XML 40 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.6.0.2

Commitments And Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | NO TE 12 - Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies arising from Earthquake Damage Please refer to Note 20 – Asset Impairment and Other Losses Recoverable Through Insurance Claim. ﻿ Lease Commitments The Company has entered into various leases for our cinema exhibition segment. We also lease office space and equipment under non-cancelable operating leases. As of December 31, 2016, the remaining terms of these leases, inclusive of renewal options, range from 1 to 35 years. All of our leases are accounted for as operating leases and we do not have any capital leases as of December 31, 2016. We determine the annual base rent expense of our cinemas by amortizing total minimum lease obligations on a straight-line basis over the lease terms. Certain of our cinema leases provide for both base and in addition contingent rentals based upon a specified percentage of cinema revenue with a guaranteed minimum. Substantially all of our leases require the payment of property taxes, insurance, and other costs applicable to the property. The base rent and contingent rental expen ses are summarized as follows: ﻿
﻿ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
﻿(Dollars in thousands) |  | 2016 |  | 2015 |  | 2014
﻿Base rent expense |  | $ | 29,824 |  | $ | 30,565 |  | $ | 30,914
﻿Contingent rental expense |  |  | 1,484 |  |  | 1,848 |  |  | 1,223
﻿Total cinema rent expense |  | $ | 31,308 |  | $ | 32,413 |  | $ | 32,137
﻿ Future minimum lease payments by year and, in the aggregate, under non-cancelable operating leases consisted of the following:
﻿ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
﻿ |  | Minimum Lease Payments at December 31, 2016
﻿(Dollars in thousands) |  | Ground Lease |  | Premises Lease |  | Equipment Lease |  | Total
﻿2017 |  | $ | 3,621 |  | $ | 25,049 |  | $ | 2,665 |  | $ | 31,335
﻿2018 |  |  | 3,629 |  |  | 23,519 |  |  | -- |  |  | 27,148
﻿2019 |  |  | 3,691 |  |  | 21,085 |  |  | -- |  |  | 24,776
﻿2020 |  |  | 1,419 |  |  | 16,717 |  |  | -- |  |  | 18,136
﻿2021 |  |  | 1,357 |  |  | 12,991 |  |  | -- |  |  | 14,348
﻿Thereafter |  |  | 9,981 |  |  | 116,696 |  |  | -- |  |  | 126,677
﻿Total |  | $ | 23,698 |  | $ | 216,057 |  | $ | 2,665 |  | $ | 242,420
﻿ We expect the amount of minimum lease payments will fluctuate depending on the foreign currency exchange rates of the Australian dollar to the U.S. dollar and the New Zealand dollar to the U.S. dollar, mainly because a significant portion of our cinema exhibition business is conducted in Australia and New Zealand. See Note 19 – Related Party Transactions for the amount of leases associated with any related party leases. Debt Guarantee The total estimated debt of unconsolidated joint ventures and entities, consisting solely of Rialto Distribution (see Note 6 – Investments in Unconsolid ated Joint Ventures), was $1.0 million (NZ$1.5 million) as of December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015. Our share of the unconsolidated debt, based on our ownership percentage, was NZ$500,000 as of December 31, 2016 and 2015. This debt is guaranteed by one of our subsidiaries to the extent of our ownership percentage. Based on the financial position of Rialto Distribution and in consideration of this debt guarantee, we accrued $348,000 (NZ$500,000) and $342,000 (NZ$500,000) as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, recorded as part of Accounts payable and accrued liabilities. Litigation Matters We are currently involved in certain legal proceedings and, as required, have accrued estimates of probable and estimable losses for the resolution of these claims. Where we are the plaintiffs, we expense all legal fees on an on-going basis and make no provision for any potential settlement amounts until received. In Australia, the prevailing party is usually entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees, which recoveries typically work out to be approximately 60% of the amounts actually spent where first-class legal counsel is engaged at customary rates. Where we are a plaintiff, we have likewise made no provision for the liability for the defendant’s attorneys' fees in the event we are determined not to be the prevailing party. Where we are the defendants, we accrue for probable damages that insurance may not cover as they become known and can be reasonably estimated. In our opinion, any claims and litigation in which we are currently involved are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position, or liquidity. I t is possible, however, that future results of the operations for any particular quarterly or annual period could be materially affected by the ultimate outcome of the legal proceedings. From time-to-time, we are involved with claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of our business that may include contractual obligations, insurance claims, tax claims, employment matters, and anti-trust issues, among other matters. All of these matters require that we make judgments based on the facts known to us. These judgments are inherently uncertain and can change significantly when additional facts become known. We provide accruals for matters that have probable likelihood of occurrence and can be properly estimated as to their expected negative outcome. We do not record expected gains until the proceeds are received by us. However, we typically make no accruals for potential costs of defense, as such amounts are inherently uncertain and dependent upon the scope, extent and aggressiveness of the activities of the applicable plaintiff. Tax Audit/Litigation The Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) examined the tax return of Craig Corporation (“CRG”) for its tax year ended June 30, 1997. CRG was a stand-alone entity in the year of audit but is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. In Tax Court, CRG and the IRS agreed to compromise the claims made by the IRS against CRG, and the court order was entered on January 6, 2011. As of December 31, 2016, the remaining federal tax obligation was $2.6 million. For additional information, see Note 9 – Income Taxes. Environmental and Asbestos Claims Certain of our subsidiaries were historically involved in railroad operations, coal mining, and manufacturing. Also, certain of these subsidiaries appear in the chain-of-title of properties that may suffer from pollution. Accordingly, certain of these subsidiaries have, from time-to-time, been named in and may in the future be named in various actions brought under applicable environmental laws. Also, we are in the real estate development business and may encounter from time-to-time unanticipated environmental conditions at properties that we have acquired for development. These environmental conditions can increase the cost of such projects and adversely affect the value and potential for profit of such projects. We do not currently believe that our exposure under applicable environmental laws is material in amount. From time-to-time, we have claims brought against us relating to the exposure of former employees of our railroad operations to asbestos and coal dust. These are generally covered by an insurance settlement reached in September 1990 with our insurance carriers. However, this insurance settlement does not cover litigation by people who were not our employees and who may claim second-hand exposure to asbestos, coal dust and/or other chemicals or elements now recognized as potentially causing cancer in humans. Our known exposure to these types of claims, asserted or probable of being asserted, is not material. Derivative Litigation and James J. Cotter, Jr. Employment Arbitration On June 12, 2015, the Board of Directors terminated James J. Cotter, Jr. as the President and Chief Executive Officer of our Company. That same day, Mr. Cotter, Jr. filed a lawsuit, styled as both an individual and a derivative action, and titled “James J. Cotter, Jr., individually and derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, et al.” Case No,: A-15-719860-V, Dept XI, against our Company and each of our then sitting Directors (Ellen Cotter, Margaret Cotter, Guy Adams, William Gould, Edward Kane, Douglas McEachern, and Tim Storey) in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark County (the “Nevada District Court”). Since that date, our Company has been engaged in ongoing litigation with Mr. Cotter, Jr. with respect to his claims against our Directors. Mr. Cotter, Jr. has over this period of time twice amended his complaint, removing his individual claims and withdrawing his claims against Tim Storey (but reserving the right to reinstitute such claims), adding claims relating to actions taken by our Board since the filing of his original complaint and adding as defendants two of our directors who were not on our Board at the time of his termination: Judy Codding and Michael Wrotniak. Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s lawsuit, as amended from time to time, is referred to herein as the “Cotter Jr. Derivative Action” and his complaint, as amended from time to time, is referred to herein as the “Cotter Jr. Derivative Complaint.” The defendant directors named in the Cotter Jr. Derivative Complaint, from time to time, are referred to herein as the “Defendant Directors.” The Cotter Jr. Derivative Complaint alleges among other things, that the Defendant Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by terminating Mr. Cotter, Jr. as President and Chief Executive Officer, continuing to make use of the Executive Committee that has been in place for more than the past ten years (but which no longer includes Mr. Cotter, Jr. as a member), making allegedly potentially misleading statements in our Company’s press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), paying certain compensation to Ellen Cotter, allowing the Cotter Estate to make use of Class A Common Stock to pay for the exercise of certain long outstanding stock options to acquire 100,000 shares of Class B Common Stock held of record by the Cotter Estate and determined by the Nevada District Court to be assets of the Cotter Estate, and allowing Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter to vote the 100,000 shares of Class B Common Stock issued upon the exercise of such options, appointing Ellen Cotter as President and Chief Executive Officer, appointing Margaret Cotter as Executive Vice President, and the way in which the Board handled of an unsolicited indication of interest made by a third party to acquire all of the stock of our Company. In the lawsuit, Mr. Cotter, Jr. seeks reinstatement as President and CEO, a declaration that Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter may not vote the above referenced 100,000 shares of Class B Stock, and alleges as damages fluctuations in the price for our Company’s shares after the announcement of his termination as President and CEO and certain unspecified damages to our Company’s reputation. In addition, our Company is in arbitration with Mr. Cotter, Jr. (Reading International, Inc. v. James J. Cotter, AAA Case No. 01-15-0004-2384, filed July 2015)( the “Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration”) seeking declaratory relief and defending claims asserted by Mr. Cotter, Jr.. On January 20, 2017, Mr. Cotter Jr. filed a First Amended Counter-Complaint which includes claims of breach of contract, contractual indemnification, retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of California Labor Code Section 1102.5, wrongful discharge, and violations of California Code of Procedure Section 1060 based on allegations of unlawful and unfair conduct. Mr. Cotter, Jr. seeks compensatory damages estimated by his counsel at more than $1.2 million, plus unquantified special and punitive damages, penaltie s, interest and attorney’s fees. Mr. Cotter, Jr. also brought a direct action in the Nevada District Court (James J. Cotter, Jr. v. Reading International, Inc, a Nevada corporation; Does 1-100 and Roe Entities, 1-100, inclusive, Case No. A-16-735305-B) seeking advancement of attorney’s fees incurred in the Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration. Summary judgment was been entered against Mr. Cotter, Jr. with respect to that direct action on October 3, 2016. For a period of approximately 12 months, between August 6, 2015 and August 4, 2016, our Company and our directors other than Mr. Cotter, Jr. were subject to a derivative lawsuit filed in the Nevada District Court captioned T2 Partners Management, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business as Kase Capital Management; T2 Accredited Fund, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business as Kase Fund; T2 Qualified Fund, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business as Kase Qualified Fund; Tilson Offshore Fund, Ltd, a Cayman Islands exempted company; T2 Partners Management I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, doing business as Kase Management; T2 Partners Management Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, doing business as Kase Group; JMG Capital Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Pacific Capital Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “T2 Plaintiffs), derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, Ellen Cotter, Guy Adams, Edward Kane, Douglas McEachern, Timothy Storey, William Gould and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, as defendants, and, Reading International, Inc., a Nevada corporation, as Nominal Defendant. That complaint was subsequently amended (as amended the “T2 Derivative Complaint”) to add as defendants Directors Judy Codding and Michael Wrotniak (collectively with the directors initially named the “T2 Defendant Directors”) and S. Craig Tompkins, our Company’s legal counsel (collectively with the T2 Defendant Directors, the “T2 Defendants”). The T2 Derivative Action was settled pursuant to a Settlement Agreement between the parties dated August 4, 2016, which as modified was approved by the Nevada District Court on October 6, 2016. The District Court’s Order provided for the dismissal with prejudice of all claims contained in the T2 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and provide that each side would be responsible for its own attorneys’ fees. In the joint press release issued by our Company and the T2 Plaintiffs on July 13, 2016, representatives of the T2 Plaintiffs stated as follows: "We are pleased with the conclusions reached by our investigations as Plaintiff Stockholders and now firmly believe that the Reading Board of Directors has and will continue to protect stockholder interests and will continue to work to maximize shareholder value over the long-term. We appreciate the Company's willingness to engage in open dialogue and are excited about the Company's prospects. Our questions about the termination of James Cotter, Jr., and various transactions between Reading and members of the Cotter family-or entities they control-have been definitively addressed and put to rest. We are impressed by measures the Reading Board has made over the past year to further strengthen corporate governance. We fully support the Reading Board and management team and their strategy to create stockholder value.” The T2 Plaintiffs alleged in their T2 Derivative Complaint various violations of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste by the T2 Defendant Directors. More specifically the T2 Derivative Complaint sought the reinstatement of James J. Cotter, Jr. as President and Chief Executive Officer, an order setting aside the election results from the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, based on an allegation that Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter were not entitled to vote the shares of Class B Common Stock held by the Cotter Estate and the Cotter Trust, and certain monetary damages, as well as equitable injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs of suit. In May 2016, the T2 Plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought a preliminary injunction (1) enjoining the Inspector of Elections from counting at our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders any proxies purporting to vote either the 327,808 Class B shares held of record by the Cotter Estate or the 696,080 Class B shares held of record by the Cotter Trust, and (2) enjoining Ellen Cotter, Margaret Cotter and James J. Cotter, Jr. from voting the above referenced shares at the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. This request for preliminary injunctive relief was denied by the Nevada District Court after a hearing on May 26, 2016. With respect to the Cotter, Jr. Derivative Action, discovery is substantially complete. However, due to the pendency of various appeals to the Nevada Supreme Court, no trial date has been calendared. On February 1, 2017, certain of the Defendant Directors filed a writ with the Nevada Supreme Court seeking a determination that Mr. Cotter, Jr. is not qualified to serve as a derivative plaintiff in an action against our Directors. Our Company has joined in thiss writ. On February 14, 2017 the Company filed a writ with the Nevada Supreme Court seeking a determination that the Nevada District Court erred in its decision to allow Mr. Cotter, Jr. access to certain communications between the Defendant Directors and Company counsel, which the Defendant Directors and our Company believe to be subject to the attorney-client communication privilege. Certain of the Defendant Directors joined in this writ. The Nevada Supreme Court has discretion in deciding whether to consider the writs, and the Company expects the Court to decide whether to consider the writs in the next several weeks. Activities in the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action, other than certain limited discovery, have been suspended pending determination of those writs. No assurances can be given as to how or when the Nevada Supreme Court will rule on the writs. At the present time, we believe that if the Court decides to consider the writs, it unlikely that the issues set forth in the writs will be resolved prior to the end of 2017. If the Supreme Court grants the writ regarding the lack of qualification of Mr. Cotter, Jr. to serve as a derivative plaintiff, then the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action will likely be at an end. The Cotter Jr., Employment Arbitration is also in the discovery phase. Our Company has filed a Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint and a Motion for Summary Judgment As To Certain Claimed Damages Or In The Alternative, Motion To Compel Responses to Discovery. A hearing has been scheduled for April 3, 2017. Our Company is and was legally obligated to cover the costs and expenses incurred by our Defendant Directors in defending the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action and the T2 Derivative Action. Furthermore, although in a derivative action, the stockholder plaintiff seeks damages or other relief for the benefit of the Company, and not for the stockholder plaintiff’s individual benefit and, accordingly, the Company is, at least in theory, only a nominal defendant, as a practical matter, because Mr. Cotter, Jr. is also seeking, among other things, an order that our Board’s determination to terminate Mr. Cotter Jr. was ineffective and that he be reinstated as the President and CEO of our Company and also disbanding our Board’s Executive Committee, and as he asserts potentially misleading statements in certain press releases and filings with the SEC, our Company is also incurring on its own account significant cost and expense defending the decision to terminate Mr. Cotter, Jr. as President and Chief Executive Officer, its board committee structure, and the adequacy of those press releases and filings, in addition to its costs incurred in responding to discovery demands and satisfying indemnity obligations to the Defendant Directors. Likewise, in connection with the T2 Derivative Action, our Company incurred substantial costs defending claims related to the defense of claims relating to the termination of Mr. Cotter, Jr., opposing his reinstatement, and defending the conduct of its annual meetings. Cost incurred in the Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration and in the defense of the Cotter Jr. Attorney’s fees case were direct costs of our Company. To date, except for a $500,000 deductible, the bulk of the out-of-pocket costs associated with the defense of the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action and the T2 Derivative Action has been covered by our Company’s Directors and Officers Insurance. However, the $10,000,000 limit of that policy has now been exhausted. Accordingly, the costs of such defense going forward will be a general administrative expense of the Company. Payments by the Company over and above its insurance coverage totaled $3.8 million in 2016. To date, our Company has incurred $14.9 million with respect to the Derivative Litigation and Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration, of which $12.8 million was incurred in 2016. The STOMP Arbitration In April 2015, Liberty Theatres, LLC (“Liberty”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, commenced an American Arbitration Association arbitration proceeding (Case No.:01-15-0003-3728) against The Stomp Company Limited Partnership (“Stomp”), the producer of the show STOMP, in response to Stomp’s purported termination of their license agreement with Liberty relating to such show. STOMP has been playing at our Orpheum Theatre in New York City for 20 years and still continues to play to date. Liberty sought specific performance, injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. Stomp counterclaimed for unspecified damages, alleging that Liberty has interfered with the Stomp’s endeavors to move the show to another Off-Broadway theater. Stomp based its purported termination of the license agreement upon the alleged deficient condition of the Orpheum Theater. On December 18, 2015, the Arbitrator issued his Partial Final Award of Arbitration, providing for, among other things (i) the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting Stomp from “transferring or taking actions to market, promote, or otherwise facilitate any transfer of, STOMP to another theatre in New York City having fewer than 500 seats without Liberty’s prior written consent”, (ii) the Stomp’s Notice of Termination purportedly terminating the parties’ license agreement was invalid, null and void and the License Agreement remains in full force and effect, and (iii) the award to Liberty of its reasonable attorneys’ fees in an amount to be determined by the Arbitrator. In explaining his decision to award Liberty its reasonable attorneys’ fees, the Arbitrator stated as follows: “Liberty is entitled to such an award [of attorneys’ fees] not only because it is the prevailing party in this proceeding, but because [the Producer] unfairly disparaged the Orpheum and caused Liberty to incur attorneys’ fees in order to address and resolve [the Producer’s] groundless and frivolous allegations with respect to the Orpheum’s condition, Liberty’s performance under the License Agreement, and Stomp’s reasons for seeking to transfer STOMP to a larger theatre.” In April 2016, we received a Final Award in our arbitration with Stomp. The Final Award awards us $2.3 million in attorney’s fees and costs. In September 2016, the parties agreed on the payment terms of the Final Award (“Payment Agreement”), on a basis that is intended to allow recovery by Liberty of the entire Final Award (plus interest at 4%), while at the same time allowing the show to continue playing at our Orpheum Theater. Under the Payment Agreement, Stomp paid $415,000 during 2016, and the remaining amount to be paid over time, with final payment due and payable in June 2019. We have filed a judgment of the arbitral award against Stomp with the New York Supreme Court to protect Liberty in the event Stomp defaults on the Payment Agreement. STOMP continues to play at our Orpheum Theater under a license agreement that was amended by the Payment Agreement. ﻿

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=68068213&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=73718637&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration