14 — Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The Company leases certain facilities and certain equipment under non-cancelable capital and operating leases. In addition to the minimum future lease commitments presented below, the leases generally require the Company to pay property taxes, insurance, maintenance and repair cost which are not included in the table because the Company has determined these items are not material. Certain leases provide the Company with either a right of first refusal to acquire or an option to purchase a facility at fair value. Certain leases also contain escalation clauses and renewal option clauses calling for increased rents. Where a lease contains an escalation clause or a concession, such as a rent holiday or tenant improvement allowance, rent expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term in accordance with ASC 840, Operating Leases.

The future minimum lease commitments for the next five fiscal years, under non-cancelable capital and operating leases with initial or remaining lease terms in excess of one year were as follows:



	Year ended July 31,
(In thousands)	2016		2017		2018		2019		2020		Thereafter		Subtotal		Less Amount Representing Interest			Total
Operating leases	$	22,311	$	19,734	$	17,431	$	14,113	$	10,895	$	71,885	$	156,369	$	—		$	156,369
Capital leases	1,312		37		3		—		—		—		1,352		(28		)	1,324

Facilities rental expense for the years ended July 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 were $21.7 million, $26.4 million and $20.6 million, respectively. Yard operations equipment rental expense for the years ended July 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 were $3.6 million, $3.0 million and $2.8 million, respectively.

Commitments

Letters of Credit

The Company had outstanding letters of credit of $17.5 million at July 31, 2015, which are primarily used to secure certain insurance obligations.

Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

The Company is subject to threats of litigation and is involved in actual litigation and damage claims arising in the ordinary course of business, such as actions related to injuries, property damage, and handling or disposal of vehicles. The material pending legal proceedings to which the Company is a party to, or of which any of the Company’s property is subject to include the following matters.

On November 1, 2013, the Company filed suit against Sparta Consulting, Inc. (now known as “KPIT”) in the 44th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, alleging fraud, fraudulent inducement, and/or promissory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair business practices pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17200, breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and attorney’s fees. The Company seeks compensatory and exemplary damages, disgorgement of amounts paid, attorney’s fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, and a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights, duties, and obligations under the Implementation Services Agreement dated October 6, 2011. The suit arises out of the Company’s September 17, 2013 decision to terminate the Implementation Services Agreement, under which KPIT was to design, implement, and deliver a customized replacement enterprise resource planning system for the Company. On January 2, 2014, KPIT removed this suit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On August 11, 2014, the Northern District of Texas transferred the suit to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California for convenience. On January 8, 2014, KPIT filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, account stated, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. KPIT seeks compensatory and exemplary damages, prejudgment interest, costs of suit, and a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights, duties, and obligations under the Implementation Services Agreement. The Company is pursuing its claim for damages, and defending KPIT’s claim for damages.

The Company provides for costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The effect of the outcome of these matters on the Company’s future consolidated results of operations and cash flows cannot be predicted because any such effect depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing of the resolution of such matters. The Company believes that any ultimate liability will not have a material effect on its consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. However, the amount of the liabilities associated with these claims, if any, cannot be determined with certainty. The Company maintains insurance which may or may not provide coverage for claims made against the Company. There is no assurance that there will be insurance coverage available when and if needed. Additionally, the insurance that the Company carries requires that the Company pay for costs and/or claims exposure up to the amount of the insurance deductibles negotiated when the insurance is purchased.

Governmental Proceedings

The Georgia Department of Revenue, or DOR, has conducted a sales and use tax audit of the Company’s operations in Georgia for the period from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011. As a result of their initial audit, the DOR issued a notice of proposed assessment for uncollected sales taxes in which it asserted that the Company failed to collect and remit sales taxes totaling $73.8 million, including penalties and interest. According to the DOR, the proposed assessment was based on its initial determination that the Company's sales did not constitute nontaxable sales for resale.

The Company subsequently engaged a Georgia law firm and outside tax advisors to review the conduct of its business operations in Georgia, the notice of proposed assessment, and the DOR’s policy position. In particular, the Company’s outside legal counsel provided the Company an opinion that the sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers should not be subject to Georgia sales and use tax. In rendering its opinion, the Company’s counsel noted that non-U.S. registered resellers are unable to comply strictly with technical requirements for a Georgia certificate of exemption but concluded that its sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers should not be subject to Georgia sales and use tax notwithstanding this technical inability to comply.

Since the Company's receipt of the notice of proposed assessment, the Company and its counsel have engaged in active discussions with the DOR to resolve the matter. On June 5, 2015, following the Company's most recent discussions and after additional review of documentation, the DOR provided the Company with revised audit work papers computing a sales tax liability of $2.7 million before interest and any penalties.

On June 22, 2015, representatives of the DOR and the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Georgia informed the Company's counsel that the DOR intended to issue a formal notice of assessment for an estimated $100.0 million, based on the DOR’s original proposed assessment of $73.8 million plus additional accumulated interest and penalties. On August 4, 2015, the DOR issued an official Assessment and Demand for Payment for $96.1 million for sales taxes, penalties, and interest that the DOR alleges the Company owes the State of Georgia. The Company filed an appeal of this notice of assessment from the DOR with the Georgia Tax Tribunal on September 3, 2015.

Based on the opinion from the Company’s outside law firm, advice from its outside tax advisors, and the Company's best estimate of a probable outcome, the Company has adequately provided for the payment of any assessment in its consolidated financial statements. The Company believes it has strong defenses to the DOR’s notice of assessment and intends to defend this matter. There can be no assurance that this matter will be resolved in the Company’s favor or that the Company will not ultimately be required to make a substantial payment to the Georgia DOR. The Company understands that litigating and defending the matter in Georgia could be expensive and time-consuming and result in substantial management distraction. If the matter were to be resolved in a manner adverse to the Company, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations and financial position.