15 — Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The Company leases certain facilities and certain equipment under non-cancelable capital and operating leases. In addition to the minimum future lease commitments presented below, the leases generally require the Company to pay property taxes, insurance, maintenance and repair cost which are not included in the table because the Company has determined these items are not material. Certain leases provide the Company with either a right of first refusal to acquire or an option to purchase a facility at fair value. Certain leases also contain escalation clauses and renewal option clauses calling for increased rents. Where a lease contains an escalation clause or a concession, such as a rent holiday or tenant improvement allowance, rent expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term in accordance with ASC 840, Operating Leases.

The future minimum lease commitments for the next five fiscal years, under non-cancelable capital and operating leases with initial or remaining lease terms in excess of one year were as follows:



Years Ending July 31, (In thousands)	Capital Leases			Operating Leases
2019	$	966		$	29,773
2020	30			22,471
2021	13			18,515
2022	—			13,782
2023	—			11,680
Thereafter	—			54,068
Subtotal	1,009			150,289
Less: Amount relating to interest	(29		)	—
Total	$	980		$	150,289

Facilities rental expense for the years ended July 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 was $45.6 million, $26.8 million and $21.6 million, respectively. Yard operations equipment rental expense for the years ended July 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 was $2.8 million, $2.9 million and $3.1 million, respectively.

Commitments

Letters of Credit

Under a letter of credit facility separate from our Revolving Loan Facility, the Company had outstanding letters of credit of $17.3 million at July 31, 2018, which are primarily used to secure certain insurance obligations.

Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

The Company is subject to threats of litigation and is involved in actual litigation and damage claims arising in the ordinary course of business, such as actions related to injuries, property damage, contract disputes, and handling or disposal of vehicles. The material pending legal proceedings to which the Company is a party, or of which any of the Company’s property is subject, include the following matters.

On November 1, 2013, the Company filed suit against Sparta Consulting, Inc. (now known as KPIT). The suit arose out of the Company’s September 17, 2013 decision to terminate the Implementation Services Agreement, under which KPIT was to design, implement, and deliver a customized replacement enterprise resource planning system for the Company. On January 8, 2014, KPIT filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, account stated, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. On June 8, 2016, the Company amended its complaint to include claims that KPIT stole certain intellectual property owned by the Company and acted negligently in its provision of services. The case was tried in April and May 2018. On May 22, 2018, the jury returned a verdict for the Company on its fraud claim against KPIT for $4.7 million, and on its professional negligence claim against KPIT for $16.3 million, and the jury found for KPIT on its implied covenant counterclaim against the Company for $4.9 million.

In a September 10, 2018, post-trial order, the Court reduced the Company’s professional negligence award to $9.1 million, found KPIT liable under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) for fraudulent and unfair conduct and held that the Company could recover restitution of $6.3 million if the Company chooses to forego its fraud and professional negligence damages, found that the Company was not entitled to restitution on its unjust enrichment claim, and awarded KPIT prejudgment interest on its implied covenant counterclaim starting from December 26, 2016. Further post-trial proceedings are expected in this lawsuit, including the determination of the Company’s right to prejudgment interest on its successful claims.

The Company provides for costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The effect of the outcome of these matters on the Company’s future consolidated results of operations and cash flows cannot be predicted because any such effect depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing of the resolution of such matters. The Company believes that any ultimate liability will not have a material effect on its consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. However, the amount of the liabilities associated with these claims, if any, cannot be determined with certainty. The Company maintains insurance which may or may not provide coverage for claims made against the Company. There is no assurance that there will be insurance coverage available when and if needed. Additionally, the insurance that the Company carries requires that the Company pay for costs and/or claims exposure up to the amount of the insurance deductibles negotiated when the insurance is purchased.

Governmental Proceedings

The Georgia Department of Revenue, or DOR, conducted a sales and use tax audit of the Company’s operations in Georgia for the period from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011. As a result of their initial audit, the DOR issued a notice of proposed assessment for uncollected sales taxes in which it asserted that the Company failed to collect and remit sales taxes totaling $73.8 million, including penalties and interest.

The Company subsequently engaged a Georgia law firm and outside tax advisors to review the conduct of its business operations in Georgia, the notice of proposed assessment, and the DOR’s policy position. In particular, the Company’s outside legal counsel provided the Company an opinion that the sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers should not be subject to Georgia sales and use tax. In rendering its opinion, the Company’s counsel noted that non-U.S. registered resellers are unable to comply strictly with technical requirements for a Georgia certificate of exemption but concluded that its sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers should not be subject to Georgia sales and use tax notwithstanding this technical inability to comply. Following the Company’s receipt of the notice of proposed assessment, the Company and its counsel engaged in active discussions with the DOR to resolve the matter.

During an extended remand period, it was determined that grounds exist for a substantial reduction in the Official Assessment, on the basis that (i) the transactions and resulting tax at issue were erroneously double-counted by the DOR in the audit sales transaction work papers on which the Assessment was based; and (ii) the Company was ultimately able to provide documentation showing that most of the remaining transactions were sales at wholesale, therefore qualifying for the sale for resale exemption from Georgia Sales and Use Tax. After these reductions, the remaining amount of principal Georgia Sales and Use Tax still in dispute between the parties is $2.6 million, plus applicable interest. A Consent Order to this effect was entered by the Georgia Tax Tribunal on May 22, 2017. Since the date of entry of the Consent Order, the DOR filed a Motion for Summary Judgment related to the remaining $2.6 million in dispute. The Company opposed the DOR’s motion and is awaiting a decision by the Court regarding the DOR’s motion.

Based on the opinion from the Company’s outside law firm, advice from its outside tax advisors, and the Company’s best estimate of a probable outcome, the Company has adequately provided for the payment of any assessment in its consolidated financial statements. The Company believes it has strong defenses to the remaining tax liability set forth above and intends to continue to defend this matter. There can be no assurance that this matter will be resolved in the Company’s favor or that the Company will not ultimately be required to make a substantial payment to the DOR. The Company understands that litigating and defending the matter in Georgia could be expensive and time-consuming and result in substantial management distraction. If the matter were to be resolved in a manner adverse to the Company, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations and financial position.