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 and outside of the United States that expire at various dates through 2027. 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 $2.2 million and $4.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016 , respectively. The approximate remaining future minimum cash lease payments under these non-cancelable operating leases as of March 31, 2017 were as follows (in thousands): Year ending December 31, Future Payments 2017 (remaining 9 months) $ 9,775 2018 11,601 2019 9,588 2020 7,629 2021 5,971 Thereafter 17,099 $ 61,663 Total minimum rentals to be received in the future under non-cancelable subleases as of March 31, 2017 was $13.0 million . Please refer to Note 4 for details of the Company's capital lease commitments as of March 31, 2017 . Letters of Credit, Bank Guarantees and Restricted Cash —As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , the Company had irrevocable letters of credit for facilities leases of $6.6 million and $6.7 million , respectively. The letters of credit have various expiration dates, with the latest being March 2023. As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , the Company had $1.8 million and $1.7 million , respectively, in cash reserved to support bank guarantees for certain office lease agreements. These amounts are classified as restricted cash and other assets 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 us and certain of our 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, or the "IPO," and the secondary offering on February 5, 2014, or 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 our technology to detect and eliminate fraudulent web traffic, and about our future prospects. The consolidated complaint also alleged that our 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 Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 (the "Exchange Act claims"), and for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act (the "Securities Act claims"), on behalf of those who purchased the our common stock between September 20, 2013 and August 5, 2014, inclusive, as well as those who purchased common 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 public offerings. On February 24, 2017, the parties advised the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the case in its entirety. The agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit is subject to several conditions, including preliminary and final approval from the court, among other things. If the settlement is finalized and approved by the court, the settlement amount will be funded by the Company’s insurance carrier. On April 25, 2017, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement, and plaintiffs filed the executed stipulation of settlement along with a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement. A hearing on that motion is scheduled for May 31, 2017. The potential settlement has been accrued as of March 31, 2017 with a corresponding receivable from the insurance carrier. 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 our then-current and former officers and our board of directors at that time. The action was Davydov v. George H. John , et.al, Case No. CIV 53304. The complaint sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount, restitution, and reform of internal controls. 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 was Lunam v. William Ericson, et. al., Case No. CGC-16-551209. The complaint sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount and reform of internal controls. Both of these state court actions were stayed pending the resolution of the In re Rocket Fuel, Inc. Derivative Litigation action described below. Following the dismissal with prejudice of the In re Rocket Fuel, Inc. Derivative Litigation action as described below, the parties in both the Lunam and Davydov actions reached agreements to voluntarily dismiss the actions without compensation. On February 6, 2017, the Lunam action was dismissed without prejudice, and on February 8, 2017, the Davydov action was dismissed without prejudice. 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 were based on substantially the same facts as the In re Rocket Fuel Securities Litigation, and named as defendants the Company’s board of directors at the time of filing and certain then-current and former executives. The four purported verified shareholder derivative complaints were consolidated by the Court in March 2016, and a complaint 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. All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on May 19, 2016 and on October 6, 2016 In re Rocket Fuel Inc. Derivative Litigation was dismissed with prejudice. Following the dismissal with prejudice, former plaintiffs in In re Rocket Fuel Inc. Derivative Litigation sent us a letter dated October 12, 2016 (the “Shareholder Demand”) demanding that the Board of Directors take action to remedy purported breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly related to the claims asserted in In re Rocket Fuel, Inc. Derivative Litigation which were substantially the same as the asserted claims in In re Rocket Fuel Securities Litigation . The Company acknowledged the Shareholder Demand on October 19, 2016. Similar letters were sent by the plaintiffs in the Lunam derivative action discussed above and the plaintiff in the Davydov action discussed above, on November 14, 2016 and February 26, 2017, respectively, also demanding that the Board of Directors take action to remedy the same purported breaches of fiduciary duties alleged in the Shareholder Demand. Our Board of Directors has formed a committee to evaluate the demand letters and investigate the claims associated therewith. The outcomes of the legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and could be material to our operating results and cash flows for a particular period. Unless otherwise specifically disclosed in this note, no provision for loss nor disclosure is required related to these actions because: (a) there is not a reasonable possibility that a loss exceeding amounts already recognized (if any) may be incurred with respect to such claims; (b) a reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated; or (c) such estimate is immaterial. Legal fees are expensed in the period in which they are incurred. |