The Company’s operating leases include a ground lease expiring in 2074 related to one of its apartment communities and an office lease expiring in 2028 related to its corporate headquarters. Both leases contain stated rent increases that generally compensate for the impact of inflation. The Company also has other commitments related to immaterial office and equipment operating leases. As of December 31, 2021, the Company’s operating leases had a weighted average remaining lease term of approximately 32 years and a weighted average discount rate of approximately 4.4%.

The table below reconciles undiscounted cash flows for each of the first five years and total of the remaining years to the right-of-use lease obligations recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2021 (in thousands):


	Operating Leases
2022	$	2,894
2023		2,885
2024		2,862
2025		2,872
2026		2,920
Thereafter		59,993
Total minimum lease payments		74,426
Net present value adjustments		(44,175	)
Right-of-use lease obligations	$	30,251

In June 2016, plaintiffs Cathi Cleven and Tara Cleven, on behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against MAA and the Operating Partnership in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. In January 2017, Areli Arellano and Joe L. Martinez joined the lawsuit as additional plaintiffs. The lawsuit alleges that the Company (but not Post Properties - see the description of the Brown class action lawsuit below) charged late fees at its Texas properties that violate Section 92.019 of the Texas Property Code, or Section 92.019, which provides that a landlord may not charge a tenant a late fee for failing to pay rent unless, among other things, the fee is a reasonable estimate of uncertain damages to the landlord that are incapable of precise calculation and result from the late payment of rent. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by the plaintiffs. Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. Because the District Court certified a class prior to granting the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, the District Court’s ruling applies to the entire class. In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the Company’s petition to review the District Court’s order granting class certification. In September 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the Company’s oral arguments. Thereafter, in December 2021, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion, finding error in the District Court’s analysis of Section 92.019 and remanding the case to the District Court to determine if class certification is appropriate in light of the Fifth Circuit’s determination that Section 92.019 does not require that a landlord engage in a process to arrive at its late fee, so long as the fee is a reasonable estimate at the time of contracting of damages that are incapable of precise calculation. The Company will continue to vigorously defend the action and pursue such appeals as are warranted and available. Management estimates that the Company’s maximum exposure in the lawsuit, if the class is recertified by the District Court, is $54.6 million, which includes both potential damages and attorneys’ fees but excludes any prejudgment interest that may be awarded.

In April 2017, plaintiff Nathaniel Brown, on behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against the Operating Partnership, as the successor by merger to Post Properties’ primary operating partnership, and MAA in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. The lawsuit alleges that Post Properties (and, following the Post Properties merger in December 2016, the Operating Partnership) charged late fees at its Texas properties that violate Section 92.019. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorney’s fees and costs. In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by the plaintiff. Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. Because the District Court certified a class prior to granting the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, the District Court’s ruling applies to the entire class. In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the Company’s petition to review the District Court’s order granting class certification. In September 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the Company’s oral arguments. The Fifth Circuit issued its opinion in December 2021 finding error in the District Court’s analysis of Section 92.019 and remanding the case to the District Court to determine if class certification is appropriate in light of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling on the application of Section 92.019 in the Cleven lawsuit, as noted above. The Company will continue to vigorously defend the action and pursue such appeals as are warranted and available. Management estimates that the Company’s maximum exposure in the lawsuit, if the class is recertified, is $8.4 million, which includes both potential damages and attorneys’ fees but excludes any prejudgment interest that may be awarded.

The Company is subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of its business operations. Matters that arise out of allegations of bodily injury, property damage and employment practices are generally covered by insurance. While the resolution of these other matters cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not currently believe that such matters, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in the event of a negative outcome.

As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company’s accrual for loss contingencies relating to unresolved legal matters was $5.2 million and $5.3 million in the aggregate, respectively. The loss contingencies are presented in “Accrued expenses and other liabilities” in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets.