COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 10. 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 2026. 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 $4.3 million and $4.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 , respectively. The approximate remaining future minimum cash lease payments under these non-cancelable operating leases as of March 31, 2016 were as follows (in thousands): Year ending December 31, Future Payments 2016 (remaining 9 months) $ 12,786 2017 16,324 2018 15,128 2019 16,473 2020 7,247 Thereafter 21,301 $ 89,259 Please refer to Note 4 for details of the Company's capital lease commitments as of March 31, 2016 . Letters of Credit Bank Guarantees and Restricted Cash —As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , the Company had irrevocable letters of credit for facilities leases of $7.7 million and $6.3 million , respectively. The letters of credit have various expiration dates, with the latest being June 2025. As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Company had $2.0 million and $2.1 million , respectively, 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 at the time. 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 initial public offering on September 19, 2013 (the "IPO") and the secondary offering on February 5, 2014 (the "Secondary Offering") were 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 alleged 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 alleged 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 purported 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 (the "Exchange Act" claims), and for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act" claims), 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 the IPO, and a claim for violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act in connection with the Secondary Offering. The consolidated complaint sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount. All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on December 23, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court dismissed the Securities Act claims and all but one of the statements on which the Exchange Act claims were based. The court also dismissed all claims against the outside directors and the underwriters of the Company’s public offerings. 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 then-current and former officers and the Company’s 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 resolution of the Victor Veloso v. George H. John et al. action described below. 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. Beginning in January 2016, three substantially similar related cases, Gervat v. Wootton et al. , 4:16-cv-00332-PJH, Pack v. John et al. , 4:16-cv-00608-EDL, and McCawley v. Wootton et al ., Case No. 4:16-cv-00812, also were filed in the Northern District of California on January 21, 2016, February 4, 2016 and February 18, 2016, respectively. The complaints in these related actions are based on substantially the same facts as the In re Rocket Fuel Securities Litigation, and name as defendants the Company’s board of directors at the time of filing and certain then-current and former executives. The Veloso action has been related to the In re Rocket Fuel Securities Litigation and motions to relate the other actions are pending. The four purported verified shareholder derivative complaints were consolidated by the Court in March 2016, and a compliant in the consolidated action, titled In re Rocket Fuel, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 4:15-cv-4625-PJH, was filed on April 14, 2016. On January 27, 2016, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The action was Gee v. Wootton et al. , Case No. 11940-VCL. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action on February 9, 2016. On March 29, 2016, a purported shareholder derivative complaint for breach of fiduciary duty and violation of California corporations code section 25402 was filed in San Francisco, California Superior Court against certain of the Company's current and former officers and certain of the Company's current and former directors. The action is Lunam v. William Ericson, et. al., Case No. CGC-16-551209. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these actions. The outcomes of the legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and could be material to the Company's operating results and cash flows for a particular period. Legal fees are expensed in the period in which they are incurred. |