COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Lease commitments and rent expense

The Company leases office, manufacturing and warehouse space. These leases provide for additional payments of real estate taxes and other operating expenses over a base period amount.

The aggregate minimum future lease payments for these operating leases at June 30, 2016, are as follows:



Fiscal Year
2017	$	19,163
2018	15,907
2019	13,648
2020	10,400
2021	7,496
Thereafter	40,572
	$	107,186

Rent expense charged to operations for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2016, 2015 and 2014 was $28,097, $27,028 and $20,567, respectively.

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements

At June 30, 2016, we did not have any off-balance sheet arrangements as defined in Item 303(a)(4) of Regulation S-K that have had, or are likely to have, a material current or future effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Legal Proceedings

Securities Class Actions Filed in Federal Court

On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al., (the “Flora Complaint”); (2) Lynn v. the Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the “Lynn Complaint”); and (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the “Spadola Complaint” and, together with the Flora and Lynn Complaints, the “Securities Complaints”). The Securities Complaints allege that the Company and certain of its officers made materially false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects and financial results. The Securities Complaints were brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain securities between November 5, 2015 and August 15, 2016. On October 17, 2016, six potential plaintiffs and their respective law firms moved to serve as lead plaintiff and counsel. On June 5, 2017, the Court issued an order for consolidation, appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, (the “Consolidated Securities Action”) and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as an absent class member.

Stockholder Derivative Complaints Filed in State Court

On September 16, 2016, a stockholder derivative complaint, Paperny v. Heyer, et al. (the “Paperny Complaint”), was filed in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County against the Board of Directors and certain officers of the Company alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, lack of oversight and corporate waste. On December 2, 2016 and December 29, 2016, two additional stockholder derivative complaints were filed in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County against the Board of Directors and certain officers under the captions Scarola v. Simon (the “Scarola Complaint”) and Shakir v. Simon (the “Shakir Complaint” and, together with the Paperny Complaint and the Scarola Complaint, the “Derivative Complaints”), respectively. Both the Scarola Complaint and the Shakir Complaint allege breach of fiduciary duty, lack of oversight and unjust enrichment. On February 16, 2017, the parties for the Derivative Complaints entered into a stipulation consolidating the matters under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”) in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County, and the parties agreed to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action until November 2, 2017.

Additional Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaints Filed in Federal Court

On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain officers of the Company under the captions Silva v. Simon, et al. (the “Silva Complaint”) and Barnes v. Simon, et al. (the “Barnes Complaint”), respectively. Both the Silva Complaint and the Barnes Complaint allege violation of securities law, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.

On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under seal in the Eastern District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain officers of the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company’s directors and certain officers made materially false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects and financial results. The complaint also alleges that the Company violated its by-laws and Delaware law by failing to hold an Annual Stockholders Meeting and includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste.

SEC Investigation

As previously disclosed, the Company voluntarily contacted the SEC in August 2016 to advise it of the Company’s delay in the filing of its periodic reports and the performance of the independent review conducted by the Audit Committee. The Company has continued to provide information to the SEC on an ongoing basis, including, among other things, the results of the independent review of the Audit Committee as well as other information pertaining to its internal accounting review relating to revenue recognition. On January 31, 2017, the SEC issued a subpoena to the Company seeking documents relevant to its investigation. The Company is in the process of responding to the SEC’s requests for information and intends to cooperate fully with the SEC.

Other

On May 11, 2011, Rosminah Brown, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, as well as a non-profit organization, filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County against the Company. The complaint alleged that the labels of certain Avalon Organics^® brand and JASON^® brand personal care products used prior to the Company’s implementation of ANSI/NSF-305 certification in mid-2011 violated certain California statutes. Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The action was consolidated with a subsequently-filed putative class action containing substantially identical allegations concerning only the JASON^® brand personal care products. The consolidated actions sought an award for damages, injunctive relief, costs, expenses and attorney’s fees. In July 2015, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the class action for $7,500 in addition to the distribution of consumer coupons up to a value of $2,000. In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded a charge of $5,725 in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015 (a separate charge of $1,975 was recorded in prior years). The parties finalized the settlement and the court granted preliminary approval in October 2015. The court granted final approval of the settlement and issued a judgment dismissing the case on February 17, 2016.

In addition to the litigation described above, the Company is and may be a defendant in lawsuits from time to time in the normal course of business. While the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes the reasonably possible losses of such matters, individually and in the aggregate, are not material. Additionally, the Company believes the probable final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position, cash flows or liquidity.