23)

Commitments and Contingencies

On March 9, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Dixon Chung v. Newport Corp., et al, Case No. A-16-733154-C, was filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a putative class of stockholders of Newport for claims related to the Merger Agreement between the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub. The complaint, filed on March 9, 2016, named as defendants the Company, Newport and Merger Sub, and certain then-current and former members of Newport’s former board of directors. The complaint alleges that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport’s stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices. The complaint also alleges that the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the named directors’ alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind the Merger Agreement, monetary damages, and an award of attorneys’ and other fees and costs, among other relief. On March 25, 2016, the plaintiff in the Chung action filed an amended complaint, which adds certain allegations, including that the preliminary proxy statement filed by Newport on March 15, 2016 (the “Proxy”) omitted material information. The amended complaint also names as defendants the Company, Newport, Merger Sub, and then-current members of Newport’s board of directors.

Also on March 25, 2016, a second putative class action complaint captioned Hubert C. Pincon v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-16-734039-B, was filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of a putative class of Newport’s stockholders for claims related to the Merger Agreement. The complaint names as defendants the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub and the then-current members of Newport’s former board of directors. It alleges that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport’s stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices, and by omitting material information from the Proxy. The complaint also alleges that the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the named directors’ alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind the Merger Agreement, and an award of attorneys’ and other fees and costs, among other relief.

On April 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the Pincon and Chung actions and appointed counsel in the Pincon action as lead counsel. Also on April 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery and scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction for April 25, 2016. On April 20, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the hearing on their anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction and notified the Court that they did not presently intend to file a motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the Merger Agreement. On April 22, 2016, the Court vacated the hearing on plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction. In August, plaintiffs completed the expedited discovery that the Court ordered.

On October19, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint captioned In re Newport Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Case No. A-16-733154-B, in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of a class of Newport’s stockholders for claims related to the Merger Agreement. The complaint names as defendants the Company, Newport, and the then-current members of Newport’s former board of directors. It alleges that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport’s stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices, and by omitting material information from the Proxy. The complaint also alleges that the Company and Newport aided and abetted the named directors’ alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks monetary damages, including pre- and post-judgment interest. On December 9, 2016, both the Company and the Newport defendants filed motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions to dismiss on January 13, 2017. On February 3, 2017, the Company and the Newport defendants filed their reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss. A hearing on the motions to dismiss was held on February 15, 2017.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the amended complaint have no merit and the Company, Newport and the named directors intend to defend vigorously against these claims.

The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, which have arisen in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

The Company leases certain of its facilities and machinery and equipment under operating leases expiring in various years through 2022. Generally, the facility leases require the Company to pay maintenance, insurance and real estate taxes. Rental expense under operating leases totaled $16,253, $7,845 and $6,909 for 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Minimum lease payments under operating leases are as follows:


Year Ending December 31,	Operating Leases
2017	$	16,586
2018		14,507
2019		12,649
2020		10,965
2021		7,166
Thereafter		5,430

Total minimum lease payments	$	67,303

As of December 31, 2016, the Company has entered into purchase commitments for certain inventory components and other equipment and services used in its normal operations. The majority of these purchase commitments covered by these arrangements are for periods of less than one year and aggregate to approximately $247,563.

To the extent permitted by Massachusetts law, the Company’s Restated Articles of Organization, as amended, require the Company to indemnify any of its current or former officers or directors or any person who has served or is serving in any capacity with respect to any of the Company’s employee benefit plans. The Company believes that the estimated exposure for these indemnification obligations is currently not material. Accordingly, the Company has no material liabilities recorded for these requirements as of December 31, 2016.

The Company also enters into agreements in the ordinary course of business which include indemnification provisions. Pursuant to these agreements, the Company indemnifies, holds harmless and agrees to reimburse the indemnified party, generally its customers, for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with certain patent or other intellectual property infringement claims, and, in some instances, other claims, by any third party with respect to the Company’s products. The term of these indemnification obligations is generally perpetual after execution of the agreement. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is, in some instances, not contractually limited. The Company has never incurred costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification obligations. As a result, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these obligations is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these obligations as of December 31, 2016.

As part of past acquisitions and divestitures of businesses or assets, the Company has provided a variety of indemnifications to the sellers and purchasers for certain events or occurrences that took place prior to the date of the acquisition or divestiture. Typically, certain of the indemnifications expire after a defined period of time following the transaction, but certain indemnifications may survive indefinitely. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make for such obligations is undeterminable at this time. Other than obligations recorded as liabilities at the time of the acquisitions, historically the Company has not made significant payments for these indemnifications. Accordingly, no material liabilities have been recorded for these obligations.

In conjunction with certain asset sales, the Company may provide routine indemnifications whose terms range in duration and often are not explicitly defined. Where appropriate, an obligation for such indemnification is recorded as a liability. Because the amounts of liability under these types of indemnifications are not explicitly stated, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such indemnifications cannot be reasonably estimated. Other than obligations recorded as liabilities at the time of the asset sale, historically the Company has not made significant payments for these indemnifications.