9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The following is a summary of commitments as of June 30, 2015 (in thousands):


	Payments Due by Period
			Less than						After
	Total		1 year		2 - 3 years		4 - 5 years		5 years
Total debt	$	11,357	$	2,801	$	4,956	$	2,623	$	977
Operating leases	$	18,422	$	7,220	$	7,988	$	1,722	$	1,492
Defined benefit plan obligation	$	9,435	$	153	$	412	$	2,086		6,784

Operating Leases—The Company leases facilities and certain equipment under various operating lease agreements. Certain leases provide for periodic rent increases and may contain escalation clauses and renewal options. Rent expense totaled $12.9 million, $9.9 million and $10.0 million for fiscal years 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively.

Contingent Acquisition Obligations—Under the terms and conditions of the purchase agreements associated with certain acquisitions, the Company may be obligated to make additional payments based on the achievement by the acquired operations of certain sales or profitability milestones. The maximum amount of such future payments under arrangements with contingent consideration caps is $37.3 million as of June 30, 2015. In addition, one of the purchase agreements the Company entered into requires royalty payments through 2022 based on the license of, or sales of products containing, the technology of CXR Limited, a company acquired in 2004. For acquisitions that occurred prior to fiscal year 2010, the Company accounts for such contingent payments as an addition to the purchase price of the acquired business. Otherwise, the estimated fair value of these obligations is recorded in Other accrued expenses and current liabilities or in Other long-term liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets at the time of the acquisition with subsequent revisions reflected in Selling, general and administrative in the consolidated statements of operations. As of June 30, 2014 and 2015, $23.2 million and $17.2 million of contingent payment obligations, respectively, are included in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. During fiscal 2014 and 2015, the fair values of these contingent obligations were revised or paid down and resulted in reductions of $3.9 million and $9.3 million, respectively.

Advances from Customers—The Company receives advances from customers associated with certain projects. In fiscal 2012, the Company entered into an agreement with the Mexican government to provide a turnkey security screening solution at various locations throughout the country. Associated with the agreement, the Company was provided an advance totaling $100 million. The Company is obligated to provide a guarantee until the advance has been amortized. As of June 30, 2015, $50.0 million of this advance remains outstanding.

Environmental Contingencies—The Company is subject to various environmental laws. The Company’s practice is to conduct appropriate environmental investigations at its manufacturing facilities in North America, Asia Pacific, and Europe, and, to the extent practicable, on all new properties in order to identify, as of the date of such report, potential areas of environmental concern related to past and present activities or from nearby operations. In certain cases, the Company has conducted further environmental assessments consisting of soil and groundwater testing and other investigations deemed appropriate by independent environmental consultants.

During one investigation at the Company’s Hawthorne, California facility, the Company discovered soil and groundwater contamination that it believes was the result of unspecified on- and off-site releases occurring prior to the Company’s occupancy. Historical usage of this site includes semiconductor and electronics manufacturing, dating back to the mid-1960s, as well as possible aircraft and related manufacturing dating to the early 1940s. Similar operations, including chemical manufacturing and storage, were conducted at neighboring sites throughout that period and into the 1990s. It is not presently known when the releases occurred or by whom they were caused, though Company records, in conjunction with data obtained from soil and groundwater surveys, support the Company’s assertion that these releases are historical in nature. Further, the groundwater contamination is a known regional issue, not limited to the Company’s premises or its immediate surroundings. The Company has filed all requisite reports with the appropriate environmental authorities and continues to cooperate with the local governing agency to develop a complete and accurate characterization of this site. Recent activities include the installation of groundwater monitoring wells, indoor air quality monitoring and additional soil and soil vapor studies. Results from these studies are being evaluated to determine the extent of the on-site releases as well as appropriate and cost-effective remedial action measures. Periodic groundwater monitoring is expected to continue until such time as the governing authority requests further action.

The Company has not accrued for loss contingencies relating to the Hawthorne facility or any other environmental matters because it believes that, although unfavorable outcomes may be possible, they are not considered by the Company’s management to be probable and reasonably estimable. If one or more of environmental matters are resolved in a manner adverse to the Company, the impact on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, financial position and/or liquidity could be material.

Indemnifications—In the normal course of business, the Company has agreed to indemnify certain parties with respect to certain matters. The Company has agreed to hold certain parties harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations or covenants, or out of intellectual property infringement or other claims made by third parties. These agreements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its officers and directors. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. The Company has not recorded any liability for costs related to indemnification as of June 30, 2015.

Legal Proceedings— On December 12, 2013, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) captioned Roberti v. OSI Systems, Inc., et al. (the “Securities Class Action”). The Amended Complaint in the Securities Class Action, filed on May 20, 2014, alleges that the Company and the individual defendants violated the Exchange Act by misrepresenting or failing to disclose facts concerning the status of the Security division’s efforts to develop automated threat recognition software and the alleged use of unapproved parts in its baggage scanning systems in violation of its contract with the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (the “TSA”). The Amended Complaint also asserts that the individual defendants allegedly sold stock based on material non-public information. Following a mediation and further post-mediation settlement discussions, the parties to the litigation accepted settlement terms proposed by the mediator and entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement (the “Settlement”), which was filed with the Court on August 21, 2015. The Settlement provides for the resolution of all of the pending claims in the Securities Class Action. The Company and the other defendants agreed to the Settlement Agreement to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and the distraction and inherent risks of burdensome and protracted litigation. Neither the Company nor the individual defendants conceded any wrongdoing or liability, and continue to believe that they have meritorious defenses to all claims alleged in the Securities Class Action. Pursuant to the Settlement, the defendants will pay $15.0 million (the “Settlement Amount”) for a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company or the other defendants in the Securities Class Action. The Company expects that the Settlement Amount will be fully covered and funded by the Company’s insurers pursuant to the applicable insurance policies. The Settlement remains subject to preliminary and final approval by the Court and certain other conditions, including notice to all class members.

Three shareholder derivative complaints (the “Derivative Actions”) have also been filed purportedly on behalf of the Company against the members of the Company’s Board of Directors (as individual defendants). Hagan v. Chopra et al. was filed in the Court on April 15, 2014, and was subsequently consolidated by the Court with City of Irving Benefit Plan v. Chopra et al., which was filed on December 29, 2014. Kocen v. Chopra et al. was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on July 14, 2015. The Derivative Actions generally assert the same factual allegations as those at issue in the related Securities Class Action and purport to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment against the individual defendants on behalf of the Company. Plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions seek unspecified damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ and experts’ fees, costs, expenses, and other unspecified relief. While the Company believes that the Derivative Actions are without merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously, the Company expects to incur costs associated with the defense of the actions. At this early stage of litigation, the ultimate outcomes of the Derivative Actions are uncertain and the Company cannot reasonably predict the timing or outcomes, or estimate their effect, if any, on its financial statements.

The Company is involved in various other claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. In the Company’s opinion after consultation with legal counsel, the ultimate disposition of such proceedings is not likely to have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company has not accrued for loss contingencies relating to such matters because it believes that, although unfavorable outcomes in the proceedings may be possible, they are not considered by management to be probable or reasonably estimable. If one or more of these matters are resolved in a manner adverse to the Company, the impact on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and/or liquidity could be material.

Other Matters— On December 5, 2013, the Company’s Security division was notified by the TSA that a delivery order that it had received on September 26, 2013, for baggage and handling inspection systems was being terminated for default. The termination resulted from the use of an upgraded X-ray generator component. While the component had been vetted by the Security division’s internal quality assurance, the Security division had not met the contractual requirement of obtaining the TSA’s approval in advance. The upgraded X-ray generator component has since been approved for use by the TSA. The termination resulted in a claim by the TSA for compensation. This matter was resolved by mutual agreement in April 2015.