Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

We lease space for substantially all of our Core U.S. and Mexico stores, certain support facilities and the majority of our delivery vehicles under operating leases expiring at various times through 2023. Certain of the store leases contain escalation clauses for increased taxes and operating expenses. Rental expense was $209.7 million, $231.3 million and $239.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Future minimum rental payments under operating leases with remaining lease terms in excess of one year at December 31, 2017 are as follows:



(In thousands)	Operating Leases
2018	$	158,347
2019	125,843
2020	94,362
2021	57,630
2022	26,328
Thereafter	3,729
Total future minimum rental payments	$	466,239

Contingencies

From time to time, the Company, along with our subsidiaries, is party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We reserve for loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. We regularly monitor developments related to these legal proceedings, and review the adequacy of our legal reserves on a quarterly basis. We do not expect these losses to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements if and when such losses are incurred.

We are subject to unclaimed property audits by states in the ordinary course of business. We recently reached settlement agreements for the comprehensive multi-state unclaimed property audit. The property subject to review in this audit process included unclaimed wages, vendor payments and customer refunds. State escheat laws generally require entities to report and remit abandoned and unclaimed property to the state. Failure to timely report and remit the property can result in assessments that could include interest and penalties, in addition to the payment of the escheat liability itself. We routinely remit escheat payments to states in compliance with applicable escheat laws. The negotiated settlements did not have a material adverse impact to our financial statements.

Alan Hall, et. al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et. al.; James DePalma, et. al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et. al. On December 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed against us and certain of our former officers by Alan Hall in federal court in Sherman, Texas. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and/or Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing false and misleading statements and omitting material facts regarding our business, including implementation of our point-of-sale system, operations and prospects during the period covered by the complaint. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock from July 27, 2015 through October 10, 2016, and seeks damages in unspecified amounts and costs, fees, and expenses. A complaint filed by James DePalma also in Sherman, Texas alleging similar claims was consolidated by the court into the Hall matter. On October 19, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a recommendation to deny our motion to dismiss the complaint to the district judge who will decide the issue. We filed our objections to the magistrate's recommendation on November 2, 2017. On December 14, 2017, the district judge issued an order adopting the magistrate's report and denying our motion to dismiss the complaint. Discovery in this matter has now commenced. A hearing on class certification is scheduled for September 19, 2018. We continue to believe that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. However, we cannot assure you that we will be found to have no liability in this matter.

Kevin Paul, derivatively and on behalf of Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Robert D. Davis et. al.; Sheila Coleman, derivatively and on behalf of Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Robert D. Davis et. al.; Michael Downing, derivatively and on behalf of Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Mark E. Speese et. al. On March 15 and 16, 2017, substantially similar shareholder derivative suits were filed against certain current and former officers and directors and, nominally, against us, in state court in Dallas County, Texas. Another substantially similar shareholder derivative suit was filed against certain current and former officers and directors and, nominally, against us, in state court in Collin County, Texas on May 8, 2017. All three of the cases have been consolidated in state court in Dallas County, Texas. The lawsuits allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Rent-A-Center and otherwise mismanaged the affairs of the company as it concerns public statements made related to our point-of-sale system, operational results of our Acceptance Now segment, and our revenues and profitability. The petitions in these suits claim damages in unspecified amounts; seek an order directing the Company to make various changes to corporate governance and internal procedures, including putting forth a shareholder vote on various governance matters; restitution from the individual defendants; and cost, fees and expenses. We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. However, we cannot assure you that the individual defendants will be found to have no liability in this matter.

Arnaud van der Gracht de Rommerswael, derivatively and on behalf of Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Mark Speese et. al. On April 3, 2017, another shareholder derivative suit was filed against certain current and former officers and directors, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., and, nominally, against us, in federal court in Sherman, Texas. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Rent-A-Center and otherwise mismanaged the affairs of the company as it concerns (i) public statements made related to the rollout of our point-of-sale system; (ii) compensation paid to Guy Constant and Robert Davis surrounding their resignations; and (iii) change-of-control language in certain debt agreements, which the suit alleges impacts shareholders’ willingness to vote for a slate of directors nominated by Engaged Capital Flagship Master Fund, LP. (“Engaged Capital”). The complaint claims damages in unspecified amounts, disgorgement of benefits from alleged breaches of duty by the individual defendants; an order declaring that certain language in the debt agreements is unenforceable; an order enjoining the lender defendants from enforcing certain provisions in the debt agreements; an order directing the Company’s board to approve Engaged Capital’s slate of directors; an order directing the Company to make unspecified changes to corporate governance and internal procedures; and costs, fees, and expenses.

In response to the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants on April 25, 2017, the plaintiff amended his complaint on May 9, 2017 and on May 19, 2017. The amended complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets related to alleged acts for the purposes of entrenching board members, including the approval of change-of-control language in certain debt agreements, the implementation of the point-of-sale system, and the severance compensation paid to Guy Constant and Robert Davis.

On July 10, 2017, the plaintiff’s claims against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. were dismissed.

On October 12, 2017, the court issued an order requiring plaintiffs to re-plead the claims related to our point-of-sale system, and denying the motion to dismiss with respect to the waste and entrenchment claims. The plaintiffs failed to re-plead the claims related to our point-of-sale system. Discovery with respect to the remaining waste and entrenchment clams has now commenced.

We continue to believe that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. However, we cannot assure you that the defendants will be found to have no liability in this matter.

Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. This matter is a state-wide class action complaint originally filed on March 13, 2017 in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges various claims, including that our cash sales and total rent to own prices exceed the pricing permitted under the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act. In addition, the plaintiffs allege that we fail to give customers a fully executed rental agreement and that all such rental agreements that were issued to customers unsigned are void under the law. The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages under the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act which range from $100 - $1,000 per violation, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. However, we cannot assure you that we will be found to have no liability in this matter.