Commitments and Contingencies

Repurchase Commitments

In connection with its dealers’ wholesale floor-plan financing of boats, the Company has entered into repurchase agreements with various lending institutions. The reserve methodology used to record an estimated expense and loss reserve in each accounting period is based upon an analysis of likely repurchases based on current field inventory and likelihood of repurchase. Subsequent to the inception of the repurchase commitment, the Company evaluates the likelihood of repurchase and adjusts the estimated loss reserve and related consolidated statement of operations account accordingly. This potential loss reserve is presented in accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. If the Company were obligated to repurchase a significant number of units under any repurchase agreement, its business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Repurchases and subsequent sales are recorded as a revenue transaction. The net difference between the original repurchase price and the resale price is recorded against the loss reserve and presented in cost of goods sold in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss). During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, the Company agreed to repurchase three units from the lender of two of its former dealers. The total losses on these repurchases were $30. Other than these repurchase commitments, the Company has not repurchased another unit from lenders since July 1, 2010. No units were repurchased during the fiscal years ended June 30, 2015 and 2014. Accordingly, the Company did not carry a reserve for repurchases as of June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Lease Commitments

In connection with a sale-leaseback transaction as of March 2008, the Company now leases its manufacturing and office facilities for $156 per month with periodic inflationary adjustments, plus the payment of property taxes, normal maintenance, and insurance on the property under an agreement which expires March 2028, with three 10-year options to extend, at the Company’s discretion. Refer to Note 6 for more information.

The Company also has various other leases for operating facilities in both U.S. and Australia and machinery and equipment under operating leases that expire over the next twelve months. The total rental expense for fiscal years ended June 30, 2016, 2015 and 2014 was $2,394, $2,256, and $2,088, respectively.

Future minimum lease payments under noncancelable operating leases as of June 30, 2016, are as follows:



	As of June 30, 2016
Fiscal Year
2017	$	2,224
2018	2,175
2019	2,208
2020	2,212
2021	2,217
Thereafter	14,082
	$	25,118

Contingencies

Product Liability

The Company is engaged in a business that exposes it to claims for product liability and warranty claims in the event the Company’s products actually or allegedly fail to perform as expected or the use of the Company’s products results, or is alleged to result, in property damage, personal injury or death. Although the Company maintains product and general liability insurance of the types and in the amounts that the Company believes are customary for the industry, the Company is not fully insured against all such potential claims. The Company may have the ability to refer claims to its suppliers and their insurers to pay the costs associated with any claims arising from the suppliers’ products. The Company’s insurance covers such claims that are not adequately covered by a supplier’s insurance and provides for excess secondary coverage above the limits provided by the Company’s suppliers.

The Company may experience legal claims in excess of its insurance coverage or claims that are not covered by insurance, either of which could adversely affect its business, financial condition and results of operations. Adverse determination of material product liability and warranty claims made against the Company could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and harm its reputation. In addition, if any of the Company products are, or are alleged to be, defective, the Company may be required to participate in a recall of that product if the defect or alleged defect relates to safety. These and other claims that the Company faces could be costly to the Company and require substantial management attention. Refer to Note 8 for discussion of warranty claims. The Company insures against product liability claims and believes there are no material product liability claims as of June 30, 2016 that would not be covered by our insurance.

Litigation

Certain conditions may exist which could result in a loss, but which will only be resolved when future events occur. The Company, in consultation with its legal counsel, assesses such contingent liabilities, and such assessments inherently involve an exercise of judgment. If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred, the Company accrues for such contingent loss when it can be reasonably estimated. If the assessment indicates that a potentially material loss contingency is not probable but reasonably estimable, or is probable but cannot be estimated, the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, is disclosed. Estimates of potential legal fees and other directly related costs associated with contingencies are not accrued but rather are expensed as incurred. Except as disclosed below, management does not believe there are any pending claims (asserted or unasserted) at June 30, 2016 or June 30, 2015 that will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Legal Proceedings

On August 27, 2010, Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd., or "PCMW," filed suit against the Company and certain third parties, including Marine Hardware, Inc., a third-party supplier of windshields to the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking monetary and injunctive relief. PCMW was a significant supplier of windshields to the Company through 2008, when the Company sought an alternative vendor of windshields in response to defective product supplied by PCMW. PCMW’s amended complaint alleged, among other things, infringement of a design patent and two utility patents related to marine windshields, copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. The Company denied any liability arising from the causes of action alleged by PCMW and filed a counter claim alleging PCMW’s infringement of one of the Company's patents, conversion of two of the patents asserted against the Company, unfair competition and breach of contract. In September 2014, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with PCMW pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay $20,000 in cash to the plaintiffs, PCMW and Darren Bach, and the parties released each other from all past and present claims. Further, the plaintiffs, including PCMW, agreed not to sue on now-existing intellectual property rights. The Company recorded a one-time charge of $20,000 in connection with the settlement for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014 and the Company paid $20,000 on October 6, 2014.

On October 31, 2013, the Company filed suit against Nautique Boat Company, Inc., or "Nautique," in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee alleging infringement of two of the Company's patents and seeking monetary and injunctive relief. This Tennessee lawsuit was a re-filing of a California patent infringement lawsuit against Nautique that was dismissed without prejudice on October 31, 2013. On November 1, 2013, Nautique filed for declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claiming that it did not infringe the two patents identified in the original complaint in the Tennessee lawsuit. The Tennessee court enjoined Nautique from maintaining the Florida lawsuit which was partially duplicative. Nautique dismissed the Florida lawsuit to comply with the Tennessee court’s ruling. On December 13, 2013, the Company amended the Company's complaint to add another of its patents to the Tennessee lawsuit. All three patents in the case relate to the Company's proprietary wake surfing technology.

On June 27, 2014, Nautique filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or “PTO,” requesting institution of an Inter Partes Review, or “IPR,” of the Company’s U.S. Pat. No. 8,539,897, one of the three patents at issue in the Tennessee litigation. On February 6, 2015, the Company and Nautique entered into a Settlement Agreement (the "Nautique Settlement Agreement") to settle the patent infringement lawsuit. Under the terms of the Nautique Settlement Agreement, Nautique made a one-time payment of $2,250 and entered into a license agreement for the payment of future royalties for boats sold by Nautique using the licensed technology. The parties agreed to dismiss all claims in the patent litigation and jointly request the PTO to terminate the IPR.

On February 17, 2015, the parties dismissed the patent litigation with prejudice and on February 25, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office terminated the IPR.

On June 29, 2015, the Company filed suit against MasterCraft Boat Company, LLC, or "MasterCraft," in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The Company's complaint alleged MasterCraft's infringement of a utility patent related to wake surfing technology. MasterCraft denied liability arising from the causes of action alleged in the Company's complaint and filed a counterclaim alleging non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patent. On August 13, 2015, MasterCraft filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, which the Company opposed. On February 11, 2015, the Court denied MasterCraft’s motion for summary judgment as premature, without prejudice to MasterCraft re-filing the motion after claim construction and further discovery. On December 11, 2015, the Court issued a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and other events in the litigation, leading up to a trial beginning on May 1, 2017. The parties are currently engaged in fact discovery. The Company intends to vigorously pursue this litigation to enforce its rights in its patented technology and believes that MasterCraft's counterclaims are without merit.

On February 16, 2016, the Company filed a second suit against MasterCraft in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The Company’s complaint alleges MasterCraft’s infringement of another utility patent related to wake surfing technology. On March 14, 2016, MasterCraft filed a partial motion to dismiss, asking the Court to dismiss the Company’s claim for willful infringement. On the same date, MasterCraft filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the rest of the Company’s complaint. The Court has not yet decided MasterCraft’s motion to dismiss or motion for an extension of time. Other than the motion to dismiss the Company’s claim for willful infringement, MasterCraft has not yet responded to the Company’s complaint. The Court has not yet issued a scheduling order, and discovery has not yet begun. The Company intends to vigorously pursue this litigation to enforce its rights in its patented technology.

On September 30, 2015, Great Wakes Boating, Inc. filed suit against the Company, Sunny Marine, LLC, Norris Companies a/k/a Norris Docks, LLC, Wayne Wilson, Scott Davenport and certain former employees of the Company and other individuals, in the Chancery Court for Anderson County, Tennessee seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The second amended complaint alleges inducement to breach contract, misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, violations of the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act and civil conspiracy by the Company and Messrs. Wilson, and Davenport. The Company believes the claims by Great Wakes Boating are without merit and plans to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On April 22, 2014, Marine Power, a former supplier of engines to the Company, initiated a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee seeking monetary damages. On July 10, 2015, the Company filed an Answer and Counterclaim in the lawsuit filed by Marine Power. The Company denied any liability arising from the causes of action alleged by Marine Power. The lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana proceeded to trial on August 8, 2016. On August 18, 2016, in connection with a judgment rendered against the Company in a litigation with Marine Power the Company recorded a charge of $3,268. The Company is reviewing the decision and considering its options, including filing post-trial motions and seeking appellate review.