Commitments and Contingencies
|9 Months Ended|
Sep. 30, 2019
|Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
From time to time, the Company is involved in various legal proceedings arising from the ordinary course of its business operations, such as personal injury claims, employment matters, landlord-tenant disputes, patent claims and contractual disputes, some of which are covered by insurance. The Company believes its potential liability with respect to proceedings currently pending is not material, individually or in the aggregate, to the Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The case presents putative class action claims for penalties and attorney's fees arising from alleged violations of the California wage statement law. The claim is also asserted as a representative action under the California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for penalties. The Court granted class certification. The company denies the claims, denies that class certification is appropriate, denies that the plaintiff has standing to assert the claims alleged and is vigorously defending against the claims. The Company denies any violation of law; however, to avoid the cost and uncertainty associated with litigation the Company and the plaintiff entered into a Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release of Claims (the “Settlement Agreement”) to fully and finally dismiss all claims that would be brought in the case. The Settlement Agreement was approved by the Court in September 2019. The Company funded the appropriate amounts required under the Settlement Agreement with the administrator of the class claims in October 2019.
Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC d/b/a Cinemas Palme D’Or v. Century Theatres, Inc., and Cinemark USA, Inc.; Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff in this case alleges that the Company violated California antitrust and unfair competition laws by engaging in “circuit dealing” with various motion picture distributors and tortiously interfered with Plaintiff’s business relationships. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, trebling of those damages under California law, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. Plaintiff also alleges that the Company’s conduct ultimately resulted in closure of its theatre in June 2016. The Company denied the allegations. In 2008, the Company moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims, arguing primarily that clearances between the theatres at issue were lawful and that Plaintiff lacked proof sufficient to support certain technical elements of its antitrust claims. The trial court granted that motion and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appealed and, in 2011, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding, among other things, that Plaintiff’s claims were not about the illegality of clearances but were focused, instead, on “circuit dealing.” Having re-framed the claims in that manner, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court’s decision to limit discovery to the market where the theatres at issue operated was an error, as “circuit dealing” necessarily involves activities in different markets. Upon return to the trial court, the parties engaged in additional, broadened discovery related to Plaintiff’s “circuit dealing” claim. Thereafter, the Company moved again for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims. That new motion for summary judgment was pending when, on or about April 11, 2014, the trial court granted the Company’s motion for terminating sanctions and entered a judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. Plaintiff then appealed that second dismissal, seeking to have the judgment reversed and the case remanded to the trial court. The Court of Appeal issued a ruling on May 24, 2016, reversing the granting of terminating sanctions and instead imposed a lesser evidentiary and damages preclusion sanction. The case returned to the trial court on October 6, 2016. On May 10, 2018, after a five-week jury trial, the jury found no liability on one circuit dealing claim and awarded Plaintiff damages on the other claim, which are tripled for antitrust damage awards. Plaintiff would also be entitled to certain court costs and to seek at least some portion of its attorney’s fees. During 2018, the Company recorded a litigation reserve based on the jury award, court costs and attorney’s fees. The trial court denied a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for a new trial. The Company has appealed the judgment. Although the Company denies that it engaged in any form of circuit dealing, it cannot predict the outcome of its pending motions or future appeals.
Civil Investigative Demand. The Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. The CID relates to an investigation under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The Company also received CIDs from the Antitrust Section of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Ohio and later from other states regarding similar inquiries under state antitrust laws. The CIDs request the Company to answer interrogatories, and produce documents, or both, related to the investigation of matters including film clearances, potential coordination and/or communication with other major theatre circuits and related joint ventures. The Company intends to fully cooperate with all federal and state government agencies. Although the Company does not believe that it has violated any federal or state antitrust or competition laws, it cannot predict the ultimate scope, duration or outcome of these investigations.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef