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, 2016 are as follows:



(In Thousands)
2017	$	107,985
2018	91,703
2019	77,932
2020	65,571
2021	48,711
Thereafter	114,660
	$	506,562

Rental expense was $116.2 million, $116.5 million, and $111.6 million in the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively, which are reported within operating expenses in the consolidated statements of earnings. The Company also incurred contractual lease obligations charges, net of estimated sublease receipts, of $11.6 million and $4.8 million, in the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2014, respectively, related to the closure of Company-operated stores which are reported within restructuring expenses in the consolidated statements of earnings.

The Company has anticipated future sublease receipts from executed sublease agreements of $4.8 million in 2017, $4.3 million in 2018, $3.4 million in 2019, $2.4 million in 2020, $1.8 million in 2021 and $2.0 million thereafter through 2025.

Guarantees

The Company has guaranteed certain debt obligations of some of the franchisees under a franchise loan program with several banks. On December 6, 2016, the Company amended the fifth amended and restated loan facility to, among other things, reduce the maximum facility commitment amount under the franchise loan program from $175.0 million to $125.0 million, reduce the Canadian subfacility commitment amount for loans to franchisees that operate stores in Canada (other than the province of Quebec) from CAD $50.0 million to CAD $25.0 million, and to extend the maturity date to December 7, 2017. The Company remains subject to the financial covenants under the franchisee loan facility.

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, 2016, the maximum amount that the Company would be obligated to repay in the event franchisees defaulted was $56.7 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 by the Company in connection with these guarantees to be remote. The carrying amount of the franchisee-related borrowings guarantee, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets, is $0.8 million as of December 31, 2016.

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. 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, 2016, the Company had accrued $6.0 million for pending legal and regulatory matters for which it believes losses are probable and is the Company's best estimate of its exposure to loss. The Company records these liabilities in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets. The Company estimates that the aggregate range of reasonably possible loss in excess of accrued liabilities for such probable loss contingencies is between $0 and $3.6 million.

At December 31, 2016, 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 $0.6 million and $2.9 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 for legal and regulatory accruals, aggregate probable loss amounts and 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 equitable relief, 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 complaint also seeks pre-and-post judgment interest and attorneys’ fees. 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. On February 23, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment filed August 14, 2015, dismissing plaintiff’s claims that a pro-rate feature of the lease agreements violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, but denying summary judgment on the claim that Aaron’s Service Plus violated the same act. In December 2016, a class notice was mailed to certain individuals who were customers of Company-operated stores in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 to March 31, 2011.

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, plaintiffs allege 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." Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, seeks an injunction, and names additional independently owned and operated Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief.

In March 2014, the United States District Court dismissed all claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises, LLC, dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants, and denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action, but denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the claims alleging ECPA violations. In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 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. On January 24, 2017, final briefs were submitted on the remand of plaintiffs’ motion for class certification with the District Court.

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, 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, as well as certification of a putative California class. In April 2013, the Company removed this matter to federal court. In May 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. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied in July 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. This case has been stayed pending resolution of the Byrd litigation.

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, plaintiffs claim that the Company and Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and the privacy of plaintiffs' law firm’s 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 Court has dismissed all claims except a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which the Court denied on January 25, 2017.

Other Contingencies

At December 31, 2016, the Company had non-cancelable commitments primarily related to certain advertising and marketing programs of $28.2 million. Payments under these commitments are scheduled to be $17.4 million in 2017, $6.1 million in 2018, $3.5 million in 2019 and $1.2 million in 2020.

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 a 4% match. The Company’s expense related to the plan was $5.4 million in 2016, $4.7 million in 2015 and $4.3 million in 2014.

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, has unfunded lending commitments totaling $366.4 million and $378.7 million as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. These unfunded commitments arise in the ordinary course of business from credit card agreements with individual cardholders that give them the ability to borrow, against unused amounts, up to the maximum credit limit assigned to their account. While these unfunded amounts represented the total available unused lines of credit, the Company does not anticipate that all cardholders will utilize their entire available line at any given point in time. Commitments to extend unsecured credit are agreements to lend to a cardholder 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 reserve for losses on unfunded loan commitments is calculated by the Company based on historical usage patterns of cardholders after the initial charge and is $0.5 million as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The reserve for losses on unfunded loan commitments is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets.