10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancellable operating leases as of March 31, 2015 are as follows (in thousands):

		Operating
Year Ending December 31,		Leases
	2015 (as of March 31, 2015)	$	3,016
	2016		3,804
	2017		3,142
	2018		2,356
	2019		1,869
	Thereafter		10,698
	Total long-term obligations	$	24,885

The Company has contractual obligations to utilize an external vendor for certain customer support functions and to utilize network facilities from certain carriers with terms greater than one year.

The Company’s rent expense under operating leases was $1.8 million and $2.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The rent expense for the three months ended March 31, 2014 includes costs associated with the terminations of facilities leases.

Litigation

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint challenging the buyout by HC2 Holdings, Inc. of the noncontrolling interest in Schuff International, Inc. (“Schuff International”) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil Action No. 10323 (the “Complaint”). On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359. The Complaints allege, among other things, that in connection with the buyout, the individual members of the Schuff International board of directors and HC2 Holdings, the controlling stockholder of Schuff, breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class. The Complaints seek a rescission of the buyout and/or compensatory damages, as well as attorney’s fees and other relief. On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation) and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. No responsive pleading has been filed yet by the defendants. We believe that the allegations and claims set forth in the Complaint are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously.

On January 16, 2014, Xplornet Communications Inc. and Xplornet Broadband Inc. (“Xplornet”) instituted an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice styled Xplornet Communications Inc. and Xplornet Broadband Inc. vs. Inukshuk Wireless Inc., et al. Other defendants include Globility Communications Corporation (“Globility”), MIPPS Inc. (“MIPPS”), Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. and the Company (sued under its previous name). In such action, Xplornet alleges that it entered into an agreement to acquire certain licenses for radio spectrum in Canada from Globility, a former subsidiary of the Company. Xplornet alleges that Globility agreed to sell Xplornet certain spectrum licenses in a Letter of Intent dated July 12, 2011 but then breached the Letter of Intent by selling the licenses to Inukshuk Wireless Inc. (“Inukshuk”) and that Globility further failed to negotiate with Xplornet in good faith. Xplornet also alleges that it reached an agreement with Inukshuk to purchase the licenses on June 26, 2012, but that Inukshuk breached that agreement by not completing the sale. Xplornet claims that, as a result of the foregoing, it has been damaged in the amount of $50 million. Xplornet also seeks injunctive relief against Inukshuk, pre and post-judgment interest, and costs. We intend to assert that we have meritorious defenses in the foregoing matter and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously.

The Company is indemnifying Primus Telecommunications Canada, Inc., Globility, and MIPPS subject to a full reservation of rights pursuant to the Equity Purchase Agreement among PTUS, Inc., PTCAN, Inc. Primus Telecommunications Group, Incorporated, Primus Telecommunications Holding, Inc., Lingo Holdings, Inc. and Primus Telecommunications International, Inc. dated as of May 10, 2013 in connection with this case.

On March 13, 2015, Inukshuk Wireless Partnership filed a cross claim against Globility, MIPPS, Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc., and the Company. Inukshuk asserts that if Inukshuk is found liable to Xplornet, then Inukshuk is entitled to contribution and indemnity, compensatory damages, interest, and costs from the Company. Inukshuk alleges that Globility represented and warranted that it owned the licenses at issue, that Globility held the licenses free and clear, and that no third party had any rights to acquire them. Inukshuk claims breach of contract and misrepresentation if the Court finds that any of these representations are untrue. We intend to assert that we have meritorious defenses to the cross claim and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously.

The Company is subject to claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. Such matters are inherently uncertain, and there can be no guarantee that the outcome of any such matter will be decided favorably to the Company or that the resolution of any such matter will not have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flow. The Company does not believe that any of such pending claims and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flow.

Tax Matters

Currently, the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) is auditing a subsidiary previously held by the Company. The Company intends to cooperate in audit matters. To date, CRA has not proposed any specific adjustments and the audit is ongoing.