(6) Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The Company has entered into various non-cancelable operating lease agreements and capital lease agreements for its offices and equipment with lease periods expiring between fiscal 2018 and 2023. Certain of these arrangements have escalating rent payment provisions and optional renewal clauses. The Company is also committed to pay a portion of the actual operating expenses under certain of these operating lease agreements. As of January 31, 2018, future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases were as follows (in thousands):

As of January 31, 2018:
2019	$	7,145
2020		7,175
2021		7,204
2022		7,233
2023		3,984
Committed gross lease payments		32,741
Less proceeds from sublease rental		(3,012	)
Net operating lease obligation	$	29,729

In February 2018, the Company terminated its lease of certain office space located at 205 Ravendale Drive, Mountain View, California (Note 15).

The Company recognizes rent expense under its operating leases on a straight-line basis. Rent expense totaled $4.3 million, $5.3 million, and $6.3 million for the years ended January 31, 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively.

As of January 31, 2018, future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable capital leases were as follows (in thousands):

As of January 31, 2018:
2019	$	103
2020		85
2021		11
Total		199
Interest		(10	)
Total	$	189

Contingencies

Following the Company’s initial public offering in July 2017, four class action lawsuits were filed against it. On September 18, 2017, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and is now pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, under the caption Tuller v. Tintri, Inc. et al., No. 4:17-CV-05714-YGR (filed Sept. 18, 2017). A consolidated complaint has been filed in the Tuller action, which, in addition to the Company, names as defendants the then-Chief Executive Officer, the then-Chief Financial Officer, and the Chief Technology Officer, and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on March 30, 2018.

Three substantially similar lawsuits were subsequently filed in California state court in the County of San Mateo against the same parties, as well as the then-serving members of the Company’s Board of Directors, the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering, and entities associated with several institutional investors that invested in the Company prior to the initial public offering. These suits also allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and are captioned Clayton v. Tintri, Inc. et al., No. 17CIV04312 (filed Sept. 20, 2017), Nurlybayev v. Tintri, Inc. et al., No. 17CIV04321 (filed Sept. 21, 2017), and Golosiy v. Tintri, Inc. et al., No. 17CIV04618 (filed Oct. 6, 2017). The actions have yet to be consolidated and a consolidated complaint has yet to be filed.

All four class action lawsuits are based on similar allegations that the Company made false and misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with its initial public offering. Each lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased shares of common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering, and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and attorney’s fees and costs on behalf of the putative class.

The Company is generally required, to the extent permitted by law, to indemnify its current and former directors and officers who are named as defendants in these types of lawsuits. The Company also has certain contractual obligations to the underwriters regarding such lawsuits. While a certain amount of insurance coverage may be available for expenses or losses associated with these lawsuits, this coverage may not be sufficient. Based on information currently available, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss, if any, with regards to these lawsuits; therefore, no litigation reserve has been recorded in the accompanying financial statements.

Indemnification

Some of the Company’s contracts require the Company to indemnify its customers, distributors, or other business partners against certain risks, including in some cases against any third-party claims asserting infringement of certain intellectual property rights. The Company’s exposure under these indemnification provisions is generally limited to the total amount paid by the customer or business partner under the agreement. However, certain agreements include indemnification provisions that could potentially expose the Company to losses in excess of the amount received under the agreement. In addition, the Company has agreed to indemnify its directors, officers, and certain key employees against any liabilities that they may incur while serving in good faith in their respective capacities. To date, there have been no claims under any indemnification provisions.

Purchase Commitments

During the normal course of business, in order to manage manufacturing lead times and help ensure adequate component supply, the Company provides rolling forecasts to its contract manufacturer of the monthly purchase requirements, a certain amount of which are purchase commitments that the contract manufacturer relies upon to procure components used to build finished products. The Company records a charge to cost of product revenue for firm, non-cancelable and unconditional purchase commitments with its contract manufacturer for non-standard components when and if quantities exceed the Company’s future demand forecasts. As of January 31, 2017 and 2018, the Company had approximately $13.5 million and $9.7 million of purchase commitments with its contract manufacturer, respectively.