Commitments and Contingencies

In May 2013, CertusView Technologies, LLC (“CertusView”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, filed suit against S & N Communications, Inc. and S&N Locating Services, LLC (together, “S&N”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging infringement of certain United States patents. In January 2015, the District Court granted S&N’s motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter, and entered final judgment. CertusView appealed to the Federal Circuit Court the District Court judgment of patent invalidity. On August 11, 2017, the Federal Circuit Court affirmed the District Court’s decision. Additionally, in August 2016, S&N filed a motion requesting that the District Court make a finding that the suit was an exceptional case and award S&N recovery of attorney fees. The District Court denied S&N’s motion for an exceptional case finding while allowing S&N permission to refile after conclusion of CertusView’s appeal to the Federal Circuit Court.

In September 2016, certain former employees of two subcontractors of TESINC, LLC (“TESINC”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, commenced a lawsuit against those subcontractors, TESINC and a customer of TESINC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law by failing to comply with applicable minimum wage and overtime pay requirements as a result of the misclassification of workers as independent contractors. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated workers who had performed work between April 1, 2016 and June 30, 2016. The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit in March 2017 for an immaterial amount. On August 16, 2017, the District Court granted Preliminary Approval of the settlement. A final approval hearing is scheduled for November 2017.

In April 2016, a former employee of Prince Telecom, LLC (“Prince”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, commenced a lawsuit against Prince in the Superior Court of California under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). The lawsuit alleges that Prince violated the California Labor Code by, among other things, failing to pay the California minimum wage, failing to pay for all hours worked (including overtime), failing to provide meal breaks and failing to provide accurate wage statements. The plaintiff sought to recover all penalties arising from each alleged PAGA violation on behalf of himself and a putative class of current and former employees of Prince who worked as technicians in the State of California in the year preceding the filing date of the lawsuit. In December 2016, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit for an immaterial amount. On July 11, 2017, the Court entered an Order approving the settlement.

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016, one of the Company’s subsidiaries ceased operations. This subsidiary contributed to a multiemployer pension plan, the Pension, Hospitalization and Benefit Plan of the Electrical Industry - Pension Trust Fund (the “Plan”). In October 2016, the Plan demanded payment for a claimed withdrawal liability of approximately $13.0 million. In December 2016, the Company submitted a formal request to the Plan seeking review of the Plan’s withdrawal liability determination. The Company is disputing the claim of a withdrawal liability demanded by the Plan as it believes there is a statutory exemption available under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for multiemployer pension plans that primarily cover employees in the building and construction industry. The Plan has taken the position that the work at issue does not qualify for the statutory exemption. The Company has submitted this dispute to arbitration, as required by ERISA, with a hearing expected sometime in 2018. There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in asserting the statutory exemption as a defense in the arbitration proceeding. As required by ERISA, in November 2016, the subsidiary began making monthly payments of a withdrawal liability to the Plan in the amount of approximately $0.1 million. If the Company prevails in disputing the withdrawal liability all such payments will be refunded to the Company.

With respect to the acquisition from Goodman, $22.5 million of the purchase price was placed into escrow to cover indemnification claims and working capital adjustments. During fiscal 2017, $2.5 million of escrowed funds were released following resolution of closing working capital and $10.0 million of escrowed funds were released as a result of Goodman’s resolution of a sales tax liability with the State of Texas. As of July 29, 2017, $10.0 million remains in escrow pending resolution of certain post-closing indemnification claims.

From time to time, the Company is party to various other claims and legal proceedings. It is the opinion of management, based on information available at this time, that such other pending claims or proceedings will not have a material effect on its financial statements.

For claims within its insurance program, the Company retains the risk of loss, up to certain limits, for matters related to automobile liability, general liability (including damages associated with underground facility locating services), workers’ compensation, and employee group health. The Company has established reserves that it believes to be adequate based on current evaluations and experience with these types of claims. For these claims, the effect on the Company’s financial statements is generally limited to the amount needed to satisfy insurance deductibles or retentions.

Leases. The Company and its subsidiaries have operating leases primarily covering office facilities that have original noncancelable terms in excess of one year. Certain of these leases contain renewal provisions and generally require the Company to pay insurance, maintenance, and other operating expenses. Total expense incurred under these operating lease agreements was $32.5 million, $26.8 million, and $18.5 million for fiscal 2017, 2016, and 2015, respectively. The future minimum obligation under these leases with original noncancelable terms in excess of one year is as follows (dollars in thousands):



	Future Minimum Lease Payments
2018	$	23,554
2019	17,422
2020	9,885
2021	5,762
2022	3,252
Thereafter	4,469
Total	$	64,344

The Company also incurred rental expense under operating leases with original terms of one year or less of $26.0 million, $23.0 million, and $20.4 million for fiscal 2017, 2016, and 2015, respectively.

Performance Bonds and Guarantees. The Company has obligations under performance and other surety contract bonds related to certain of its customer contracts. Performance bonds generally provide a customer with the right to obtain payment and/or performance from the issuer of the bond if the Company fails to perform its contractual obligations. As of July 29, 2017 and July 30, 2016, the Company had $118.2 million and $165.8 million of outstanding performance and other surety contract bonds, respectively.

The Company periodically guarantees certain obligations of its subsidiaries, including obligations in connection with obtaining state contractor licenses and leasing real property and equipment.

Letters of Credit. The Company has standby letters of credit issued under its Credit Agreement as part of its insurance program. These standby letters of credit collateralize obligations to the Company’s insurance carriers in connection with the settlement of potential claims. As of July 29, 2017 and July 30, 2016, the Company had $48.7 million and $57.6 million, respectively, of outstanding standby letters of credit issued under the Credit Agreement.