12. Commitments and contingencies

(a) Capital commitment

The Company incurred data costs of $1,075 and $1,115 for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, under certain non-cancellable data licensing agreements. As of March 31, 2017, material capital commitments under non-cancellable data licensing agreements were $24,345, shown as follows:

(In thousands)
Year	March 31, 2017
Remainder of 2017	$	3,188
2018		4,415
2019		5,210
2020		5,575
2021		4,655
2022 and thereafter		1,302
Total	$	24,345

(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. 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, March 31, 2017. 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 “Bankruptcy 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 Bankruptcy 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 Bankruptcy 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 Bankruptcy Court. On April 20, 2016, the Bankruptcy 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 Bankruptcy Court on July 12, 2016.

On August 18, 2016, the Bankruptcy 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 Bankruptcy 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 Bankruptcy 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. On April 4, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court held a pretrial hearing on TRADS’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, and on April 11, 2017, entered a Pretrial Scheduling Order setting the trial on the attorneys’ fees and costs on August 14-16, 2017. On April 19, 2017, TBO filed a motion for partial summary judgment on various threshold legal issues relating to TRADS’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 26, 2017, TRADS filed its response to the motion for partial summary judgment. TBO filed its reply on the motion on May 3, 2017.

The Company, TBO and Poulsen have appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling to the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (the “District Court”), and on October 11, 2016, filed a motion for stay of the Final Judgment pending appeal in the 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 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 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 Court of Appeals for lack of jurisdiction. On February 28, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals 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 Court of Appeals 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 Court of Appeals 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, during 2016, the Company wrote 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 (the “Circuit Court”), 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 Circuit 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 Circuit 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 Circuit Court on March 9, 2017. On March 23, 2017, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the motion to modify, and reduced the duration of the temporary injunction from two years to one year. The temporary injunction will now expire at midnight on June 30, 2017. Mr. Reilly filed his amended answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaim on March 6, 2017. TRADS responded to the amended counterclaim by filing a motion to dismiss on March 21, 2017. That motion has not yet been set for hearing. 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 District Court 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 District 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, Mr. 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 Court of Appeals also denied Mr. Challa’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. On March 31, 2017, the parties attended a court-ordered settlement conference during which a settlement was reached between the parties. The case was dismissed with prejudice on April 5, 2017.

On August 10, 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit against TransUnion and related parties, in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, 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. The Company is seeking damages, including lost profits. As of the date hereof, this case is ongoing.

On March 16, 2017, Cogint, Inc. (“Cogint”) was served with a complaint filed by TRADS in the District Court alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition relating to reference to TRADS’ product in marketing materials. Cogint filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 6, 2017. On April 20, 2017, TRADS filed an amended complaint adding Interactive Data as a party. The amended complaint alleges trademark infringement and unfair competition against both Cogint and Interactive Data, and also alleges claims of vicarious liability for trademark infringement and unfair competition against Cogint. On May 4, 2017, Cogint and Interactive Data responded to the amended complaint by filing an answer and affirmative defenses. We believe that this case is meritless and will defend it vigorously. 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 hereof, this case is ongoing.

On March 16, 2017, Cogint, Cogint’s subsidiary IDI Holdings, LLC (“IDI Holdings”), Michael Brauser, and Derek Dubner were served with a complaint filed by TRADS in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. The complaint alleges a claim for tortious interference against Cogint and IDI Holdings, a claim for civil conspiracy against Mr. Brauser and Mr. Dubner, and a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Mr. Dubner, relating to, among other things, the hiring of Messrs. Reilly and Challa, and the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, Mr. MacLachlan. The defendants responded to the complaint on April 27, 2017 by filing a motion to dismiss. We believe that this case is meritless and will defend it vigorously. 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 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.