Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Lease Commitments. The Company has various operating leases that call for annual rental payments due in equal monthly installments and a lease with a rent free occupancy period. The Company’s policy is to recognize expense for lease payment, including those with escalating provisions and rent free periods, on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Operating lease expenses were $41.6 million, $33.5 million, and $41.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Future minimum lease payments at December 31, 2017 under these non-cancelable leases are as follows:



(in millions)
Year Ended December 31,
2018	$	39.5
2019	29.6
2020	22.5
2021	20.1
2022	15.5
Thereafter	40.1
	$	167.3

The Company has the option to renew certain plant operating leases, with the longest renewal period extending through 2043. Certain of the operating leases provide for increased rent through increases in general price levels. The Company recognizes rent expense in these situations on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

(b) Purchase Commitments. The Company will, from time to time, enter into limited purchase commitments for the purchase of certain raw materials. Amounts committed under these programs are not significant to the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016.

(c) David Buehring, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., Scott L. Thompson, and Barry A. Hytinen, filed March 24, 2017.

On March 24, 2017, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International, Inc. and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased Tempur Sealy common stock between July 28, 2016 and January 27, 2017. The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its then existing and future financial prospects, including those with one of its retailers, Mattress Firm, allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company does not believe the claims have merit and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. A Motion to Dismiss the case was filed by the Company on October 5, 2017. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on November 20, 2017, and the Company filed its reply on December 21, 2017. The Court has not yet ruled on the Company’s Motion to Dismiss. The case is still in the early stages of litigation and there has been no discovery in the case. As a result, the outcome of the case is unclear and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss, or range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

(d) Myla Gardner v. Scott L. Thompson, Barry A. Hytinen, Evelyn S. Dilsaver, John A. Heil, Jon L. Luther, Usman Nabi, Richard W. Neu, Robert B. Trussell, Jr. and Tempur Sealy International, Inc., filed July 10, 2017; Joseph L. Doherty v. Scott L. Thompson, Barry A. Hytinen, Evelyn S. Dilsaver, John A. Heil, Jon L. Luther, Usman Nabi, Richard W. Neu, Robert B. Trussell, Jr. and Tempur Sealy International, Inc., filed July 20, 2017; and Paul Onesti v. Scott L. Thompson, Barry A. Hytinen, Evelyn S. Dilsaver, John A. Heil, Jon L. Luther, Usman Nabi, Richard W. Neu, Robert B. Trussell, Jr. and Tempur Sealy International, Inc., filed July 21, 2017.

Three putative shareholder derivative suits were filed against the Company, each member of its Board of Directors and two of its officers in July 2017. Two suits were filed in the Fayette County Circuit Court on July 10, 2017 and July 14, 2017, respectively, and the third was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on July 21, 2017. Each complaint alleges that the Board of Directors and officers caused the Company to make materially false and misleading statements regarding its business and financial prospects, including those with one of its retailers, Mattress Firm, which was a violation of the fiduciary duties they owed to the Company. The Company does not believe any of the suits have merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims in each case. The Plaintiffs in each of the cases have agreed to stay their respective actions until after a decision is rendered on the Motion to Dismiss in the Buehring action noted above. These cases are in the early stages of litigation, and as a result the outcome of each case is unclear, so the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss, or range of loss, if any.

(e) Mattress Firm, Inc. v. Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC and Sealy Mattress Company, filed March 30, 2017.

On March 30, 2017, a suit was filed against Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC and Sealy Mattress Company (two wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company) in the District Court of Harris County, Texas by Mattress Firm. The complaint alleges breach of contract, tortious interference and seeks a declaratory judgment with respect to the interpretation of its agreements with the Company. On April 7, 2017, the Company's subsidiaries named above, among others, filed suit against Mattress Firm in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, seeking injunctive relief and damages for trademark infringement, unfair competition and trademark dilution in violation of the Lanham Act, and breach of contract and other state law violations. The complaint alleges that Mattress Firm violated the parties' transition agreements dated January 30, 2017, and consequently, federal and state law, by its use of the Company’s trademarks after April 3, 2017. On April 28, 2017, the complaint was amended to add a claim by Sealy Mattress Company for nonpayment by Mattress Firm for products sold and delivered. On May 23, 2017, the complaint was further amended to add allegations that Mattress Firm continued to use the Company’s trade names and trademarks on its website and in advertising in an inappropriate manner. On July 11, 2017, the Court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Mattress Firm from using the Company’s names and marks in such manner. On July 17, 2017, the complaint was further amended to add allegations that despite representations to the contrary, Mattress Firm continued to use the Company’s trade names and trademarks on its website and in advertising. On July 31, 2017, the complaint was further amended to address false and misleading advertising by Mattress Firm in the form of a YouTube video in violation of federal and state law, and in violation of the agreements between the parties. On December 7, 2017, the complaint was further amended to address false and misleading advertising by Mattress Firm through their Dare to Compare advertising campaign. Discovery is proceeding in both the Texas District Court case filed by Mattress Firm and the U.S. District Court case filed by the Company’s subsidiaries.

The Company does not believe the claims asserted by Mattress Firm have merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. The cases are still in the early stages of litigation, and as a result, the outcome remains unclear so the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss, or range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

(f) Other. The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to the operations of its business. The Company believes that the outcome of all such other pending legal proceedings in the aggregate will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity, or operating results.