12. Commitments and contingencies

(a) Capital commitment

The Company incurred data costs of $844 and $2,104 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, respectively, and $405 and $705 for the corresponding periods in 2015, under certain non-cancellable data licensing agreements. As of September 30, 2016, material capital commitments under non-cancellable data licensing agreements were $14,947, shown as follows:

(In thousands)
Year	September 30, 2016
Remainder of 2016	$	791
2017		3,733
2018		3,848
2019		3,415
2020		2,460
2021 and thereafter		700
	$	14,947

(b) Contingency

Other than as described below, the Company is not currently a party to any legal proceeding, investigation or claim which, in the opinion of the management, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Legal fees associated with such legal proceedings, are expensed as incurred. For capitalized Purchased IP litigation costs, as discussed in Note 5, the Company has written off the balance into general and administrative expenses during the three months ended September 30, 2016. We review legal proceedings and claims on an ongoing basis and follow appropriate accounting guidance, including ASC 450, when making accrual and disclosure decisions. We establish accruals for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, and we disclose the amount accrued and the amount of a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if such disclosure is necessary for our financial statements to not be misleading. To estimate whether a loss contingency should be accrued by a charge to income, we evaluate, among other factors, the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome and the ability to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of the loss. We do not record liabilities when the likelihood that the liability has been incurred is probable, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated. Based upon present information, we determined that there were no matters that required an accrual as of the balance sheet date, September 30, 2016. The Company estimates that adverse rulings in pending litigation matters could result in a possible loss of between $3,000 and $6,000.

On October 27, 2014, TransUnion Risk and Alternative Data Solutions, Inc. (“TRADS”) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Interactive Data, among other parties, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida (the “Court”), regarding a dispute over ownership of certain intellectual property to which both TRADS and Company subsidiary TBO have asserted competing ownership claims. TBO asserted that it purchased this intellectual property from Ole Poulsen (“Poulsen”), the Company’s Chief Science Officer (“Purchased IP”). TRADS has since dropped Interactive Data as a party, and added TBO and Ole Poulsen. On June 10, 2015, over TRADS’ objections, the Court granted TBO’s motion to expand the scope of discovery to include, among other things, whether TRADS is a good faith purchaser of any of the Purchased IP, free of any fraud or misconduct by or on behalf of TRADS, and whether there was a fraud on the Court by TRADS. On February 22, 2016, TBO and Mr. Poulsen filed a motion for summary judgment seeking judgment in their favor on all claims based upon, among other things, TRADS having committed a fraud on the Court. On April 20, 2016, the Court denied the motion for summary judgment. Trial took place on May 16 and 17, 2016 and June 15, 22-24 and 27, 2016. The parties submitted post-trial memoranda to the Court on July 12, 2016.

On August 18, 2016, the Court entered a trial order (“Trial Order”) and final judgment (the “Final Judgment”) in favor of TRADS finding the Purchased IP is owned by TRADS, and ordering TBO and Poulsen to turn over all copies of the Purchased IP. The Court also ordered TBO to pay TRADS’ attorneys’ fees and costs, in an amount to be determined at a later time by the Court.

On October 7, 2016, TRADS filed a motion seeking its attorneys’ fees and costs. A hearing was initially set on this motion for October 18, 2016, and then continued until November 15, 2016. TBO intends to file an opposition to the attorneys’ fee motion and/or the bill of costs.

The Company, TBO and Poulsen have appealed the Court’s ruling to the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (“Federal District Court”), and on October 11, 2016, filed a motion for stay of the Final Judgment pending appeal in the Federal District Court. By stipulation of the parties, TRADS agreed not to enforce the turnover of the Purchased IP until at least October 27, 2016, while the stay motion is briefed. On October 25, 2016, the Company, TBO and Poulsen filed an emergency motion for an interim stay of the injunction until the stay motion filed October 11, 2016 could be resolved. The Federal District Court granted the interim stay request and also set a hearing for the October 11, 2016 stay motion, which will be held on November 8, 2016.

As a result of the Trial Order and Final Judgment, as of September 30, 2016, the Company has written off $4,055 of intangible assets for both the Purchased IP and capitalized legal costs incurred and paid in defending the claims. An adverse ruling on the award of attorneys’ fees and costs could have an immediate near-term impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, and liquidity. As of the date hereof, this case is ongoing.

On October 23, 2014, TRADS filed a Complaint and Motion for Temporary Injunction, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, against James Reilly, then President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, seeking relief for alleged violation of a noncompetition agreement. On February 5, 2015, after the presentation of TRADS’ case, the court denied TRADS’ motion for a temporary injunction to prohibit Mr. Reilly from continuing employment with TBO. TRADS appealed that order, and on December 2, 2015, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the order denying the temporary injunction and remanded for Mr. Reilly to present his case opposing the preliminary injunction. The evidentiary hearing on TRADS’ motion took place on May 4 and 5, 2016. On July 1, 2016, a temporary injunction was entered against Mr. Reilly. On July 15, 2016, Mr. Reilly filed a notice of appeal, appealing the trial court’s injunction order to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. On August 9, 2016, the Supreme Court of Florida denied Mr. Reilly’s petition for discretionary review. On October 3, 2016, Mr. Reilly filed an answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim asserting claims against TRADS for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. TRADS’ response to the counterclaim is currently due on November 10, 2016. On October 5, 2016, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s injunction order. An adverse ruling could have an immediate near-term impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, and liquidity. As of the date of this report, this case is ongoing.

On July 28, 2015, TRADS filed a Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, against Surya Challa, Vice President of Technology of TBO, seeking relief for an alleged violation of a noncompetition agreement. The hearing on TRADS’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction was held on February 19, 2016. On March 23, 2016, the court denied TRADS’ motion for preliminary injunction. On April 22, 2016, TRADS filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the trial court’s order denying the motion for preliminary injunction. That appeal is still pending. On September 23, 2016, the district court judge entered an order staying the case pending appeal. An adverse ruling could have an immediate near-term impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, and liquidity. As of the date of this report, this case is ongoing.

On August 10, 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit against TransUnion and related parties alleging tortious interference with its prospective business relationship with Datamyx, LLC (“Datamyx”). The complaint was amended on October 18, 2016. The Company alleges that it was in negotiations to acquire Datamyx, and a definitive transaction was imminent, when TransUnion interfered with the proposed Datamyx acquisition solely as an act of malice in order to damage the Company. As a result of the interference, Datamyx abruptly terminated negotiations with the Company and was ultimately acquired by another suitor. As of the date hereof, this case is ongoing.

In addition to the foregoing, we may be involved in litigation from time to time in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that the ultimate resolution of any such matters will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, the results of such matters cannot be predicted with certainty and we cannot assure you that the ultimate resolution of any legal or administrative proceeding or dispute will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.