The Company leases buildings, vehicles and equipment under operating leases, some of which contain escalation clauses. The Company’s operating leases expire at various dates through 2028: 

Future commitments under operating leases are as summarized:

In the normal course of business, certain of the Company’s subsidiaries are defendants in a number of lawsuits, claims or arbitrations which allege that the subsidiaries’ services caused damage.  In addition, the Company defends employment related cases and claims from time to time. We are involved in certain environmental matters primarily arising in the normal course of business. We are actively contesting each of these matters. 

On December 2, 2014, Plaintiff Killian Pest Control sued Rollins, Inc. and its subsidiary HomeTeam Pest Defense alleging that HomeTeam’s exclusive use of its “tubes in the walls” system violates the federal Sherman Antitrust Act, and California’s Cartwright Act and Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the alleged misconduct violates the Sherman and Cartwright Acts, and the Business and Professions Code; a permanent injunction against continuing alleged violations; and monetary damages. The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. Because discovery remains open and there are unresolved questions of fact and law, the Company cannot currently estimate the loss, if any, and intends to defend this matter vigorously.

On December 2, 2014, Plaintiff Jose Luis Garnica, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated customers, sued Rollins, Inc. and its subsidiary HomeTeam Pest Defense alleging that HomeTeam’s exclusive use of its “tubes in the walls” system violates the federal Sherman Antitrust Act. A second Plaintiff, Cora Potter, subsequently was added. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the alleged misconduct violates the Sherman Act; a permanent injunction against continuing violations; and monetary damages. On February 3, 2017, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. At a hearing on February 9, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to seek certification of a class of customers limited to their own geographic market, the Bakersfield, California area. The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. Because discovery remains open and there are unresolved questions of fact and law, the Company cannot currently estimate the loss, if any, and intends to defend this matter vigorously.

Management does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or litigation, either alone or in the aggregate will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity; however, it is possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be material to the results of an individual quarter or year.