bargaining agreements at December 31, 2017. Collective bargaining agreements with 13% of employees are set to expire in less than one year.

Employment Agreements

On February 1, 2016, GEO entered into a Senior Officer Employment Agreement with Mr. J. David Donahue to serve as Senior Vice President, The GEO Group, Inc., and President, GEO Corrections and Detention. The term of the agreement will be for an initial period of two years, and terminating two years thereafter. The term will be automatically extended by one day every day such that it has a continuous "rolling" two-year term until the age of 67 years, unless otherwise terminated pursuant to the agreement. The agreement calls for an annual base salary of $0.5 million.

On February 12, 2018, GEO entered into a Senior Officer Employment Agreement with Mr. Richard K. Long to serve as Senior Vice President, Project Development of the Company. The term of the agreement will be for an initial period of two years, and terminating two years thereafter. The term will be automatically extended by one day every day such that it has a continuous "rolling" two-year term until the age of 67 years, unless otherwise terminated pursuant to the agreement. The agreement calls for an annual base salary of $0.4 million.

Contract Awards

On April 13, 2017, the Company announced that it had been awarded a contract by ICE for the development and operation of a new company-owned 1,000-bed detention facility to be located in Conroe, Texas. GEO expects to design, finance, build and operate the facility under a ten-year contract with ICE, inclusive of renewal options. The facility is scheduled for completion during the fourth quarter of 2018.

On May 26, 2017, the Company announced that it was awarded two ten-year contracts, inclusive of renewal option periods, by the BOP for the continued housing of criminal aliens under the custody of the BOP at the company-owned 1,800-bed Big Spring Facility and the company-owned 1,732-bed Flight Line Facility, which on a combined basis were previously referred to as the Big Spring Correctional Center in Texas. The two ten-year contracts were awarded to GEO under a long-standing procurement commonly referred to as Criminal Alien Requirement (CAR) 16, which was issued by the BOP in 2015. Additionally, only one of the two contracts held by Reeves County, Texas was extended by the BOP for one year.

Commitments

The Company currently has contractual commitments for a number of projects using existing Company financing facilities. The Company’s management estimates that these existing capital projects will cost approximately $251.3 million, of which $101.9 million was spent through 2017. The Company estimates the remaining capital requirements related to these capital projects to be approximately $149.4 million. These projects are expected to be completed through 2019.

In addition to these current estimated capital requirements, the Company is currently in the process of bidding on, or evaluating potential bids for the design, construction and management of a number of new projects. In the event that the Company wins bids for these projects and decides to self-finance their construction, its capital requirements could materially increase.

Litigation, Claims and Assessments

On February 8, 2017, the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial District in Hinds County, Mississippi against the Company, Cornell Companies, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, Christopher B. Epps, the former Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and Cecil McCrory, a former consultant for the Company. The complaint alleges several statutory and common law claims, including violations of various public servant statutes, racketeering activity, antitrust law, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and fraud. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, exemplary damages, forfeiture of all money received by the defendants, restitution, interest, attorneys' fees, other costs, and such other expenses or damages as the court may deem proper. The complaint claims that between 2007 and 2014, the Company and Cornell Companies, Inc. received approximately $256 million in proceeds from public contracts paid for by the State of Mississippi. The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself and Cornell Companies, Inc. The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to this matter at this time, as a loss is not considered probable or reasonably estimable at this preliminary stage of the lawsuit.

On October 22, 2014, former civil immigration detainees at the Aurora Immigration Detention Center filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “Court”). The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA"). The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched as a result of the level of payment the detainees received for work performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program that are at issue in the case are authorized by the Federal government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress. In February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class’ motion for class certification which the Company appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 9, 2018, a three-judge panel of the appellate court affirmed the class-certification order. The Company is seeking a rehearing en banc of the panel decision. The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. Since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three similar lawsuits have been filed - two in Washington and one in California. In Washington, one of the two lawsuits was filed on September 9, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The second of the two lawsuits was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County. On October 9, 2017, the Company removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the United States District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of California.

All lawsuits allege violations of the respective state’s minimum wage laws. However, only the California lawsuit, similar to the Colorado class-action, also includes claims based on violating the federal TVPA. The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and claims in these lawsuits. The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to these matters at this time, as a loss is not considered probable nor reasonably estimable at this stage of the lawsuit.

The nature of the Company's business exposes it to various types of third-party legal claims or litigation against the Company, including, but not limited to, civil rights claims relating to conditions of confinement and/or mistreatment, sexual misconduct claims brought by prisoners or detainees, medical malpractice claims, product liability claims, intellectual property infringement claims, claims relating to employment matters (including, but not limited to, employment discrimination claims, union grievances and wage and hour claims), property loss claims, environmental claims, automobile liability claims, indemnification claims by its customers and other third parties, contractual claims and claims for personal injury or other damages resulting from contact with the Company's facilities, programs, electronic monitoring products, personnel or prisoners, including damages arising from a prisoner's escape or from a disturbance or riot at a facility. The Company accrues for legal costs associated with loss contingencies when those costs are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company does not expect the outcome of any pending claims or legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Other Assessment

A state non-income tax audit completed in 2016 included tax periods for which the state tax authority had a number of years ago processed a substantial tax refund. At the completion of the audit fieldwork, the Company received a notice of audit findings disallowing deductions that were previously claimed by the Company, approved by the state tax authority and served as the basis for the approved refund claim. In early January 2017, the Company received a formal Notice of Assessment of Taxes and Demand for Payment from the taxing authority disallowing the deductions. The total tax, penalty and interest assessed is approximately $19.6 million. The Company has filed an administrative protest and disagrees with the assessment and intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend its position. The Company has established a reserve based on its estimate of the most probable loss based on the facts and circumstances known to date and the advice of outside counsel in connection with this matter.