Commitments and Contingencies
|12 Months Ended|
Dec. 31, 2015
|Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
(11) Commitments and Contingencies
(a) Leases and Other Commitments
We have various non-cancelable operating leases for facilities, equipment, and software with terms between two and 15 years. The terms of the facilities leases typically provide for certain minimum payments as well as increases in lease payments based upon the operating cost of the facility and the consumer price index. Rent expense is recognized on a straight-line basis for rent agreements having escalating rent terms. Lease expense for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 was as follows (in thousands):
Future minimum annual non-cancelable commitments as of December 31, 2015 are as follows (in thousands):
We signed a lease in 2009 for a building to serve as our headquarters with a rent commencement date of May 1, 2012. Certain terms in the lease agreement resulted in the capitalization of construction costs due to specific accounting rules. We recorded a construction asset and corresponding long-term liability of approximately $27.3 million on May 1, 2012, which represents the construction costs incurred by the landlord as of that date. According to accounting rules, we have forms of continuing involvement that require us to account for this transaction as a financing lease upon commencement of the lease period. The building and building improvements will remain on our consolidated balance sheet and will be depreciated over a 15-year period. Payments made under the lease agreement are applied to service the financing obligation and interest expense based on an imputed interest rate amortizing the obligation over the life of the lease agreement.
Future minimum annual non-cancelable commitments under our headquarters lease as of December 31, 2015, which are not included in the table above, are as follows (in thousands):
We are one of the primary defendants in a multiple plaintiff wrongful death action in Hawaii related to a fireworks explosion that occurred in April 2011 at a facility operated by one of our subcontractors, which resulted in the death of five subcontractor employees. The litigation is expected to proceed to trial in 2017. While the results of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not anticipate that this litigation will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.
On or about March 8, 2013, a lawsuit, Anchorage v. Integrated Concepts and Research Corporation, et al., was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska at Anchorage by the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska against our wholly owned subsidiary Integrated Concepts and Research Corporation ("ICRC") and two former subcontractors of ICRC. With respect to ICRC, the lawsuit asserts, among other things, breach of contract, professional negligence and negligence in respect of work and services ICRC rendered under the Port of Anchorage Intermodal Expansion Contract with the Maritime Administration, a federal agency with the United States Department of Transportation. ICRC did not have a contract with the Municipality of Anchorage. In April 2013, ICRC removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. ICRC's contract with the Maritime Administration expired on May 31, 2012. The litigation is expected to proceed to trial in early 2017. Currently, we cannot predict whether this litigation will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.
On or about August 21, 2015, a lawsuit, The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Integrated Concepts and Research Corporation, VSE Corporation and Municipality of Anchorage, was filed against VSE and ICRC in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. The plaintiff insurance companies are seeking, among other things, (a) a declaration by the court that there is no defense or indemnity coverage available to ICRC and VSE for the Anchorage Lawsuit under the insurance policies issued by the plaintiffs and (b) reimbursement of defense fees and costs incurred by the plaintiffs in the defense of uncovered claims in respect of the Anchorage Lawsuit.
On or about February 27, 2015, a lawsuit, Heritage Disposal and Storage v. VSE Corporation, was filed against VSE in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. The litigation subsequently was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia on November 9, 2015. The lawsuit asserts, among other things, breach of contract for services rendered related to the storage and manipulation of fireworks. The services relate to a prime contract that VSE maintains with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The complaint alleges that VSE has not paid Heritage the full charge for services rendered. Currently, we cannot predict whether this litigation will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.
In addition to the three above-referenced litigations, we have, in the normal course of business, certain claims against us and against other parties and we may be subject to various governmental investigations. In our opinion, the resolution of these litigations, claims and investigations will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position. However, the results of any legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, therefore, the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef