The Company leases facilities under operating lease agreements expiring through May 2032. The Company pays taxes, maintenance and insurance in addition to the lease obligations. The leases provide for rent escalations tied to either increases in the lessor’s operating expenses, fluctuations in the consumer price index in the relevant geographical area, or a percentage of gross sales in excess of a base annual rent. The Company also leases certain equipment and automobiles under operating lease agreements expiring at various dates through January 2019. Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 approximated $137.8 million, $107.0 million and $94.0 million, respectively.

Minimum lease payments, which take into account escalation clauses, are recognized on a straight-line basis over the minimum lease term. Reimbursements for leasehold improvements are recorded as liabilities and are amortized over the lease term. Lease concessions, usually a free rent period, are considered in the calculation of the minimum lease payments for the minimum lease term.

Future minimum lease payments under noncancellable leases at December 31, 2015 are as follows (in thousands):

The Company recognizes legal expense in connection with loss contingencies as incurred.

Personal Injury Lawsuits Involving Shape-ups — As previously reported, on February 20, 2011, Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group were named as defendants in a lawsuit that alleged, among other things, that Shape-ups are defective and unreasonably dangerous, negligently designed and/or manufactured, and do not conform to representations made by the Company, and that the Company failed to provide adequate warnings of alleged risks associated with Shape-ups. In total, the Company is named as a defendant in 1,141 currently pending cases (some on behalf of multiple plaintiffs) filed in various courts that assert further varying injuries but employ similar legal theories and assert similar claims to the first case, as well as claims for breach of express and implied warranties, loss of consortium, and fraud. Although there are some variations in the relief sought, the plaintiffs generally seek compensatory and/or economic damages, exemplary and/or punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On December 19, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order establishing a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) proceeding in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR. Since 2011, a total of 1,235 personal injury cases have been filed in or transferred to the MDL proceeding and 414 additional individuals have submitted claims by plaintiff fact sheets. The Company has resolved 481 personal injury claims in the MDL proceedings, comprised of 90 that were filed as formal actions and 391 that were submitted by plaintiff fact sheets. The Company has also settled 1,332 claims in principle—1,101 filed cases and 231 claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheets— either directly or pursuant to a global settlement program that has been approved by the claimants’ attorneys (described in greater detail below). Further, 42 cases in the MDL proceeding have been dismissed either voluntarily or on motions by the Company and 38 unfiled claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheet have been abandoned. Between the consummated settlements and cases subject to the settlement program, all but two personal injury cases pending in the MDL have been or are expected to soon be resolved. On August 6, 2015, the Court entered an order staying all deadlines, including trial, pending further order of the Court.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group also have been named as defendants in a total of 72 personal injury actions filed in various Superior Courts of the State of California that were brought on behalf of 920 individual plaintiffs (360 of whom also submitted MDL court-approved questionnaires for mediation purposes in the MDL proceeding). Of those cases, 68 were originally filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (the “LASC cases”). On August 20, 2014, the Judicial Council of California granted a petition by the Company to coordinate all personal injury actions filed in California that relate to Shape-ups with the LASC cases (collectively, the “LASC Coordinated Cases”). On October 6, 2014, three cases that had been pending in other counties were transferred to and coordinated with the LASC Coordinated Cases. On April 17, 2015, an additional case was transferred to and coordinated with the LASC Coordinated Cases. Thirty-five actions brought on behalf of a total of 476 plaintiffs, have been settled and dismissed. The Company has also settled in principle an additional 31 actions brought on behalf of 405 plaintiffs pursuant to a global settlement program that has been approved by the plaintiffs’ attorneys (described in greater detail below). One single plaintiff lawsuit and the claims of 28 additional plaintiffs in multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been dismissed entirely either voluntarily or on motion by the Company. The claims of 21 additional persons have been dismissed in part, either voluntarily or on motions by the Company. Thus, taking into account both consummated settlements and cases subject to the settlement program, only five lawsuits on behalf of a total of ten plaintiffs are expected to remain in the LASC Coordinated Cases. Discover is continuing in those five remaining cases. No trial dates have been set.

In other state courts, a total of 12 personal injury actions (some on behalf of numerous plaintiffs) have been filed that have not been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. Ten of those actions have been resolved and dismissed. One of the remaining actions that includes the claims of 65 plaintiffs, has been settled in principle pursuant to a global settlement program that has been approved by the plaintiffs’ attorneys (described in greater detail below). The last remaining action in a state court other than California was recently filed in Missouri on January 4, 2016 on behalf of a single plaintiff. The Company has not yet been served in that action.

With respect to the global settlement programs referenced above, the personal injury cases in the MDL and LASC Coordinated Cases and in other state courts were largely solicited and handled by the same plaintiffs law firms. Accordingly, mediations to discuss potential resolution of the various lawsuits brought by these firms were held on May 18, June 18, and July 24, 2015. At the conclusion of those mediations, the parties reached an agreement in principle on a global settlement program that is expected to resolve all or substantially all of the claims by persons represented by those firms. The global settlement program involves complex monetary and non-monetary terms that are in the final stages of being documented. If the group settlements are not finalized and the litigation proceeds, it is too early to predict the outcome of any case, whether adverse results in any single case or in the aggregate would have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial position, and whether insurance coverage will be adequate to cover any losses. The settlements have been reached for business purposes in order to end the distraction of litigation, and the Company continues to believe it has meritorious defenses and intend to defend any remaining cases vigorously. In addition, even if the global settlement is finalized, it is too early to predict whether there will be future personal injury cases filed which are not covered by the settlement, whether adverse results in any single case or in the aggregate would have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial position, and whether insurance coverage will be available and/or adequate to cover any losses.

Converse, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. — On October 14, 2014, Converse filed an action against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn Division, Case 1:14-cv-05977-DLI-MDG, alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, trademark dilution and deceptive practices arising out of the Company’s alleged use of certain design elements on footwear. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, profits, actual damages, enhanced damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. On October 14, 2014, Converse also filed a complaint naming 27 respondents including the Company with the U.S. International Trade Commission (the “ITC” or “Commission”), Federal Register Doc. 2014-24890, alleging violations of federal law in the importation into and the sale within the United States of certain footwear. Converse has requested that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders. On December 8, 2014, the District Court stayed the proceedings before it. On December 19, 2014, The Company responded to the ITC complaint, denying the material allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. A trial before an administrative law judge of the ITC was held in August 2015. On November 15, 2015, the ITC judge issued his interim decision finding that certain discontinued products (Daddy’$ Money and HyDee HyTops) infringed on Converse’s intellectual property, but that other, still active product lines (Twinkle Toes and BOBS Utopia) did not. On February 3, 2016, the ITC decided that it would review in part certain matters that were decided by the ITC judge. While it is too early to predict the outcome of these legal proceedings or whether an adverse result in either or both of them would have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations or financial position, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intend to defend these legal matters vigorously.

The Company has reserved $4.0 million for costs and potential exposure related to the settlement of the foregoing personal injury lawsuits. Although the Company’s reserve of $4.0 million appropriately reflects the current estimated range of loss, it is not possible to predict the final outcome of the related proceedings or any other pending legal proceedings and, consequently, the final exposure and costs associated with pending legal proceedings could have a further material adverse impact on the Company’s result of operations or financial position.

In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for loss contingencies when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. Estimates of probable losses resulting from litigation and governmental proceedings are inherently difficult to predict, particularly when the matters are in the procedural stages or with unspecified or indeterminate claims for damages, potential penalties, or fines. Accordingly, the Company cannot determine the final amount, if any, of its liability beyond the amount accrued in the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2015, nor is it possible to estimate what litigation-related costs will be in the future.

The Company finances production activities in part through the use of interest-bearing open purchase arrangements with certain of its international manufacturers. These arrangements currently bear interest at rates between 0.3% and 0.5% for 30- to 60-day financing. The amounts outstanding under these arrangements at December 31, 2015 and 2014 were $120.4 million and $171.4 million, respectively, which are included in accounts payable in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Interest expense incurred by the Company under these arrangements amounted to $5.4 million in 2015, $5.1 million in 2014, and $3.9 million in 2013. The Company has open purchase commitments with its foreign manufacturers at December 31, 2015 of $613.8 million, which are not included in the accompanying 2015 consolidated balance sheets.