NOTE 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating lease obligations. In February 2014, we entered into a lease (the “Spencer Lease”) for a new corporate office with an unrelated third party. The 5-year Spencer Lease is for a building approximately 24,000 square feet in size, which is comprised of approximately 16,000 square feet of office space and an 8,000 square foot warehouse. The property is located in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The initial term of the Spencer Lease commenced on April 1, 2014. We paid approximately $153,000 in annual base rent in the first year, which increases by approximately 4% each year. We are also obligated to pay real estate taxes and other building operating costs. Subject to certain conditions, we have certain rights under the Spencer Lease, including rights of first offer to purchase the premises if the landlord elects to sell. We also have an option to extend the term of the Spencer Lease for two consecutive terms of three years each, at the then current fair market value rental rate determined in accordance with the terms of the Spencer Lease.

In connection with the Spencer Lease, the landlord has agreed to finance tenant improvements (“TI Allowance”) of $150,000. The base rent is increased by an amount sufficient to fully amortize the TI Allowance through the Spencer Lease term upon equal monthly payments of principal and interest, with interest imputed on the outstanding principal balance at the rate of 5.5% per annum. The TI Allowance has been classified as a capital lease on the balance sheet.  See Note 9.

Pursuant to the Spencer Lease, we have the option to terminate the Spencer Lease effective at the end of the 36th month (“Termination Date”). We must deliver written notice of our intention to terminate the Spencer Lease to the landlord at least six months before the Termination Date. In the event we exercise our option to terminate, we must pay the landlord a termination fee equal to the sum of (i) all unamortized TI Allowance amounts, plus (ii) all unamortized leasing commissions paid by landlord with respect to the Spencer Lease, plus (iii) all unamortized rental abatement amounts.

Total rent expense was $141,834 and $146,448 for the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Future minimum lease payments are as follows:

Legal proceedings. In the ordinary course of conducting our business, we are, from time to time, involved in various legal proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory government investigations and other matters, including those in which we are a plaintiff, that are complex in nature and have outcomes that are difficult to predict. In accordance with topic ASC Topic 450, we record accruals for such contingencies to the extent that we conclude that it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. Our assessment of each matter may change based on future unexpected events. An unexpected adverse judgment in any pending litigation could cause a material impact on our business operations, intellectual property, results of operations or financial position. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we believe costs associated with litigation will not have a material impact on our financial position or liquidity, but may be material to the results of operations in any given period. We assume no obligation to update the status of pending litigation, except as may be required by applicable law, statute or regulation. For a complete description of the facts and circumstances surrounding material litigation to which we are a party, see Note 12 in Item 8. “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” included in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. There are no material updates to matters previously reported on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, except:

As discussed in our previous filings, we were served in December 2014 with a complaint by Red Card Gaming, Inc. ("RCG"), and AGS, LLC ("AGS"), regarding an asset purchase agreement ("APA") executed between Galaxy and RCG in September 2012. The complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the "District Court"), alleged fraud, breach of contract, and trademark infringement, among other allegations.  We filed counterclaims against RCG and AGS alleging, among other things, fraud on the trademark office and in the marketplace, misappropriation of our trade secrets, breach of contract, infringement of our trademark and interference with customer relationships. We subsequently filed a demand for arbitration which was required pursuant to terms of the APA. The complaint in the District Court case was stayed pending outcome from the arbitration hearings and both proceedings are collectively referred to as the "Nevada Litigation."

In February 2016, we received notice the arbitration panel (the “Panel”) had issued an interim award (the “Interim Award”) which resulted in, among other things, our retention of all rights and privileges in the ownership of the product and trademark High Card Flush, and an injunction prohibiting AGS and RCG from selling the High Card Flush game and using the trademark.  In March 2016, the Panel issued a recovery order (“Recovery Order”) and determined that Galaxy was due 70% of its reasonable attorney fees.  Additional briefing on the matter, relating to questions about the nature and amount of attorneys’ fees incurred was requested and provided.

On May 16, 2016, the arbitration panel issued a final award (the "Final Award") incorporating the Interim Award and awarding us our attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 11, 2016, we entered into a settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with RCG and AGS for purposes of resolving the Nevada Litigation as well as the "In Bet Litigation" further referenced below. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, RCG, AGS and us agreed to a mutual release of all claims and counter-claims. RCG and AGS also agreed to terminate all of their rights and obligations related to the APA, and AGS agreed to pay us the sum of $350,000 and agreed to the injunctive terms of the Final Award. Furthermore, we agreed to dismiss the complaint they filed in November 2014 against In Bet Gaming, Inc. and In Bet, LLC (collectively "In Bet"), alleging that In Bet's In-Between side bet game infringed one of our patents. AGS became involved in an Inter-Partes Review subsequent to November 2014 concerning the patent at issue because AGS had title and interest in the game In-Between.