Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies

The company leases office space and automobiles under operating lease agreements. Future minimum rental payments required under non-cancelable leases are as follows:


Year	Amount
2018	$	3,487
2019		2,803
2020		2,181
2021		1,748
2022		1,359
Thereafter		5,605
Total	$	17,183

Rent expense under operating leases aggregated $3,806, $3,384 and $2,998 for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, respectively. Rent expense is recorded on a straight-line basis over the life of the lease agreement.

At December 31, 2017, we have inventory purchase obligations of $14,985. We expect all purchase obligations will be consummated within twelve months.

We include various types of indemnification clauses in our agreements. These indemnifications may include, but are not limited to, infringement claims related to our intellectual property, direct damages and consequential damages. The type and amount of such indemnifications vary substantially based on our assessment of risk and reward associated with each agreement. We believe the estimated fair value of these indemnification clauses is minimal, and we cannot determine the maximum amount of potential future payments, if any, related to such indemnification provisions. We have no liabilities recorded for these clauses as of December 31, 2017.

During the second quarter of 2015, our management became aware that certain of our products which were sold by our European subsidiary to a third-party distributor may have been resold by the distributor to parties in Iran, potentially including parties whose property and interests in property may be blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224, Executive Order 13382 or that may be identified under Section 560.304 of 31 C.F.R. Part 560 as the “Government of Iran”.

We ceased shipping to such distributor. In addition, the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors initiated an internal review of this matter with the assistance of outside counsel. As a precautionary matter, concurrent initial notices of voluntary disclosure were submitted on June 25, 2015 to each of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), and the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”).

The Audit Committee with the assistance of outside counsel completed their review in 2015. On December 15, 2015, we filed a letter with BIS (Office of Export Enforcement) with the conclusion that the products supplied to the distributor were not subject to United States Export Control jurisdiction. The Office of Export Enforcement issued a “no action” letter, concluding the voluntary self-disclosure process under the Export Administration Regulations.

In addition, on January 13, 2016, we filed a letter with OFAC, with the conclusions that VASCO and its subsidiaries made no direct sales to Iran or any party listed by OFAC as a Specially Designated National over the five-year period under review (i.e., June 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015). The letter further noted that the investigation did not identify any involvement on the part of senior management officials of VASCO, and to the contrary, noted that VASCO executive management officials had sought to implement procedures and provided notices to VASCO’s sales personnel to prevent the diversion of VASCO products to unauthorized destinations and end users.

We have not received any response to the letter to OFAC and we cannot predict when OFAC will conclude their review of our voluntary self-disclosures. Based upon the OFAC guidelines for monetary penalties, in the fourth quarter of 2015, we accrued $900 for potential penalties if they are assessed by OFAC. Ultimately no penalty may be assessed or the penalty may be less or greater than the accrual, but in any event we do not believe that the final settlement will have a material adverse impact on our business.

On January 10, 2011, we purchased our wholly-owned subsidiary, DigiNotar B.V., a private company organized and existing in The Netherlands from the shareholders (“Sellers”). On September 19, 2011, DigiNotar B.V. filed a bankruptcy petition under Article 4 of the Dutch Bankruptcy Act in the Haarlem District Court, The Netherlands. On September 20, 2011, the court declared DigiNotar B.V. bankrupt and appointed a bankruptcy trustee and a bankruptcy judge to manage all affairs of DigiNotar B.V. through the bankruptcy process. The trustee took over management of DigiNotar B.V.’s business activities and is responsible for the administration and liquidation of DigiNotar B.V. In connection with the bankruptcy of DigiNotar B.V., subsequent to September 20, 2011, a number of claims and counter-claims were filed with the courts in The Netherlands (collectively, the “Court”) related to discontinued assets and discontinued liabilities and other available remedies. In November 2014, all matters with the Sellers related to the sale of DigiNotar B.V.were settled.

In January 2015, we received a notice of potential claim by the trustee against all of the individuals who served as Directors of DigiNotar, both before and after our acquisition of DigiNotar. T. Kendall Hunt, Jan Valcke, and Clifford K. Bown were the Directors of DigiNotar following its purchase by VASCO. The basis for the potential claim from the trustee appears to be based primarily on the same arguments that VASCO presented in its case against the sellers, which were adjudicated in VASCO’s favor. While we believe that we have strong defenses against the claim, we have also notified our provider of director and officer insurance and we are pursuing a settlement of the matter. We do not expect the resolution of the potential claim to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. VASCO is indemnifying Messrs. Hunt, Valcke, and Bown for this matter.

On July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15‑cv‑06605, naming VASCO and certain of its current and former executive officers as defendants and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The suit was purportedly filed on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased VASCO securities between April 28, 2015 and July 28, 2015, and seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by the defendants’ alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b‑5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by the court, the lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty days to file an amended complaint or notify the defendants that the lead plaintiff intends to rely on the current complaint. On January 30, 2017, the appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which the allegations regarding OFAC related matters were dropped and replaced with allegations regarding public disclosures made by the defendants in April 2015 as compared to public statements made in July 2015, generally regarding the strength of the Company’s business and its future prospects. This case is now referred to by the name of the new lead plaintiff, Bunk. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bunk complaint on March 31, 2017. A decision from the court on such motion has not been issued to date. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against the action vigorously. VASCO is indemnifying its officers and directors for this matter.

On October 9, 2015, a derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Elizabeth Herrera v. Hunt, et al., case number 1:15‑cv‑08937, naming VASCO’s Board of Directors and certain of its current and former executive officers as individual defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. Two additional complaints, captioned Beth Seltzer v. Hunt, et al., case number 2015‑ch‑15541, and William Hooper v. Hunt, et al., case number 2016‑ch‑04054, were filed on October 22, 2015 and March 22, 2016, respectively, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois naming the same defendants.

The complaints assert, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by making material misstatements in, and omitting material information from, the Company’s public disclosures and by failing to maintain adequate internal controls and properly manage the Company. Among other things, the complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages and injunctive relief.

On October 29, 2015, a defendant removed the Seltzer action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action back to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, which was denied on February 3, 2016. On February 9, 2016, the court granted an agreed motion for voluntary dismissal of the Seltzer action, which dismissed the action with prejudice as to the named plaintiff’s individual claims. As for the Hooper action, the court granted a stay on June 8, 2016 and on July 18, 2017, the plaintiff in Hooper amended the complaint to largely mirror the amended complaint in Bunk.

On July 19, 2017, a derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, captioned Fancesco D’Angelo v. Hunt, et. al., naming VASCO’s Board of Directors and certain former officers as individual defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. This complaint largely follows the allegations in the Bunk case. The D’Angelo case has been consolidated with the Hooper case and remains subject to stay.

In February 2017, we learned an integrated reseller and certain end customers, were named as defendants in a patent infringement lawsuit in Japan related to our CRONTO technology. We have indemnification obligations in favor of our reseller and end customers and are working with them to defend such suit. In December 2017 the Japan Patent Office ruled the plaintiff’s patent is invalid. In February 2018, a trial court decision declared the plaintiff’s patent to be invalid. The decision is subject to appeal. We believe there are strong grounds to argue the plaintiff’s patent is invalid

On March 14, 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. v. Vasco Data Security International, Inc., et al., claiming VASCO infringed on certain patent rights of the plaintiff. On May 8, 2017, VASCO answered the complaint denying the allegations of patent infringement. The parties then engaged in motion practice and discovery in the case. The plaintiff has also brought suit against various other companies in the cybersecurity industry. In one such suit in the federal district court for the Central District of California, on December 1, 2017, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the StrikeForce asserted claims are invalid. StrikeForce is in the process of appealing such decision. In light of such ruling, on December 20, 2017, the court in the Company’s case granted a stay of the proceedings pending the appeal in the related case. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.

On February 14, 2018, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Vortex Pathway LLC (a Texas non-practicing entity) v. VASCO Data Security International, Inc. et. al. claiming one of VASCO’s hardware authenticators infringes on certain patent rights of the plaintiff. The Company will analyze this recent complaint in the ordinary course and intends to defend itself vigorously.

From time to time, we have been involved in litigation incidental to the conduct of our business. Excluding matters disclosed above, we are not a party to any lawsuit or proceeding that, in management’s opinion, is likely to have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition or results of operations.