Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

Commitments

We and our subsidiaries rent office space and office equipment under noncancellable operating leases with terms varying principally from one to thirty years. Rental expense (net of sublease rental income) was $84.0 million, $79.6 million and $63.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Future minimum annual rentals (exclusive of month-to-month leases, real estate taxes, maintenance and certain other charges) under these leases at December 31, 2015 are as follows (in thousands):



2016	$	83,230
2017	80,167
2018	75,785
2019	66,339
2020	57,198
Thereafter	409,417
	772,136
Less: sublease income	(10,854		)
	$	761,282

Effective December 30, 2004, National Beef finalized an agreement with the City of Dodge City, Kansas, whereby in consideration of certain improvements made to the city water and wastewater systems, National Beef committed to make a series of service charge payments totaling $19.3 million over a 20 year period, of which $6.6 million remains as of December 31, 2015. Payments under the commitment will be approximately $0.8 million in each of the years 2016 through 2018, with the remaining balance of $4.1 million to be paid in subsequent years.

National Beef makes verbal commitments to cattle producers to purchase cattle approximately one week in advance of delivery of those cattle to its plants. The actual value paid for these cattle is determined after the cattle are delivered, weighed and inspected at National Beef’s facilities. The total value of verbal commitments to purchase cattle as of December 31, 2015 was $68.5 million.

The following table summarizes commitments associated with certain business activities (in millions):



	Expected Maturity Date
	2016		2017		2018 and 2019		2020 and 2021		2022 and Later		Maximum Payout
Equity commitments (1)	$	106.8	$	25.3	$	43.9	$	35.9	$	189.5	$	401.4
Loan commitments (1)	247.3		170.7		81.4		—		—		499.4
Mortgage-related and other purchase commitments	1,571.4		312.5		1,013.7		—		—		2,897.6
Forward starting reverse repos and repos	1,635.0		—		—		—		—		1,635.0
Other unfunded commitments (1)	87.0		186.9		20.2		5.7		35.6		335.4
	$	3,647.5	$	695.4	$	1,159.2	$	41.6	$	225.1	$	5,768.8


(1)	Equity commitments, loan commitments and other unfunded commitments are presented by contractual maturity date. The amounts are however mostly available on demand.

Equity Commitments. Equity commitments include commitments to invest in Jefferies joint ventures, Jefferies Finance and Jefferies LoanCore, and commitments to invest in private equity funds and in Jefferies Capital Partners, LLC, the manager of the private equity funds, which are managed by a team led by Brian P. Friedman, our President and a Director. As of December 31, 2015, Jefferies outstanding commitments relating to Jefferies Capital Partners, LLC and its private equity funds was $23.6 million.

See Note 11 for additional information regarding Jefferies investments in Jefferies Finance and Jefferies LoanCore.

In August 2014, we and Solomon Kumin established Folger Hill Asset Management LLC (“Folger Hill”); we committed to provide Folger Hill with a three-year, $20 million revolving credit facility to fund its start-up and initial operating expenses. As of December 31, 2015, $7.4 million has been provided to Folger Hill under the revolving credit facility.

During 2015, we expanded our asset management business to include 54 Madison Capital, LLC. We made a capital commitment of $225.0 million to this new fund, which will target real estate projects. In 2015, we invested $38.4 million in 54 Madison Capital, LLC.

Additionally, as of December 31, 2015, Jefferies had other equity commitments to invest up to $4.4 million in various other investments.

Loan Commitments. From time to time Jefferies makes commitments to extend credit to investment banking and other clients in loan syndication, acquisition finance and securities transactions and to SPE sponsors in connection with the funding of CLO and other asset-backed transactions. These commitments and any related drawdowns of these facilities typically have fixed maturity dates and are contingent on certain representations, warranties and contractual conditions applicable to the borrower. As of December 31, 2015, Jefferies has $268.7 million of outstanding loan commitments to clients.

Loan commitments outstanding as of December 31, 2015, also include Jefferies portion of the outstanding secured revolving credit facility provided to Jefferies Finance, to support loan underwritings by Jefferies Finance.

Mortgage-Related and Other Purchase Commitments. Jefferies enters into forward contracts to purchase mortgage participation certificates, mortgage-backed securities and consumer loans. The mortgage participation certificates evidence interests in mortgage loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration and the mortgage-backed securities are insured or guaranteed by the FNMA (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) or the GNMA (Ginnie Mae). Jefferies frequently securitizes the mortgage participation certificates and mortgage-backed securities. The fair value of mortgage-related and other purchase commitments recorded in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition at December 31, 2015 was $238.6 million.

Forward Starting Reverse Repos and Repos. Jefferies enters into commitments to take possession of securities with agreements to resell on a forward starting basis and to sell securities with agreements to repurchase on a forward starting basis that are primarily secured by U.S. government and agency securities.

Other Unfunded Commitments. Other unfunded commitments include obligations in the form of revolving notes to provide financing to asset-backed and CLO vehicles. Upon advancing funds, drawn amounts are collateralized by the assets of an entity.

Contingencies

Sykes v. Mel Harris & Associates, LLC. -- We and certain of our subsidiaries and officers are named as defendants in a consumer class action captioned Sykes v. Mel Harris & Associates, LLC, et al., 9 Civ. 8486 (DC), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The named defendants also include the Mel Harris law firm, certain individuals and members associated with the law firm, and a process server, Samserv, Inc. and certain of its employees. The complaint alleges that default judgments obtained by the law firm against approximately 124,000 individuals in New York courts with respect to consumer debt purchased by our subsidiaries violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the New York General Business Law and the New York Judiciary Law (alleged only as to the law firm). The complaint seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief and damages on behalf of the named plaintiffs and others similarly situated. We asserted that we were an investor with respect to the subject purchased consumer debt and were regularly informed of the amounts received from debt collections, but otherwise had no involvement in any alleged illegal debt collection activities.

On December 29, 2010, the District Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss in part (including as to the claims made against us and our subsidiaries) and granted them in part (including as to certain of the claims made against our officers). On March 28, 2013, the Court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class and a Rule 23(b)(3) class. On February 10, 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the certification of these classes. None of these decisions addresses the ultimate merits of the case.

On March 18, 2015, we and plaintiffs executed a settlement agreement that provided additional detail regarding the terms of a settlement set out in a December 14, 2014 binding term sheet pursuant to which we have previously accrued approximately $50 million. On November 12, 2015, plaintiffs executed a settlement agreement with the other defendants in the case, and we and plaintiffs executed a first amendment to our settlement agreement to modify the agreement to reflect that settlement of all claims as to all parties had been reached. Both our settlement agreement and that of the other defendants were submitted to the Court on November 12, 2015. On November 16, 2015, the Court entered an order that, among other things, preliminarily approved the settlement agreements, authorized the parties to send notice to the settlement class members and set a fairness hearing for May 11, 2016.

Haverhill Retirement System v. Asali, et al. -- On May 2, 2014, plaintiff Haverhill Retirement System (“Haverhill”) filed an amended putative class action and derivative lawsuit (the “Complaint”) entitled Haverhill Retirement System v. Asali, et al. in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court of Chancery”) against Harbinger Capital Partners LLC, Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd., Global Opportunities Breakaway Ltd., Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P. (collectively, the “Harbinger Funds”), the members of the board of directors of Harbinger Group, Inc. (“Harbinger”), nominal defendant Harbinger, as well as Leucadia. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of Harbinger breached their fiduciary duties in connection with Leucadia’s March 2014 purchase of preferred securities of subsidiaries of the Harbinger Funds that were exchangeable into Harbinger common stock owned by the Harbinger Funds, certain flaws in the process employed by the special committee of directors appointed by the Harbinger board in connection therewith, and that Leucadia aided and abetted the Harbinger board’s breaches of fiduciary, as well as a claim of unjust enrichment against Leucadia. On April 1, 2014, the Chancery Court denied Haverhill’s motion for expedited proceedings associated with the complaint originally filed by Haverhill on March 26, 2014. Haverhill filed an amended complaint on May 2, 2014. On July 2, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 12, 2014, Plaintiffs filed another amended complaint. The amended complaint dropped Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim against Leucadia. With respect to remedies sought, the amended complaint no longer sought an injunction against installing Leucadia designees as Board members and no longer sought rescission of Leucadia’s right to select the director class to which one of its designees would be appointed. A term sheet reflecting a settlement among the parties, that did not provide for any payment by the Company, was signed on October 15, 2014. On December 19, 2014, final settlement papers were submitted to the Court. On June 8, 2015, a settlement hearing took place, at which the Court rejected the settlement. The parties then negotiated a stipulation under which the case will be dismissed. The court approved the stipulation and proposed dismissal on January 7, 2016. Following notice to Harbinger's stockholders of the proposed dismissal, Harbinger will notify the court that the notice has been provided and we expect that the case will be dismissed.

We and our subsidiaries are parties to other legal and regulatory proceedings that are considered to be either ordinary, routine litigation incidental to their business or not significant to our consolidated financial position. We and our subsidiaries are also involved, from time to time, in other exams, investigations and similar reviews (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding our businesses, certain of which may result in judgments, settlements, fines, penalties or other injunctions. We do not believe that any of these actions will have a significant adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or liquidity, but any amounts paid could be significant to results of operations for the period.

Guarantees

Derivative Contracts. Jefferies dealer activities cause it to make markets and trade in a variety of derivative instruments. Certain derivative contracts that Jefferies has entered into meet the accounting definition of a guarantee under GAAP, including credit default swaps, written foreign currency options and written equity put options. On certain of these contracts, such as written interest rate caps and foreign currency options, the maximum payout cannot be quantified since the increase in interest or foreign exchange rates are not contractually limited by the terms of the contract. As such, we have disclosed notional values as a measure of Jefferies maximum potential payout under these contracts.

The following table summarizes the notional amounts associated with our derivative contracts meeting the definition of a guarantee under GAAP (in millions):



	Expected Maturity Date
Guarantee Type	2016		2017		2018 and 2019		2020 and 2021		2022 and Later		Notional/ Maximum Payout

Derivative contracts – non-credit related	$	11,840.6	$	584.6	$	142.8	$	—	$	414.4	$	12,982.4
Written derivative contracts – credit related	—		—		115.4		955.4		10.0		1,080.8
Total derivative contracts	$	11,840.6	$	584.6	$	258.2	$	955.4	$	424.4	$	14,063.2

The external credit ratings of the underlying or referenced assets for our credit related derivatives contracts (in millions):



	External Credit Rating
	AAA/ Aaa		AA/ Aa		A		BBB/Baa		Below Investment Grade		Unrated		Notional/ Maximum Payout
Credit related derivative contracts:
Index credit default swaps	$	698.4	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	698.4
Single name credit default swaps	$	—	$	—	$	10.0	$	57.5	$	264.3	$	50.6	382.4

The derivative contracts deemed to meet the definition of a guarantee under GAAP are before consideration of hedging transactions and only reflect a partial or "one-sided" component of any risk exposure. Written equity options and written credit default swaps are often executed in a strategy that is in tandem with long cash instruments (e.g., equity and debt securities). Jefferies substantially mitigates its exposure to market risk on these contracts through hedges, such as other derivative contracts and/or cash instruments and Jefferies manages the risk associated with these contracts in the context of its overall risk management framework. Jefferies believes notional amounts overstate its expected payout and that fair value of these contracts is a more relevant measure of its obligations. The fair value of derivative contracts meeting the definition of a guarantee is approximately $394.8 million.

Berkadia. We have agreed to reimburse Berkshire Hathaway for up to one-half of any losses incurred under a $2.5 billion surety policy securing outstanding commercial paper issued by an affiliate of Berkadia. As of December 31, 2015, the aggregate amount of commercial paper outstanding was $2.47 billion.

Loan Guarantee. Jefferies has provided a guarantee to Jefferies Finance that matures in January 2021, whereby Jefferies is required to make certain payments to a SPE sponsored by Jefferies Finance in the event that Jefferies Finance is unable to meet its obligations to the SPE and a guarantee of a credit agreement with an indefinite term for a fund owned by employees. At December 31, 2015, the maximum amount payable under these guarantees is $21.8 million.

Other Guarantees. Jefferies is a member of various exchanges and clearing houses. In the normal course of business Jefferies provides guarantees to securities clearinghouses and exchanges. These guarantees generally are required under the standard membership agreements, such that members are required to guarantee the performance of other members. Additionally, if a member becomes unable to satisfy its obligations to the clearinghouse, other members would be required to meet these shortfalls. To mitigate these performance risks, the exchanges and clearinghouses often require members to post collateral. Jefferies obligations under such guarantees could exceed the collateral amounts posted. Jefferies maximum potential liability under these arrangements cannot be quantified; however, the potential for Jefferies to be required to make payments under such guarantees is deemed remote. Accordingly, no liability has been recognized for these arrangements.

Indemnification. In connection with the 2013 sale of Empire Insurance Company, we agreed to indemnify the buyer for certain of Empire’s lease obligations that were assumed by another subsidiary of ours as part of the sale of Empire. Our subsidiary was subsequently sold in 2014 to HomeFed as part of the real estate transaction with HomeFed. Although HomeFed has agreed to indemnify us for these lease obligations, our indemnification obligation under the Empire transaction remains. The primary lease expires in 2018 and the aggregate amount of lease obligation as of December 31, 2015 was approximately $30.7 million. Substantially all of the space under the primary lease has been sublet to various third-party tenants for the full length of the lease term in amounts in excess of the obligations under the primary lease.

Standby Letters of Credit. At December 31, 2015, Jefferies provided guarantees to certain counterparties in the form of standby letters of credit in the amount of $33.1 million, which expire within one year. Standby letters of credit commit Jefferies to make payment to the beneficiary if the guaranteed party fails to fulfill its obligation under a contractual arrangement with that beneficiary. Since commitments associated with these collateral instruments may expire unused, the amount shown does not necessarily reflect the actual future cash funding requirement.

Other subsidiaries of ours have outstanding letters of credit aggregating $23.1 million at December 31, 2015.