COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

The Company leases warehouse and retail store space for most of its store-based operations, call center space, and management and information technology space for corporate functions under operating leases expiring at various times through 2033. The Company also leases certain properties under capital or financing type leases that are more fully described in Note 7 to these consolidated financial statements. Most of the leases contain renewal options for additional periods ranging from one to 20 years. In addition, certain properties occupied under operating leases contain normal purchase options. Leasehold improvements related to these leases are generally amortized over periods that do not exceed the lesser of the lease term or 15 years. While a majority of leases do not require escalating payments, for the leases which do contain such provisions, the Company records the related expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term. The Company also leases transportation vehicles under operating leases. Management expects that most leases will be renewed or replaced by other leases in the normal course of business.

Future minimum lease payments required under operating leases that have initial or remaining non-cancelable terms in excess of one year as of December 31, 2015 are as follows:



(In Thousands)
2016	$	112,134
2017	95,553
2018	79,167
2019	65,342
2020	52,636
Thereafter	135,209
	$	540,041

Rental expense was $116.5 million in 2015, $116.4 million in 2014 and $110.0 million in 2013. Rental expense for the year ended December 31, 2014 included $4.8 million related to the closure of 44 Company-operated stores in 2014, as discussed in Note 10 to these consolidated financial statements. These costs were included in the line item "Restructuring expenses" in the consolidated statements of earnings. All other rental expense was included as a component of operating expenses in the consolidated statements of earnings.

Sublease income was $4.6 million in 2015, $3.9 million in 2014 and $2.6 million in 2013. The Company has anticipated future sublease rental income of $5.1 million in 2016, $4.5 million in 2017, $4.0 million in 2018, $3.1 million in 2019, $2.0 million in 2020 and $3.6 million thereafter through 2025. Sublease income is included in other revenues in the consolidated statements of earnings.

Guarantees

The Company has guaranteed certain debt obligations of some of the franchisees under a franchise loan program with several banks. On December 4, 2015, the Company amended the third amended and restated loan facility to, among other things, extend the maturity date to December 8, 2016.

In the event these franchisees are unable to meet their debt service payments or otherwise experience an event of default, the Company would be unconditionally liable for the outstanding balance of the franchisees’ debt obligations under the franchisee loan program, which would be due in full within 90 days of the event of default. At December 31, 2015, the maximum amount that the Company would be obligated to repay in the event franchisees defaulted was $81.0 million. The Company has recourse rights to franchisee assets securing the debt obligations, which consist primarily of lease merchandise and fixed assets. Since the inception of the franchise loan program in 1994, the Company has had no significant associated losses. The Company believes the likelihood of any significant amounts being funded in connection with these commitments to be remote. The carrying amount of the franchise-related borrowings guarantee, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets, is approximately $863,000 as of December 31, 2015.

The maximum facility commitment amount under the franchise loan program is $175.0 million, including a Canadian subfacility commitment amount for loans to franchisees that operate stores in Canada (other than in the Province of Quebec) of Cdn $50 million. The Company remains subject to the financial covenants under the franchise loan facility.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company is party to various legal and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business.

Some of the proceedings to which the Company is currently a party are described below. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to all of the claims described below, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. However, these proceedings are still developing and due to the inherent uncertainty in litigation, regulatory and similar adversarial proceedings, there can be no guarantee that the Company will ultimately be successful in these proceedings, or in others to which it is currently a party. Substantial losses from these proceedings or the costs of defending them could have a material adverse impact upon the Company's business, financial position and results of operations.

The Company establishes an accrued liability for legal and regulatory proceedings when it determines that a loss is both probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company continually monitors its litigation and regulatory exposure and reviews the adequacy of its legal and regulatory reserves on a quarterly basis in accordance with applicable accounting rules. The amount of any loss ultimately incurred in relation to matters for which an accrual has been established may be higher or lower than the amounts accrued for such matters.

At December 31, 2015, the Company had accrued $10.0 million for pending legal and regulatory matters for which it believes losses are probable, which is the Company's best estimate of its exposure to loss. The Company estimates that the aggregate range of possible loss in excess of accrued liabilities for such probable loss contingencies is between $0 and $2.9 million.

At December 31, 2015, the Company estimated that the aggregate range of loss for all material pending legal and regulatory proceedings for which a loss is reasonably possible, but less likely than probable (i.e., excluding the contingencies described in the preceding paragraph), is between $476,000 to $2.5 million. Those matters for which a reasonable estimate is not possible are not included within estimated ranges and, therefore, the estimated ranges do not represent the Company’s maximum loss exposure. The Company’s estimates as to legal and regulatory accruals, as to aggregate probable loss amounts and as to reasonably possible loss amounts, are all subject to the uncertainties and variables described above.

Consumer

In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable in damages to plaintiff and each class member because the Company's lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006 purportedly violated certain New Jersey state consumer statutes. Plaintiff's complaint seeks treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and statutory penalty damages of $100 per violation of all contracts issued in New Jersey, and also claims that there are multiple violations per contract. The Company removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 6, 2010 (Civil Action No.: 10-06317(JAP)(LHG)). Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated seeks equitable relief, statutory and treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. Discovery on this matter is closed. On July 31, 2013, the Court certified a class comprising all persons who entered into a rent-to-own contract with the Company in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 through March 31, 2011. In August 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the Company’s request for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification issue. The Company filed a motion to allow counterclaims against all newly certified class members who may owe legitimate fees or damages to the Company or who failed to return merchandise to the Company prior to obtaining ownership. That motion was denied by the magistrate judge and confirmed by the District Court on November 30, 2015. On August 14, 2015, the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking judicial dismissal of a portion of the claims in the case, which remains pending. On December 23, 2015, the Company filed a motion requesting permission for an interlocutory appeal of this denial to the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which also remains pending.

Privacy and Related Matters

In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 1:11-CV-00101-SPB), plaintiffs alleged that the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises ("Aspen Way") knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software program called "PC Rental Agent." Although the District Court dismissed the Company from the original lawsuit on March 20, 2012, after certain procedural motions, on May 23, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which asserted the claims under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, added a request for injunction, and named additional independently owned and operated Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint, and the Company moved to dismiss that complaint on substantially the same grounds as it sought to dismiss plaintiffs' prior complaints. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on July 1, 2013, and the Company's response was filed in August 2013. On March 31, 2014, the United States District Judge dismissed all claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises, LLC. The Court also dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants. In addition, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. Finally, the Judge denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the violation of ECPA claims. Plaintiffs requested and received immediate appellate review of these rulings by the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 10, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of class certification on the grounds stated by the District Court, and remanded the case back to the District Court for further consideration of that and the other elements necessary for class certification. The District Court has not issued a new ruling on those matters.

In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC502304), plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee, Sultan Financial Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages in connection with the allegations of the complaint. Plaintiffs are also seeking certification of a putative California class. Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as in the above-described Byrd litigation. In April 2013, the Company timely removed this matter to federal court. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently stayed the case. The Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain allegations remain pending. On June 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied on July 11, 2015.

In Lomi Price v. Aaron's, Inc. and NW Freedom Corporation, filed on February 27, 2013, in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia (Case No. 13-EV-016812B), an individual plaintiff asserts claims against the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee, NW Freedom Corporation, for invasion of privacy/intrusion on seclusion, computer invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress. Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages of not less than $250,000. On April 3, 2013, the Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses. On that same day, the Company also filed a motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint. The Court stayed the proceeding pending rulings on certain motions in the Byrd case, which expired upon remand of the case back to the District Court. On April 24, 2015, the Company filed a renewed motion to stay, which was granted on June 15, 2015.

In Michael Peterson v. Aaron’s, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., filed on June 19, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 1:14-cv-01919-TWT), several plaintiffs allege that they leased computers for use in their law practice. The plaintiffs claim that the Company and Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and the privacy of plaintiff’s legal clients in violation of the ECPA and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act. Plaintiffs seek certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs claim that information and data obtained by defendants through PC Rental Agent was attorney-client privileged. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On June 4, 2015, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss all claims except a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint alleging only the invasion of privacy claims that survived the June 4, 2015 court order, and adding a claim for unjust enrichment. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on September 16, 2015, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim. The only remaining claim against the Company is a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy.

Regulatory Investigations

California Attorney General Investigation. The California Attorney General investigated the Company's retail transactional practices, including various leasing and marketing practices, information security and privacy policies and practices related to the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software by certain independently owned and operated Company franchisees. The Company reached a comprehensive resolution of this matter without litigation. The final settlement and consent order were announced on October 13, 2014. The Court filed the final judgment on February 10, 2015. The final payment as scheduled under the consent order was made on January 6, 2016.

Other Matters

In Foster v. Aaron’s, Inc., filed on August 21, 2015, in the United States District Court in Phoenix, Arizona (No. CV-15-1637-PHX-SRB), the plaintiff in this putative class action alleges that the Company violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by placing automated calls to customer references, or otherwise violates the TCPA in the manner in which the Company contacts customer references. The Company's initial responsive pleading was filed on October 7, 2015. A Scheduling Order was entered on January 26, 2016.

Other Commitments

At December 31, 2015, the Company had non-cancelable commitments primarily related to certain advertising and marketing programs of $22.6 million. Payments under these commitments are scheduled to be $6.7 million in 2016, $7.2 million in 2017, $4.2 million in 2018 and $2.3 million in 2019, $1.6 million in 2020, and $568,000 thereafter.

The Company maintains a 401(k) savings plan for all its full-time employees who meet certain eligibility requirements. Effective January 1, 2015, the 401(k) savings plan was amended to allow employees to contribute up to 75% of their annual compensation in accordance with federal contribution limits with 100% matching by the Company on the first 3% of compensation and 50% on the next 2% of compensation for a total of 4% matching compensation. The Company’s expense related to the plan was $4.7 million in 2015, $4.3 million in 2014 and $3.3 million in 2013.

The Company is a party to various claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management regularly assesses the Company’s insurance deductibles, monitors the Company's litigation and regulatory exposure with the Company’s attorneys and evaluates its loss experience. The Company also enters into various contracts in the normal course of business that may subject it to risk of financial loss if counterparties fail to perform their contractual obligations.

Off-Balance Sheet Risk

The Company, through its DAMI business, is a party to financial instruments (loans receivable) with off-balance-sheet risk in the normal course of business to meet the financing needs of its cardholders. These financial instruments primarily include commitments to extend unsecured credit. As of December 31, 2015, there were approximately 82,000 active credit cards outstanding, of which 81,800 had remaining credit available of $378.7 million. The rates and terms of such commitments to lend are competitive with others in the market in which the Company operates. As such, the commitment amount above, if borrowed, is a reasonable estimate of fair value. While these amounts represented the total available unused credit card lines, the Company does not anticipate that all cardholders will access their entire available line at any given point in time. Commitments to extend unsecured credit are agreements to lend to a customer so long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses. Since many of the commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The Company evaluates cardholder creditworthiness individually.