v3.5.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Litigation On March 10, 2009, Anderson News, L.L.C. and Anderson Services, L.L.C., magazine wholesalers (collectively, “Anderson”), filed a lawsuit against American Media, Inc., DSI (now known as In-Store Services, Inc.), and various magazine publishers, wholesalers and distributors in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Anderson Action”). Anderson's complaint alleged that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a purported industry-wide conspiracy to boycott Anderson and drive it out of business. Plaintiffs also purported to assert claims for defamation, tortious interference with contract and civil conspiracy. The complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought. On August 2, 2010, the District Court dismissed the action in its entirety with prejudice and without leave to replead and, on October 25, 2010, denied Anderson's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal decision. Anderson appealed the District Court's decisions. On April 3, 2012, the Second Circuit issued a decision reversing the dismissal of the lawsuit and reinstating the antitrust and state law claims (except the defamation claim, which Anderson withdrew), and, on January 7, 2013, the United States Supreme Court declined to review the Second Circuit decision. Following the Second Circuit decision, the case was remanded to the District Court and the parties engaged in discovery. On February 14, 2014, American Media, Inc. filed an amended answer and counterclaim in the Anderson Action asserting an antitrust claim against Anderson News, L.L.C. and Charles Anderson, Jr. based on the same events as Anderson’s claims. Two other defendants also filed the same counterclaim. Fact discovery was completed in May 2014 and expert discovery was completed in October 2014. Anderson submitted an expert report calculating that damages are approximately $470 million, which would be subject to trebling should Anderson prevail against the defendants in the lawsuit. Defendants, including American Media, Inc. and DSI, also submitted an expert report on damages, which opines that, separate and apart from the question of liability, Anderson has suffered no damages. On December 15, 2014, the parties in the Anderson Action filed motions for summary judgment and to exclude certain proposed expert testimony. On August 20, 2015, the District Court granted the summary judgment motion filed by American Media, Inc., DSI and the other defendants, dismissing all of Anderson’s claims against defendants, and granted in part the motions to exclude certain of Anderson’s proposed expert testimony. The court also granted summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim filed by American Media, Inc. and the two other defendants, but did not grant Anderson’s motion to strike defendants’ expert testimony. On August 25, 2015, Anderson filed its notice of appeal of the District Court’s decision granting defendants’ motions. On September 15, 2015, American Media, Inc. filed its notice of appeal of the District Court’s decision granting the motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim. Anderson filed its appellate brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”) on December 8, 2015. American Media, Inc. and DSI filed their appellate brief with the Court of Appeals on March 8, 2016. The briefing of the appeals was completed in May 2016. Anderson is in chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in Delaware bankruptcy court. On June 10, 2010, American Media, Inc. filed a proof of claim in that proceeding for $5.6 million (which it amended on December 3, 2013 to reflect the counterclaim (described above) it planned to file in the Anderson Action), but Anderson asserts that it has no assets to pay unsecured creditors like American Media, Inc. An independent court-appointed examiner has identified claims that Anderson could assert against Anderson insiders in excess of $340.0 million. In an order of the Delaware bankruptcy court, entered on November 14, 2011, American Media, Inc. and four other creditors (collectively, the “Creditors”), which also are defendants in the Anderson Action, were granted the right to file lawsuits against Anderson insiders asserting Anderson's claims identified by the examiner. The Creditors' retention of counsel to pursue the claims on a contingency fee basis was also approved. On November 14, 2011, pursuant to this order, a complaint was filed against 10 defendants. After a temporary stay of discovery pending conclusion of fact discovery in the Anderson Action, discovery in the bankruptcy action proceeded. On December 12, 2014, defendants in the adversary action moved for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain of the Creditors’ claims. The motion was denied on June 11, 2015. While it is not possible to predict the outcome of the Anderson Action or to estimate the impact on American Media, Inc. and DSI of a final judgment against American Media, Inc. and DSI (if that were to occur), American Media, Inc. and DSI believe that the claims asserted by Anderson, in the Anderson Action, are meritless. American Media, Inc. and DSI have antitrust claim insurance that covers defense costs. American Media, Inc. and DSI have filed a claim for insurance coverage with regard to the Anderson Action and certain of their defense costs are being paid by the insurer, and, in the event of a settlement or a damages award by the Court and subject to the applicable policy limits, American Media, Inc. and DSI anticipate seeking reimbursement from the insurer for payment of such settlement or damages. American Media, Inc. and DSI will continue to vigorously defend the case. In addition, because the focus of some of our publications often involves celebrities and controversial subjects, the risk of defamation or invasion of privacy litigation exists. Our experience indicates that the claims for damages made in celebrity lawsuits are usually inflated and such lawsuits are usually defensible and, in any event, any reasonably foreseeable material liability or settlement would likely be covered by insurance, subject to any applicable deductible and limit. We also periodically evaluate and assess the risks and uncertainties associated with our pending litigation disregarding the existence of insurance that would cover liability for such litigation. At present, in the opinion of management, after consultation with outside legal counsel, the liability resulting from pending litigation, even if insurance were not available, is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements. Long-Term Agreements The Company has several long-term agreements related to the printing, pre-press and fulfillment of publications. Based on current pricing and production levels, future commitments under these agreements are estimated as follows (in thousands):
Fiscal Year | Printing | Pre-Press | Fulfillment | Transportation | Total
2017 | $ | 23,587 |  | $ | 631 |  | $ | 3,516 |  | $ | 3,819 |  | $ | 31,553 |
2018 | 24,115 |  | 631 |  | 3,516 |  | 3,904 |  | 32,166 |
2019 | 24,655 |  | 315 |  | 3,516 |  | 2,994 |  | 31,480 |
2020 | 25,207 |  | — |  | 2,637 |  | — |  | 27,844 |
2021 | 25,771 |  | — |  | — |  | — |  | 25,771 |
Thereafter | 46,551 |  | — |  | — |  | — |  | 46,551 |
Total | $ | 169,886 |  | $ | 1,577 |  | $ | 13,185 |  | $ | 10,717 |  | $ | 195,365 |
Operating Leases During fiscal 2016, the Company leased offices, facilities and equipment under operating lease agreements. The leases for our offices and facilities expire between 2017 and 2023, and some of these leases are subject to our renewal. Total rent expense charged to operations for all such leases was approximately $3.3 million, $3.6 million and $3.4 million for fiscal 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Rent expense for operating leases, which may include free rent or fixed escalation amounts in addition to minimum lease payments, is recognized on a straight-line basis over the duration of each lease term. The future minimum lease payments under operating leases are estimated as follows (in thousands):
Fiscal Year |
2017 | $ | 2,945 |
2018 | 3,107 |
2019 | 3,120 |
2020 | 3,120 |
2021 | 3,120 |
Thereafter | 5,590 |
Total | $ | 21,002 |
Other Agreements The Company has several long-term consulting agreements with unrelated third parties to assist with the marketing of its brands. The future payments under these agreements are estimated as follows (in thousands):
Fiscal Year |
2017 | $ | 6,981 |
2018 | 6,613 |
2019 | 5,642 |
2020 | 5,642 |
2021 | 4,231 |
Thereafter | — |
Total | $ | 29,109 |

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 legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration