Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The Company has operating lease agreements for offices, research and development, and sales and marketing facilities that expire at various dates through 2021. The Company recognizes rent expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term and records the difference between cash rent payments and the recognized rent expense as a deferred rent liability. Rent expense was $2.6 million, $2.1 million and $2.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

The Company enters into capital leases to finance data center and other computer and networking equipment.

As of December 31, 2017, approximate remaining future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable leases were as follows (in thousands):



Year Ending December 31,	Capital Leases			Operating Leases
2018	$	7,770		$	2,750
2019	5,564			2,747
2020	2,244			2,630
2021	—			654
Total future minimum lease payment	$	15,578		$	8,781
Less — amount representing interest	(1,766		)
Present value of total capital lease obligation	$	13,812
Capital lease obligation — current portion	6,651
Capital lease obligation — net of current portion	7,161

Hosting, Telecommunication Usage and Maintenance Services

The Company has agreements with third parties to provide co-location hosting and telecommunication usage services. The agreements require payments per month for a fixed period of time in exchange for certain guarantees of network and telecommunication availability. The Company is also committed to make future payments under maintenance service contracts for certain data center equipment.

As of December 31, 2017, future minimum payments under these arrangements were as follows (in thousands):



Year Ending December 31,	Hosting Services		Telecommunication Usage Services		Equipment Maintenance Services
2018	$	855	$	2,355	$	426
2019	36		1,505		93
2020	23		90		17
Total future minimum payment	$	914	$	3,950	$	536

Universal Services Fund Liability

During the third quarter of 2012, the Company determined that based on its business activities, it is classified as a telecommunications service provider for regulatory purposes and it should make direct contributions to the federal USF and related funds based on revenues it receives from the resale of interstate and international telecommunications services. In order to comply with the obligation to make direct contributions, the Company made a voluntary self-disclosure to the FCC Enforcement Bureau and registered with the USAC, which is charged by the FCC with administering the USF. The Company filed exemption certificates with its wholesale telecommunications service providers in order to eliminate its obligation to reimburse such wholesale telecommunications service providers for their USF contributions calculated on services sold to the Company. In April 2013, the Company began remitting required contributions on a prospective basis directly to USAC.

The Company’s registration with USAC subjects it to assessments for unpaid USF contributions, as well as interest thereon and civil penalties, due to its late registration and past failure to recognize its obligation as a USF contributor and as an international carrier. The Company is required to pay assessments for periods prior to the Company’s registration. As of December 31, 2012, the total past due USF contribution being imposed by USAC and accrued by the Company for the period from 2003 through 2012 was $8.1 million, of which $4.7 million was undisputed and $3.4 million was disputed. The Company subsequently updated its filings and increased the liability related to 2008 through 2012 by $0.5 million, arriving at a new total of $3.9 million in disputed liability. In July 2013, the Company and USAC agreed to a financing arrangement for $4.1 million of the undisputed $4.7 million of the unpaid USF contributions whereby the Company issued to USAC a promissory note payable in the principal amount of the $4.1 million and paid off the remaining undisputed $0.6 million. The Company fully paid the promissory note as of January 2017.

In January 2017, the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau ruled in the Company's favor with respect to most of the disputed amount. In September 2017, USAC issued a credit to the Company reflecting the FCC's ruling for the $3.1 million of the $3.9 million in disputed liability. In addition, USAC reversed the interest and penalties related to the disputed liability of $3.1 million. The remaining $0.8 million in dispute involves USAC’s assessment of liability for the period of 2003 through 2007, which was prior to the five year window during which the Company was required to maintain financial records for USF contribution purposes. The Company filed a Request for Review (a form of appeal) of this disputed amount with the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau in 2013, which remains pending. If the Request for Review is not resolved in the Company’s favor, it is possible that the Company will be held to the back assessments of $0.8 million, which includes interest and penalties on that amount.

As of December 31, 2017, the accrued liability on the remaining disputed assessments, including interest and penalties for the period of 2003 through 2007, was $0.8 million offset by $0.7 million in other USF credits.

State and Local Taxes and Surcharges

In April 2012, the Company commenced collecting and remitting sales taxes on sales of subscription services in all the U.S. states in which it determined it was obligated to do so. During the first quarter of 2015, the Company conducted an updated sales tax review of the taxability of sales of its subscription services. As a result, the Company determined that it may be obligated to collect and remit sales taxes on such sales in four additional states. Based on its best estimate of the probable sales tax liability in those four states relating to its sales of subscription services during the period 2011 through 2014, during the three months ended March 31, 2015, the Company recorded a general and administrative expense of $0.6 million to accrue for such taxes.

During 2013, the Company analyzed its activities and determined it may be obligated to collect and remit various state and local taxes and surcharges on its usage-based fees. The Company had not remitted state and local taxes on usage-based fees in any of the periods prior to 2014 and therefore accrued a sales tax liability for this contingency. In January 2014, the Company commenced paying such taxes and surcharges to certain state authorities. In June 2014, the Company commenced collecting state and local taxes or surcharges on usage-based fees from its clients on a current basis and remitting such taxes to the applicable U.S. state taxing authorities.

During 2017, 2016 and 2015, the Company remitted zero, $0.3 million and $1.1 million, respectively, for contingent sales taxes on both usage-based fees and sales of subscription services. For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, the Company recognized a gain of $0.6 million, a gain of $0.4 million, and an expense of $1.2 million, respectively, as an adjustment to general and administrative expense related to its estimated sales tax liability on both usage-based fees and sales of subscription services in the U.S. and Canada, which was not being collected from its clients.

As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company had total accrued liabilities of $1.5 million and $2.1 million, respectively, for such contingent sales taxes and surcharges that were not being collected from its clients but may be imposed by various taxing authorities, of which $0.4 million and $0.6 million, respectively, were included in current “Sales tax liability” on the consolidated balance sheets, and the remaining were included in non-current “Sales tax liability” on the consolidated balance sheets. The Company’s estimate of the probable loss incurred under this contingency is based on its analysis of the source location of its usage-based fees and the regulations and rules in each tax jurisdiction.

Legal Matters

The Company is involved in various legal and regulatory matters arising in the normal course of business. In management’s opinion, resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows, or its financial position. However, due to the uncertain nature of legal matters, an unfavorable resolution of a matter could materially affect the Company’s future consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position in a particular period. The Company expenses legal fees as incurred.

The Company is currently involved in the following lawsuits as a defendant.

Melcher Litigation

On September 28, 2016, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against Five9, Inc., or Five9, as the successor in interest to Face It, Corp., or Face It, and Lance Fried, a former Five9 employee who was the former Chief Executive Officer of Face It. The action, captioned Melcher, et al. v. Five9, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02440, or the Melcher Litigation, was filed as a direct action by Carl Melcher, or Melcher, a purported former stockholder of Face It, and his related investment entity Melcher Family Limited Partnership, or MFLP.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Face It repurchased the plaintiffs’ stock in September 2013 before Five9 acquired Face It, and that in connection with the repurchase, Fried made material misstatements or omissions to Melcher, by failing to disclose that Face It allegedly was in concurrent discussions about a potential sale of the company to Five9. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as various claims under state law and common law. The complaint sought to set aside Face It’s September 2013 stock repurchase from the plaintiffs, as well as an unspecified amount of damages and an award of attorney’s fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On November 8, 2016, the court entered an order staying the lawsuit and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration of the dispute before the American Arbitration Association, or AAA. On November 16, 2016, Melcher and MFLP submitted a Demand for Arbitration to AAA against Five9, asserting claims identical to those alleged in the lawsuit.

On March 31, 2017, Five9 reached a settlement with the plaintiffs that fully resolved the plaintiffs’ claims against Five9 and provided for mutual releases between the plaintiffs and Five9 in exchange for a one-time payment by Five9 to the plaintiffs of $1.7 million. As a result of the settlement, the AAA arbitration was concluded, and on July 10, 2017 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the Melcher Litigation solely against Fried, removing Five9 as a defendant.

NobelBiz Litigation

On August 5, 2011, NobelBiz sent a letter to the Company asserting infringement of a patent related to virtual call centers. On April 3, 2012, NobelBiz filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The patent asserted in the complaint is different, but related, to the patent asserted in the original letter. The lawsuit, NobelBiz Inc. v. Five9, Inc., Case No. 6:12-cv-00243-LED, alleged that the Company’s local caller ID management service infringed United States Patent No. 8135122, or the ‘122 patent. The ‘122 patent, titled “System and Method for Modifying Communication Information (MCI),” issued on March 13, 2012, and according to the complaint is alleged to relate to “a system for processing a telephone call from a call originator (also referred to as a calling party) to a call target (also referred to as a receiving party), where the system accesses a database storing outgoing telephone numbers, selects a replacement telephone number from the outgoing telephone numbers based on the telephone number of the call target, and originates an outbound call to the call target with a modified outgoing caller identification (‘caller ID’).” NobelBiz sought damages in the form of lost profits as well as injunctive relief. On March 28, 2013, the court granted the Company’s motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Subsequently, NobelBiz amended its complaint to add claims related to U.S. Patent No. 8565399, or the ‘399 patent, which is a continuation in the same family as the ‘122 patent and addresses the same technology. The Company responded to the complaint and amended complaint by asserting noninfringement and invalidity of the ‘122 and ‘399 patents. On January 16, 2015, the court issued an order regarding claim construction of the two patents-in-suit. On March 7, 2016, the court stayed the case pending an appeal in lawsuits involving NobelBiz, Global Connect and TCN that also involve the ‘122 and ‘399 patents. On July 19, 2017, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal issued a ruling confirming the claim construction in Five9’s lawsuit and resolving the appeal in favor of Global Connect and TCN and against NobelBiz. Subsequently, the district court set a new schedule for the litigation in light of this ruling with motions for summary judgment set to occur in 2018.

Subsequently, Five9 was able to settle all claims with NobelBiz that includes a license to the ‘122 patent, the ‘399 patent, and all other patents in the same patent family. On December 4, 2017, the parties filed a joint notice of settlement and request for dismissal of the lawsuit in its entirety. On December 6, 2017, the Court issued an order dismissing the case.

Indemnification Agreements

In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into agreements of varying scope and terms pursuant to which it agrees to indemnify clients, vendors, lessors, business partners and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of breach of such agreements, services to be provided by the Company or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and certain officers and employees that will require it, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors, officers or employees. Other than as described below, there are no claims that it is aware of that could have a material effect on the consolidated balance sheet, consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss, or consolidated statements of cash flows.

On October 27, 2016, the Company received notice from Lance Fried, a former officer and director of Face It, of his claim for indemnification by the Company (as successor in interest to Face It), and for advancement of all legal fees and expenses he incurs in connection with the defense of the Melcher litigation. See "Legal Matters" above. As of May 31, 2017, the Company had advanced Mr. Fried $62 thousand in connection with this claim. However, the Company disputes that Mr. Fried is entitled to advancement in connection with the Melcher litigation. On July 31, 2017, Mr. Fried filed a complaint against the Company in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, in which he alleges that the Company breached advancement obligations to him. In the lawsuit, Mr. Fried seeks advancement of his legal fees and expenses in connection with the defense of the Melcher litigation, payment of his legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with his advancement action, and interest. The Company believes the action is without merit and is defending against it vigorously. On December 7, 2017, the Delaware Chancery Court stayed Mr. Fried’s advancement lawsuit, in favor of arbitration. On January 9, 2018, the Company received Mr. Fried’s demand for arbitration against the Company with respect to the same matter. Regardless of the outcome of Mr. Fried’s advancement action against the Company, Mr. Fried is required to reimburse the Company for any amounts advanced to him if it is ultimately determined that Mr. Fried is not entitled to indemnification in connection with the Melcher litigation. In addition, the Company believes that it has indemnification rights against the former stockholders of Face It (including Mr. Fried) for all losses that are incurred by the Company in connection with the Melcher litigation, including without limitation, amounts incurred to indemnify or advance the legal fees and expenses of Mr. Fried pursuant to his indemnification claim against the Company.