COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Operating Leases —The Company has operating lease agreements for office space for administrative, research and development and sales and marketing activities in the United States that expire at various dates through 2025. The Company recognizes rent expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term and records the difference between cash rent payments and the recognition of rent expense as a deferred rent liability. Rent expense was $3.9 million for both the three months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 , and $11.9 million and $10.8 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 , respectively. The approximate remaining future minimum cash lease payments under these non-cancelable operating leases as of September 30, 2015 were as follows (in thousands): Year ending December 31, Future Payments 2015 (remaining 3 months) $ 5,203 2016 20,833 2017 19,788 2018 18,648 2019 21,147 Thereafter 43,657 $ 129,276 Please refer to Note 4 for details of the Company's capital lease commitments as of September 30, 2015 . Letters of Credit Bank Guarantees and Restricted Cash —As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , the Company had irrevocable letters of credit for facilities leases of $7.2 million and $6.8 million , respectively. The letters of credit have various expiration dates, with the latest being December 2023. As of September 30, 2015 , the Company had $2.2 million in cash reserved to support bank guarantees for certain office lease agreements. These amounts are classified as restricted cash on the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheets. Indemnification Agreements —In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into agreements providing for indemnification of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, business partners, and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of breach of such agreements, services to be provided by the Company or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with directors and certain officers and employees that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors, officers or employees. No demands have been made upon the Company to provide indemnification under such agreements, and thus there are no claims that the Company is aware of that could have a material effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets, condensed consolidated statements of operations, condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive loss, or condensed consolidated statements of cash flows. Legal Proceedings —The Company is involved from time to time in claims, proceedings, and litigation, including the following: On September 3, 2014 and September 10, 2014, respectively, two purported class actions were filed in the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The actions are Shah v. Rocket Fuel Inc., et al. , Case No. 4:14-cv-03998, and Mehrotra v. Rocket Fuel Inc., et al. , Case No. 4:14-cv-04114. The underwriters in the Company's initial public offering on September 19, 2013 (the “IPO”) and its secondary offering on February 5, 2013 (the “Secondary Offering”) are also named as defendants. These actions were consolidated and a consolidated complaint, In re Rocket Fuel Securities Litigation , was filed on February 27, 2015. The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the ability of the Company's technology to detect and eliminate fraudulent web traffic, and about Rocket Fuel’s future prospects. The consolidated complaint also alleges that the Company's registration statements and prospectuses for the IPO and the Secondary Offering contained false and misleading statements on these topics. The consolidated complaint purports to assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5, and for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock between September 20, 2013 and August 5, 2014, inclusive, as well as those who purchased stock in its initial public offering on September 19, 2013, and a claim for violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act in connection with the Secondary Offering. The consolidated complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on April 13, 2015. No decision had been made yet on that motion. On March 23, 2015, a purported shareholder derivative complaint for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment was filed in San Mateo, California Superior Court against certain of the Company's current and former officers and its board of directors at that time. The action is Davydov v. George H. John , et.al, Case No. CIV 53304. This state court action has been stayed pending the outcome of the defendants’ motions to dismiss in In re Rocket Fuel Securities Litigation . On October 6, 2015, a purported verified shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Northern District of California. The action is Victor Veloso v. George H. John et al. , Case No. 4:15-cv-04625-PJH. The complaint, which is based on substantially the same facts as the In re Rocket Fuel Securities Litigation, names its board of directors at that time and certain current and former executives as defendants and has been related to the In re Rocket Fuel Securities Litigation . We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these actions. The outcomes of the Company's legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and could be material to its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows by an unfavorable resolution of these actions. At present, we are unable to reasonably estimate a possible range of loss for these actions. Legal fees are expensed in the period in which they are incurred. |