Debt, Commitments and Contingencies

The debt, commitments and contingencies described below would require us, or our subsidiaries, to make payments to third parties under certain circumstances.

Debt

We previously had a $75.0 million revolving credit facility with SVB, as administrative agent, and a syndicate of lenders that had a maturity date in November 2018, or the 2014 Facility. As of December 31, 2016, the outstanding balance of the 2014 Facility was $6.7 million. On March 7, 2017, we drew $67.0 million under the 2014 Facility to partially fund the Acquisition. During the nine months ended September 30, 2017, we repaid $1.7 million of the outstanding balance of the 2014 Facility.

On October 6, 2017, we refinanced the $72.0 million remaining outstanding balance under the 2014 Facility, by entering into a new $125.0 million senior secured revolving credit facility, or the 2017 Facility, with SVB, as administrative agent, PNC Bank, National Association, as documentation agent, and a syndicate of lenders. Upon entry into the 2017 Facility, we borrowed $72.0 million, which was used to repay the previously outstanding balance under the 2014 Facility. From October 6, 2017 to December 31, 2017, no additional amounts were drawn under the 2017 Facility and $1.0 million of the outstanding balance has been repaid. The 2017 Facility matures in October 2022 and includes an option to further increase the borrowing capacity to $175.0 million with the consent of the lenders. Costs incurred in connection with the 2017 Facility were capitalized and are amortized as interest expense over the term of the 2017 Facility. The 2017 Facility is secured by substantially all of our assets, including our intellectual property.

The outstanding principal balance on the 2017 Facility accrues interest at a rate equal to, at our option, either (1) LIBOR, plus an applicable margin based on our consolidated leverage ratio, or (2) the highest of (a) the Wall Street Journal prime rate, (b) the Federal Funds rate plus 0.50%, or (c) LIBOR plus 1.00% plus an applicable margin based on our consolidated leverage ratio. For the year ended December 31, 2017, we elected for the outstanding principal balance to accrue interest at LIBOR plus 1.50%, LIBOR plus 1.75%, LIBOR plus 2.00%, and LIBOR plus 2.50% when our consolidated leverage ratio is less than 1.00:1.00, greater than or equal to 1.00:1.00 but less than 2.00:1.00, greater than or equal to 2.00:1.00 but less than 3.00:1.00 and greater than or equal to 3.00:1.00, respectively. For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, the effective interest rate on the credit facilities was 3.44%, 2.82% and 2.63%.

The carrying value of the 2017 Facility was $71.0 million as of December 31, 2017. The 2017 Facility includes a variable interest rate that approximates market rates and, as such, we classified the liability as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy and determined that the carrying amount of the 2017 Facility approximates its fair value as of December 31, 2017. The 2017 Facility also carries an unused line commitment fee of 0.20%. The 2017 Facility contains various financial and other covenants that require us to maintain a maximum consolidated leverage ratio not to exceed 3.50:1.00 and a consolidated fixed charge coverage ratio of at least 1.25:1.00. During the year ended December 31, 2017, we were in compliance with all financial and non-financial covenants and there were no events of default.

Commitments and Contingencies

Repurchase of Subsidiary Units

In 2011, we formed a subsidiary that offers to professional residential property management and vacation rental management companies technology solutions for remote monitoring and control of properties, including access control and energy management. Since its formation, we granted an award of subsidiary stock to the founder and president. The vesting of the award is based upon the subsidiary meeting certain minimum financial targets from the date of commercial availability, which was determined to be June 1, 2013, until the fourth anniversary. In 2016, we amended the term of the award, extending the valuation date for the first payment in cash to December 31, 2017, amending the financial targets and allowing for payments in cash from 2018 through 2020 based on collection of financed customer receivables that existed as of the valuation date. We recorded a liability of $2.8 million in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities and $0.4 million in other liabilities related to this commitment in our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2017. We recorded a liability of $2.5 million in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities and a liability of $0.3 million in other liabilities related to this commitment in our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016.

At each reporting date until the respective payment dates, we will remeasure these liabilities, and we will record any changes in fair value in general and administrative expense (see Note 10).

Leases

We lease office space and office equipment under non-cancelable operating leases with various expiration dates through 2026. We recognize rent expense for lease payments on a straight-line basis over the expected lease term and amortize tenant improvement allowances over the term of the lease. In August 2014, we signed a lease for new office space in Tysons, Virginia, where we relocated our headquarters in February 2016. The lease term ends in 2026 and includes a five-year renewal option, an $8.0 million tenant improvement allowance and scheduled rent increases. During 2016, we entered into amendments to this lease which provided for 30,662 square feet of additional office space and an additional $1.7 million in tenant improvement allowance. We took possession of the additional space in February 2017 and we were allowed to utilize the tenant improvement allowance for design prior to moving into the space.

As of December 31, 2017, we have utilized the entire $9.7 million tenant improvement allowance. Rent expense was $6.2 million, $4.8 million and $4.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

The following table presents the future minimum lease payments under the non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2017 (in thousands):



Year Ended December 31,	Minimum Lease Payments
2018	$	6,898
2019	5,845
2020	5,478
2021	5,260
2022	5,135
2023 and thereafter	16,894
Total	$	45,510

Indemnification Agreements

We have various agreements that may obligate us to indemnify the other party to the agreement with respect to certain matters. Generally, these indemnification provisions are included in contracts arising in the normal course of business. Although we cannot predict the maximum potential amount of future payments that may become due under these indemnification agreements, we do not believe any potential liability that might arise from such indemnity provisions is probable or material.

Letters of Credit

As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, we had no outstanding letters of credit under our credit facilities.

Legal Proceedings

On June 2, 2015, Vivint, Inc., or Vivint, filed a lawsuit against us in U.S. District Court, District of Utah, alleging that our technology directly and indirectly infringes six patents that Vivint purchased. Vivint is seeking permanent injunctions, enhanced damages and attorney’s fees. We answered the complaint on July 23, 2015. Among other things, we asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in question. On August 19, 2016, the U.S. District Court, District of Utah stayed the litigation pending inter partes review, or IPR, by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, of five of the patents in suit. In March 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions relating to two patents finding all challenged claims unpatentable. In May 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions relating to the remaining patents that found certain claims unpatentable, while certain other claims were not found to be unpatentable. Vivint has appealed the decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and we have cross-appealed. The U.S. District Court, District of Utah lifted the stay on the litigation on June 26, 2017, and Vivint is proceeding with its case on four of the six patents in its complaint. Fact discovery is scheduled to close on or about March 15, 2018, and no trial date has been set. In September 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ordered ex parte reexaminations of certain claims of two of the remaining patents in suit, at our request.

Should Vivint prevail on its claims that one or more elements of our solution infringe one or more of its patents, we could be required to pay damages of Vivint’s lost profits and/or a reasonable royalty for sales of our solution, enjoined from making, using and selling our solution if a license or other right to continue selling such elements is not made available to us or we are unable to design around such patents, and required to pay ongoing royalties and comply with unfavorable terms if such a license is made available to us. The outcome of the legal claim and proceeding against us cannot be predicted with certainty. We believe we have valid defenses to Vivint’s claims. Based on currently available information, we determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

On December 30, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. The complaint does not allege that Alarm.com itself violated the TCPA, but instead seeks to hold us responsible for the marketing activities of our service provider partners under principles of agency and vicarious liability. The complaint seeks monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and other relief, including attorney’s fees. We answered the complaint on February 26, 2016. On May 5, 2017, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Discovery is underway, and the matter remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Based on the current schedule, we anticipate a trial will take place in October 2018. Based on currently available information, we determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

On February 9, 2016, we were sued along with one of our service provider partners in the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia by the estate of a deceased service provider partner customer alleging wrongful death, among other claims. The suit seeks a total of $7 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages. We filed our answer on March 22, 2016. Discovery is underway, and the matter remains pending. The Court has scheduled trial to begin on July 10, 2018. Based on currently available information, we determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

On March 21, 2017, Taraneh Vessal filed a complaint against us and Monitronics International, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violation of the TCPA and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, or ICFDBA. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 12, 2017. Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on June 2, 2017, alleging similar violations of the TCPA and ICFDBA. We filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on June 16, 2017. On October 18, 2017, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the claims with respect to violations of the ICFDBA without prejudice, but allowed the claims with respect to the TCPA to proceed. Discovery is underway, and the matter remains pending. Based on currently available information, we determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

On August 14, 2017, Alarm.com filed a lawsuit against ABS Capital Partners, Inc., ABS Partners V, LLC, ABS Partners VII, LLC, and Ralph Terkowitz in the Delaware Court of Chancery, or the Chancery Court. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief preventing the defendants from using Alarm.com’s confidential information and trade secrets to compete with Alarm.com, and preventing the defendants from executing their planned transaction to invest in two companies (ipDatatel, LLC, or ipDatatel, and Resolution Products, Inc., or Resolution Products). The complaint alleged claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, and misappropriation of confidential information, in connection with the defendants’ planned investment. On September 22, 2017, Alarm.com filed an amended complaint against ABS Capital Partners, Inc., ABS Partners V, LLC, and ABS Partners VII, LLC, alleging claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and misappropriation of confidential information. The amended complaint seeks damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief enjoining ABS Capital Partners, Inc., ABS Partners V, LLC, and ABS Partners VII, LLC from using Alarm.com’s trade secrets and confidential information to compete with Alarm.com. On October 6, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The matter remains pending.

On August 24, 2017, Alarm.com Incorporated and its wholly owned subsidiary ICN Acquisition, LLC, filed a patent infringement complaint against ipDatatel, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint seeks injunctive relief to stop the further sale of the infringing ipDatatel’s products and systems, and damages for the infringement of Alarm.com’s patents. The complaint asserts that the technology in the ipDatatel products infringe one or more claims of Alarm.com’s patents: United States Patent Numbers 7,113,090; 7,633,385; 7,956,736; 8,478,871; and 9,141,276. If the litigation is successful, Alarm.com will be entitled to receive monetary damages, injunctive relief, and any other relief, including attorney’s fees, from ipDatatel. The Court has scheduled a claim construction hearing for June 2018 and commencement of trial in March 2019. ipDatatel has not yet answered the complaint or asserted counterclaims and defenses. ipDatatel has moved for dismissal based on alleged patent ineligibility as to each patent in suit.

On April 25, 2017, Alarm.com Incorporated and its wholly owned subsidiary ICN Acquisition, LLC, filed a patent infringement complaint against Protect America, Inc., or Protect America, and SecureNet Technologies, LLC, or SecureNet, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint seeks injunctive relief to stop the further sale of the infringing Protect America and SecureNet products and systems, and damages for the infringement of Alarm.com’s patents. The complaint asserts that the technology in the Protect America and SecureNet Alarm Systems products infringe one or more claims of Alarm.com’s patents: United States Patent Numbers 7,113,090; 7,633,385; 8,395,494; 8,493,202; 8,612,591; 8,860,804; and 9,141,276. If the litigation is successful, Alarm.com will be entitled to receive monetary damages, injunctive relief, and any other relief, including attorney’s fees, from Protect America and SecureNet. In June 2017, Alarm.com filed an amended complaint against Protect America only and voluntarily dismissed SecureNet from the suit, reserving the right to refile. In September 2017, Alarm.com voluntarily dismissed the amended complaint in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia and refiled a complaint against Protect America, with substantially the same allegations, in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Texas. The Court has scheduled a claim construction hearing for September 2018 and commencement of trial in May 2019. Protect America has not yet answered the complaint or asserted counterclaims and defenses. Protect America has moved for dismissal or transfer to the Western District of Texas based on allegedly improper venue.

In September 2014, Icontrol filed a Complaint in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, asserting that SecureNet infringes certain U.S. Patents owned by Icontrol, patents now owned by Alarm.com through a subsidiary. In March 2015, Icontrol voluntarily agreed to dismiss the case, reserving the right to refile. In September 2015, Icontrol refiled the case against SecureNet in the same district court alleging infringement of some of the same patents. SecureNet filed petitions for inter partes review of the patents-in-suit before the PTAB. Proceedings as to one of the patents in suit (United States Patent Number 7,855,635) was instituted, resulting in the cancellation of some, but not all, claims of that patent. That decision is currently before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The PTAB has rejected the remaining applications for inter partes review, and SecureNet requested rehearing of the rejection as to one of the patents in suit, which request has been rejected by the PTAB. The Court has scheduled a claim construction hearing for March 2018 and commencement of trial in February 2019.

In September 2014, Icontrol filed a Complaint in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, asserting that Zonoff Inc., or Zonoff, infringes certain U.S. Patents owned by Icontrol, all of which are now owned by Alarm.com through a subsidiary. In November 2015, Icontrol filed a second lawsuit, also in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, alleging that Zonoff infringes additional U.S. Patents owned by Icontrol, now owned by Alarm.com through a subsidiary. The Court held a claim construction hearing in the first case on March 14, 2016 and consolidated the cases on August 1, 2016. On November 3, 2017, Zonoff and Alarm.com entered into a proposed consent judgment whereby Zonoff stipulated to its infringement of the patents in suit and the validity of the patents in suit. The Court entered a consent judgment against Zonoff, and the matter is now closed.

From time to time, we may be a party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we currently believe that the final outcome of these ordinary course matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business.

Other than the preceding matters, we are not a party to any lawsuit or proceeding that, in the opinion of management, is

reasonably possible or probable of having a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We reserve for contingent liabilities based on ASC 450, “Contingencies,” when it is determined that a liability, inclusive of defense costs, is probable and reasonably estimable. Litigation is subject to many factors that are difficult to predict, so there can be no assurance that, in the event of a material unfavorable result in one or more claims, we will not incur material costs.