18. Commitments and contingencies

(a) Operating lease commitments

The Company recorded rental expenses of $1,378, $365 and $11 for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. As of December 31, 2016, future minimum rental payments under non-cancellable operating leases having initial or remaining lease terms of more than one year are as follows:

(In thousands)
Year	December 31, 2016
2017	$	857
2018		431
2019		415
2020		427
2021		440
2022 and thereafter		1,163
Total	$	3,733

(b) Capital commitment

The Company incurred data costs of $3,200, $924 and $0 for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, under certain non-cancellable data licensing agreements. As of December 31, 2016, material capital commitments under non-cancellable data licensing agreements of our Information Service segment were $16,728, shown as follows:

(In thousands)
Year	December 31, 2016
2017	$	4,155
2018		4,298
2019		4,105
2020		3,270
2021		900
Total	$	16,728

We have employment agreements with certain executives, mainly including our Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer, etc., which provide for compensation and certain other benefits and for severance payments under certain circumstances.

(d) 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 8, the Company has written off the balance into the operating expenses as write-off of intangible assets during the year ended December 31, 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, December 31, 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, 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 the Company, TBO and Poulsen to turn over all copies of the Purchased IP in their possession. The Court also ordered the Company and 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 preliminary hearing was initially set on this motion for October 18, 2016, and then continued until November 15, 2016. On November 15, 2016, the bankruptcy court again continued the motion to December 20, 2016 and again continued to February 15, 2017, and again continued to April 4, 2017. 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 was briefed. On October 25, 2016, the Company, TBO and Poulsen filed an emergency motion for an interim stay of the Final Judgment until the stay motion filed October 11, 2016 could be resolved. The Federal District Court granted the interim stay and on November 8, 2016 held a hearing on whether to keep the stay in effect while the appeal is pending. On December 14, 2016, the Federal District Court denied TBO and Poulsen’s motion for stay of the final judgment pending appeal, however, the judge stayed the effectiveness of that order for seven days to allow TBO to appeal the stay ruling to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The order further provided that the effectiveness of the order would be further delayed until the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a request for stay. In December 2016, the Company, TBO and Poulsen filed notices of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking review of the District Court’s orders denying their motions for stay pending appeal. TRADS moved to dismiss the appeal of the stay ruling to the Eleventh Circuit for lack of jurisdiction. On February 28, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that while it did not have jurisdiction over the appeals, before the district court finally adjudicated the appeals, it had inherent power to consider the stay motions. The Eleventh Circuit denied the stay motions but ruled that the Company “has established that it has strong likelihood of succeeding in its argument that the judgment incorrectly identifies it as The Best One, Inc.’s legal successor entity…” TBO and Poulsen have complied with the orders, with Poulsen turning over the Purchased IP to TRADS. The Eleventh Circuit returned the case to the District Court until completion of the appeal before that court.

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 October 3, 2016, Mr. Reilly filed an answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim asserting claims against TRADS for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. TRADS responded to the counterclaim on November 16, 2016 by filing a motion to dismiss. On October 5, 2016, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s injunction order. On February 17, 2017, the court heard TRADS’ motion to dismiss, granted the motion without prejudice, and gave leave to Mr. Reilly to amend his answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim alleging TRADS’ fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. On February 28, 2017, Mr. Reilly filed a motion to amend the temporary injunction. That motion was heard by the court on March 9, 2017. The court has not yet ruled on that motion. Mr. Reilly filed his amended answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaim on March 6, 2017. TRADS’ response to the counterclaim is due on March 21, 2017. 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, former 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. On September 23, 2016, the district court judge entered an order staying the case pending appeal. On December 16, 2016, Challa filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because he is no longer employed by the Company. On January 12, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the district court’s order denying TRADS’ motion for preliminary injunction. The Eleventh Circuit also denied Challa’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. Trial is scheduled during the two-week period commencing May 15, 2017. As of the date of this report, this case is ongoing. An adverse ruling could have an immediate near-term impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, and liquidity.

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.

The Company has been made aware of a lawsuit filed by TRADS against the Company alleging trademark infringement. The Company has not been served with such lawsuit.

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.