XML 53 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.1

Commitments And Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | NOTE 12 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES ﻿ Insofar as our Company is aware, there are no claims, arbitration proceedings, or litigation proceedings that constitute potentially material contingent liabilities of our Company. Discussed below are certain matters which, however, have been significant to our Company and/or which may, depending upon the outcome of certain appeals, be significant to our Company. ﻿ The following table identifies our known commitments and contingencies as of December 31, 2018: ﻿
﻿ |  |
Categories | Nature; Company Policy on Recognition and/or Disclosure(2) | Discussion Reference
﻿COMMITMENTS |  |
 Lease commitments(1) | Off-balance sheet disclosures relating to future minimum lease payments, mostly related to our operating cinemas on leased-facility models. | Refer to Note 18 - Leases
CONTINGENCIES |  |
 Insurance gain contingencies and derivative loss contingencies on demolition costs relating to recent earthquake incident | Gain contingencies relating to an insurance claim are recognized once collectability is probable; related loss contingencies is recognized when there are probable likelihood of incurrence and amount is reasonably estimable. | Refer to Note 20 – Insurance Recoveries on Impairment and Related Losses Recoverable due to Earthquake.
 Other Litigation matters, notably Derivative Litigation involving James J. Cotter Jr. | Similar policies for gain and loss contingencies as noted above. | Refer below for further discussion.
| (1) |  | Starting January 1, 2019, lease commitments relating to our operating cinema leases will be brought forward to our Consolidated Balance Sheet, as required by the new lease accounting model.
| (2) |  | Consistent with our accounting policy for loss and gain contingencies discussed in Note 2 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies and further discussed in more details below.
﻿ 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, including legal costs.
| · |  | Where we are the plaintiffs, we accrue legal fees as incurred 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 significant 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. ﻿ Environmental and Asbestos Claims on Reading Legacy Operations ﻿ 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, there are 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 providers. 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. ﻿ 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, 2018, the remaining federal tax obligation was $3.0 million. For additional information, see Note 9 – Income Taxes. ﻿ Cotter Jr. Related Litigation Matters ﻿ The following table provides a list of legal matters and current status relating to the termination of James J. Cotter, Jr.’s (“Cotter, Jr.”) as our Company’s president and chief executive officer, to Cotter, Jr.’s subsequent derivative action brought against the Company and our directors alleging, among other things, that such termination violated the fiduciary duties of such directors, and to Cotter, Jr.’s efforts to cause a change of control of the Company.
﻿ |  |  |
﻿Description | Plaintiff | Filed with | Current Status
﻿ Co tter, Jr. Derivative Litigation against all Director: James J. Cotter, Jr., individually and derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, et al.” Case No,: A-15-719860-V | Cotter, Jr. | Nevada District Court | Summary judgment has been entered against Cotter, Jr., and in favor of all defendants and a $1.55 million cost judgment has been entered against Cotter, Jr., and in favor of our Company. Cotter, Jr. has appealed both judgements. Our application for $5.9 million in attorneys fees was denied, and we have appealed that determination. The issues on appeal are currently being briefed. No date for oral argument has been set. It is unlikely that any hearing will be held this year.
 Employment Agreement Arbitration: Reading International, Inc. v. James J. Cotter, AAA Case No. 01-15-0004-2384, filed July 2015 | RDI | American Arbitration Association | While our Company is the named claimant, this matter relates essentially to Cotter, Jr.’s claims for compensation and damages related to his termination as our Company’s president and chief executive officer. The Arbitrator has determined that, while Cotter, Jr. had breached his obligations under his Employment Agreement with our Company, Cotter, Jr’s failure to resign as an officer and/director of our Company was not sufficiently material to allow our Company relief from its obligations under the Employment Agreement to pay certain specified separation amounts, totaling $313,000 (the “Separation Payment Amount”) plus interest at the rate of 10% from June 12, 2016, until the award was paid in full on March 6, 2019. The Arbitrator denied on substantive grounds Cotter, Jr’s claims for consequential damages and for damages based on various tort theories and/or upon wrongful termination claims and, denied on jurisdictional grounds, Cotter Jr’s claims that the unvested stock options granted to him under his Employment Agreement did not expire upon his termination and continued to be exercisable by him so long as he continued as a director of our Company. Determining that Cotter, Jr. was the prevailing party, the Arbitrator has awarded Cotter, Jr. $443,000 of his requested $787,769 in attorney’s fees and costs. The Arbitrator also assessed the costs of the arbitration against our Company and ordered a reimbursement of such costs paid to date by Cotter Jr. in the amount of $19,250. The determinations of the Arbitrator are final and binding on the parties, and not subject to appeal. The interest and any cost reimbursements awarded to Cotter, Jr., was approximately $86,000.
 Direct Case against the Company seeking reimbursement and advancement of attorney’s fees incurred with respect to the Employment Agreement Arbitration: 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 | Cotter, Jr. | Nevada District Court | Summary judgment entered in favor of the Company on October 3, 2016. The period for appeal of this judgment has now lapsed.
 Cotter Trust Litigation: Determination of Status of Cotter, Jr., as Trustee: In re James J. Cotter Living Trust dated August 1, 2000 (Case No. BP159755) | Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter, as Trustees | California Superior Court | The California Superior Court has ruled that Cotter, Jr., is not a trustee of either the James J. Cotter Living Trust (the “Cotter Living Trust”) or of the voting trust established under the Living Trust (the “Cotter Voting Trust”) to eventually hold the Class B Voting Common Stock beneficially owned by Mr. Cotter, Sr., at the time of his passing. The California Superior Court further determined that Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter are the sole trustees of the Cotter Living Trust and that Margaret Cotter is the sole trustee of the Cotter Voting Trust. Accordingly, Cotter, Jr., has neither dispositive power nor voting power over any of the Class B Voting Common Stock currently held by the Cotter Estate or the Cotter Living Trust, or which it is anticipated will be held by the Cotter Voting Trust. The time to appeal that ruling has now lapsed. At December 31, 2018, the Cotter Estate held 427,808 shares of Class B Voting Stock, representing 25.5% of the voting power of such class. The Cotter Living Trust held 696,080 shares of Class B Voting Stock at such date, representing 41.4% of the voting power of such class. It is anticipated that, when funded, the Cotter Voting Trust will own 1,123,888 shares of Class B Voting Stock, representing 66.9% of the voting power of such class (the “Cotter Voting Stock”).
 Cotter Trust Litigation: Ex Parte motion seeking appointment of a Trustee Ad Litem to Solicit Offers to Purchase Cotter Voting Stock: In re James J. Cotter Living Trust dated August 1, 2000 (Case No. BP159755) | Cotter, Jr. | California Superior Court | In response to the ex parte petition of Cotter, Jr. filed on March 23, 2016, the California Superior Court on March 23, 2 018 directed that an unnamed temporary trustee ad litem be appointed to solicit offers to purchase the Cotter Voting Stock. Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter appealed that March 23, 2018 order of the California Superior Court with a writ application filed as Trustees of the Cotter Living Trust, and Margaret Cotter, as Trustee of the Cotter Voting Trust. In response to their writ application, the California Court of Appeals on April 12, 2018 stayed the California Superior Court’s order and issued its own order to show cause why the Superior Court’s direction should not be vacated and a new and different order denying the appointment of such a trustee ad litem be issued. The positions of the parties have been briefed, but no hearing date has been set. Our Company is not a party to this matter, and no remedy or relief is sought against our Company in this matter.
﻿ As the Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy covering Cotter, Jr.’s claims in the Derivative Case ($10.0 million) has been exhausted, the financial burden of defending our Directors against these claims, as required by applicable Nevada Law, has fallen upon our Company. During 2018, out-of-pocket third party costs in the amount of approximately $3.5 million were incurred by our Company in defending against these claims. ﻿ ﻿ The STOMP Arbitration ﻿ In April 2015, Liberty Theatres, LLC (“Liberty”), a wholly owned subsidiary of our Company, commenced an American Arbitration Association arbitration proceeding 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. Later that year, 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 April 2016, we were awarded $2.3 million in attorney’s fees and costs and thereafter entered into a settlement agreement with the defendants providing, among other things, for the payment of the award over time and the continued performance of STOMP at our Orpheum Theatre.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration