Enom 2010 Annual Report Download - page 83

Table of Contents
Contractual Obligations
The following table summarizes our outstanding contractual obligations as of December 31, 2010:
Total Less Than
1 Year 1-3 Years More Than 3 Years
(in thousands)
Operating lease obligations $ 11,628 $ 4,067 $ 6,370 $ 1,191
Capital lease obligations 532 532 — —
Purchase obligations(1) 1,750 1,750 — —
Total contractual obligations $ 13,910 $ 6,349 $ 6,370 $ 1,191
consists of minimum contractual purchase obligations for undeveloped websites with one of our partners.(1)
Included in operating lease obligations are agreements to lease our primary office space in Santa Monica, California and other locations under various
non-cancelable operating leases that expire between February 2011 and April 2016.
We have no debt obligations, other than our $100.0 million revolving credit facility for general corporate purposes, which currently has no borrowings
under it. At December 31, 2010, we had outstanding letters of credit for approximately $6.5 million primarily associated with certain payment arrangements
with domain name registries and landlords.
Indemnifications
In the normal course of business, we have made certain indemnities under which we may be required to make payments in relation to certain
transactions. Those indemnities include intellectual property indemnities to our customers, indemnities to our directors and officers to the maximum extent
permitted under the laws of the State of Delaware and indemnifications related to lease agreements. In addition, certain of our advertiser and distribution
partner agreements contain certain indemnification provisions, which are generally consistent with those prevalent in our industry. We have not incurred
significant obligations under indemnification provisions historically, and do not expect to incur significant obligations in the future. Accordingly, we have no
recorded liability for any of these indemnities.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In October 2009, the FASB issued Update No. 2009-13, Revenue Recognition (Topic 605)—Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements a consensus
of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force ("ASU 2009-13"). ASU 2009-13 provides amendments to the criteria in ASC 605-25 "Multiple-Element
Arrangements" for separating consideration in multiple-deliverable arrangements. As a result of those amendments, multiple-deliverable arrangements will be
separated in more circumstances than under existing accounting guidance. ASU 2009-13: (1) establishes a selling price hierarchy for determining the selling
price of a deliverable, (2) eliminates the residual method of allocation and requires that arrangement consideration be allocated at the inception of the
arrangement to all deliverables using the relative selling price method, (3) requires that a vendor determine its best estimate of selling price in a manner that is
consistent with that used to determine the price to sell the deliverable on a standalone basis and (4) significantly expands the disclosures related to a vendor's
multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements. ASU 2009-13 is effective prospectively for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal
years beginning on or after June 15, 2010. Alternatively, the Company may retrospectively apply the guidance to all periods. The Company adopted ASU
2009-13 using the
80