Commitments and Contingencies

The following table sets forth our future annual repayment of contractual commitments as of March 31, 2017:



	Year Ended March 31,
	2018		2019		2020		2021		2022		Thereafter		Total
	(Amounts in millions)
Contractual commitments by expected repayment date (off-balance sheet arrangements)
Film obligation and production loan commitments⁽¹⁾	$	501.3	$	225.4	$	97.5	$	69.9	$	55.3	$	62.6	$	1,012.0
Interest payments⁽²⁾	137.1		146.6		150.4		148.9		145.6		280.7		1,009.3
Operating lease commitments	17.9		17.1		17.1		16.8		15.7		32.2		116.8
Other contractual obligations	373.1		99.4		41.2		15.9		10.0		2.6		542.2
Total future commitments under contractual obligations⁽³⁾⁽⁴⁾	$	1,029.4	$	488.5	$	306.2	$	251.5	$	226.6	$	378.1	$	2,680.3

____________________________

(1)

Film obligation commitments include distribution and marketing commitments, minimum guarantee commitments and program rights commitments. Distribution and marketing commitments represent contractual commitments for future expenditures associated with distribution and marketing of films which we will distribute. The payment dates of these amounts are primarily based on the anticipated release date of the film. Minimum guarantee commitments represent contractual commitments related to the purchase of film rights for pictures to be delivered in the future. Program rights commitments represent contractual commitments under programming license agreements related to films that are not available for exhibition until some future date (see below for further details). Production loan commitments represent amounts committed for future film production and development to be funded through production financing and recorded as a production loan liability when incurred. Future payments under these commitments are based on anticipated delivery or release dates of the related film or contractual due dates of the commitment. The amounts include estimated future interest payments associated with the commitment.


(2)	Includes cash interest payments on the Company's debt, excluding the interest payments on the revolving credit facility as future amounts are not fixed or determinable due to fluctuating balances and interest rates.


(3)	Not included in the amounts above is a $812.9 million dissenting shareholders' liability associated with the Starz Merger, which is not expected to be settled within the next year (see Note 3).


(4)	Not included in the amounts above are $93.8 million of redeemable noncontrolling interest, as future amounts and timing are subject to a number of uncertainties such that we are unable to make sufficiently reliable estimations of future payments (see Note 12).

The Company is obligated to pay programming fees for all qualifying films that are released theatrically in the U.S. by Sony’s Columbia Pictures, Screen Gems, Sony Pictures Classics and TriStar labels through 2021. The Company does not license films produced by Sony Pictures Animation. The programming fees to be paid by the Company to Sony are based on the quantity and domestic theatrical exhibition receipts of qualifying films. The Company has also entered into agreements with a number of other motion picture producers and are obligated to pay fees for the rights to exhibit certain films that are released by these producers. In addition to the amounts stated above in the table, the Company is also obligated to pay fees for films that have not yet been released in theaters. The Company is unable to estimate the amounts to be paid under these agreements for films that have not yet been released in theaters, however, such amounts are expected to be significant.

Operating Leases. The Company has operating leases for offices, back-up transponder capacity and equipment. Certain of the Company's operating leases for its Corporate and United Kingdom offices include certain lease and leasehold improvement incentives. These amounts and the required lease payments are aggregated and amortized on a straight line basis to rent expense over the lease period.

The operating lease for the Company's principal office expires in August 2023. The Company incurred rental expense of $15.6 million during the year ended March 31, 2017 (2016 — $14.2 million; 2015 — $13.5 million).

Multiemployer Benefit Plans. The Company contributes to various multiemployer pension plans under the terms of collective bargaining agreements that cover its union-represented employees. The Company makes periodic contributions to these plans in accordance with the terms of applicable collective bargaining agreements and laws but does not sponsor or administer these plans. The Company does not participate in any multiemployer benefit plans that are considered to be individually significant, and the largest plans in which the Company participates are funded at a level of 80% or greater. Total contributions made by the Company to multiemployer pension and other benefit plans for the years ended March 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 were $35.5 million, $38.0 million, and $20.5 million, respectively.

If the Company ceases to be obligated to make contributions or otherwise withdraws from participation in any of these plans, applicable law requires the Company to fund its allocable share of the unfunded vested benefits, which is known as a withdrawal liability. In addition, actions taken by other participating employers may lead to adverse changes in the financial condition of one of these plans, which could result in an increase in the Company's withdrawal liability.

Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is involved in certain claims and legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. While the resolution of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company does not believe, based on current knowledge, that the outcome of any currently pending legal proceedings in which the Company is currently involved will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flow.

Litigation

Between July 19, 2016 and August 30, 2016, seven putative class action complaints were filed by purported Starz stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These actions have been consolidated into In re Starz Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 12584-VCG, and the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a verified consolidated class action complaint on August 16, 2016. The complaint names as defendants the members of the board of directors of Starz; Dr. Malone and Leslie Malone; Mr. Bennett and Deborah J. Bennett; The Tracey L. Neal Trust A; The Evan D. Malone Trust A; Hilltop Investments, LLC (“Hilltop”); Dr. Rachesky; Lions Gate; and Merger Sub. It alleges, among other things, that the members of the Starz board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the holders of Starz Series A common stock in connection with the merger and related transactions; that Dr. Malone is a controlling stockholder of Starz who breached fiduciary duties owed to other Starz stockholders in connection with the merger and related transactions; and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty. On August 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings. On September 22, 2016, the court denied the motion. On January 17, 2017, the court granted a stipulation dismissing without prejudice the claims against former Starz directors Irving Azoff, Susan Lyne, Robert Wiesenthal, Andrew Heller, and Jeffrey Sagansky, as well as Mr. Bennett, Deborah Bennett, Leslie Malone, Hilltop, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, and The Evan D. Malone Trust A. On January 26, 2017, the court granted a stipulation dismissing without prejudice the claims against Dr. Rachesky. The remaining defendants filed answers to the verified consolidated class action complaint on January 24, 2017. Defendants intend to defend the action vigorously.

On August 9, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed by a purported Starz stockholder in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado: Gross v. John C. Malone, et al., 2016-CV-32873. The complaint names as defendants the members of the board of directors of Starz, Dr. Malone and Mr. Bennett, as well as Lions Gate and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the Starz board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the holders of Starz Series A common stock in connection with the merger and the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, and that Dr. Malone, Mr. Bennett, Lions Gate, and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty. On December 10, 2016, the court granted the defendants’ unopposed motion to stay the action pending final resolution of the consolidated Delaware action.

On October 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed by a purported Lions Gate stockholder in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Nassau: Levy v. Malone, et al., Index No. 607759/2016. The complaint names as defendants Lions Gate and the members of its board of directors. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the Lions Gate board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Lions Gate stockholders and/or aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by others in connection with the proposed merger, and that Lions Gate and the members of its board of directors failed to disclose material information in the amended joint proxy statement/ prospectus on Form S-4/A filed on September 7, 2016 in connection with the proposed merger. On November 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin the proposed merger and for expedited discovery. On November 23, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement resolving the action, and on November 25, 2016, filed a stipulation withdrawing plaintiff’s motion. The settlement remains subject to approval by the court.

Appraisal

Between December 8, 2016 and March 16, 2017, five verified petitions for appraisal were filed by purported Starz stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These actions have been consolidated into In re Starz Appraisal, Consolidated C.A. No. 12968-VCG. Respondent has answered the petitions and intends to defend the action vigorously.