7. Commitments and Contingencies

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 $57 million as of March 31, 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 as a liability at the time of the acquisition in the condensed consolidated balance sheets with subsequent revisions reflected in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. As of June 30, 2014 and March 31, 2015, $23.2 million and $20.8 million of contingent payment obligations, respectively, are included in Other long-term liabilities in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets.

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 along the country’s borders, and in its ports and airports. Associated with the agreement, the Company was provided an advance totaling $100 million that is scheduled to become fully amortized in fiscal 2017. As of March 31, 2015, $56.3 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 actions during fiscal years 2014 and 2015 include the installation of groundwater monitoring wells and the implementation of a groundwater monitoring program, focused soils investigations, and indoor vapor intrusion surveys, per regulatory requirements. Results from these studies are being evaluated to determine the extent of the on-site releases and whether any soils remediation will be required. 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, warranties 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 directors and certain of its officers. 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 March 31, 2015.

Product Warranties

The Company offers its customers warranties on many of the products that it sells. These warranties typically provide for repairs and maintenance of the products if problems arise during a specified time period after original shipment. Concurrent with the sale of products, the Company records a provision for estimated warranty expenses with a corresponding increase in cost of goods sold. The Company periodically adjusts this provision based on historical experience and anticipated expenses. The Company charges actual expenses of repairs under warranty, including parts and labor, to this provision when incurred.

The following table presents changes in warranty provisions (in thousands):

	Nine Months Ended March 31,
	2014			2015
Balance at beginning of period	$	12,890		$	11,923
Additions and adjustments	3,306			3,314
Reductions for warranty repair costs	(4,840		)	(3,047		)
Balance at end of period	11,356			$	12,190

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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 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. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ and experts’ fees, costs, and other unspecified relief. Two shareholder derivative complaints (the “Derivative Actions”) have also been filed in the Court purportedly on behalf of the Company against the members of the Company’s Board of Directors (as individual defendants). One, filed on April 15, 2014, is captioned Hagan v. Chopra, et al., and the other, filed on December 29, 2014, is captioned City of Irving Benefit Plan, Derivatively on Behalf of OSI Systems, Inc. v. Deepak Chopra, et al. 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 Securities Class Action and the Derivative Actions are without merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously, it expects to incur costs associated with defending the Securities Class Action and the Derivative Actions. At this early stage of litigation, the ultimate outcomes of the Securities Class Action and the Derivative Actions are uncertain and the Company cannot reasonably predict the timing or outcomes, or estimate the amount of loss, if any, or 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 the Company 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.