COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
|12 Months Ended|
Dec. 31, 2020
|Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES||
Employment Agreements — As of December 31, 2020, the Company had employment agreements with Lee Roy Mitchell, Mark Zoradi, Sean Gamble, Valmir Fernandes and Michael Cavalier. The employment agreements for Messrs. Mitchell, Gamble, Fernandes and Cavalier are subject to automatic extensions for a one year period, unless the employment agreements are terminated. The employment agreement for Mr. Zoradi will expire on December 31, 2021 unless extended by the Company and Mr. Zoradi. The base salaries stipulated in the employment agreements are subject to review at least annually during the term of the agreements for increase (but not decrease) by the Company’s Compensation Committee. Management personnel subject to these employment agreements are eligible to receive annual cash incentive bonuses upon the Company meeting certain performance targets established by the Compensation Committee.
Retirement Savings Plan — The Company has a 401(k) retirement savings plan (“401(k) Plan”) for the benefit of all eligible employees and makes matching contributions as determined annually in accordance with the 401(k) Plan. Employer matching contribution payments of $6,052 and $1,562 were made during 2019 and 2020, respectively. A liability of approximately $2,123 was recorded at December 31, 2020 for employer contribution payments to be made in 2021 for the remaining amounts owed for plan year 2020.
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.
Cinemark Holdings, Inc., et al vs Factory Mutual Insurance Company. The Company filed suit on November 18, 2020, in the District Court, 471st Judicial District, Collin County, Texas. On December 22, 2020, the case was moved to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. The Company submitted a claim under its property insurance policy issued by Factory Mutual Insurance Company (the “FM Policy”) for losses sustained as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the forced closure of the Company’s theatres pursuant to orders issued by various government agencies. Factory Mutual Insurance Company (“FM”) denied the Company’s claim. The Company is seeking damages resulting from FM’s breach of contract, FM’s bad faith conduct and a declaration of the parties’ rights under the FM Policy. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation, management believes this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s financial position or results of operations.
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