Commitments and Contingencies
|9 Months Ended|
Sep. 30, 2020
|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, patent claims, landlord-tenant disputes, contractual disputes with landlords over certain termination rights or the right to discontinue rent payments due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other 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.
Intertrust Technologies Corporation (“Intertrust”) v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Regal, AMC, et al. This case was filed against the Company on August 7, 2019 in the Eastern District of Texas – Marshall Division alleging patent infringement. The Company firmly maintains that the contentions of the Plaintiff are without merit and will vigorously defend itself against the lawsuit. Although the Company does not believe that it has infringed on any of Intertrust’s patents, it cannot predict the outcome of this litigation.
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 appealed the judgment. On October 2, 2020 the Court of Appeals of the State of California reversed the judgement in favor of the Plaintiff and rendered judgement in favor of the Company. Plaintiff has agreed to not appeal this ruling to the California Supreme Court; therefore, the ruling in favor of the Company is final and non-appealable. The Company reversed the litigation reserve in the third quarter of 2020.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef