Commitments and contingencies | Commitments and contingencies Outstanding contracts to purchase property, plant and equipment were approximately $8,133,000 at March 31, 2016 ( December 31, 2015 - $8,662,000 ). In February 2013, the State of Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice affirmed a 2011 decision of a Rio state trial court against Sea Containers Ltd (“SCL”) in lawsuits brought against SCL by minority shareholders in Companhia Hoteis Palace (“CHP”), the company that owns Belmond Copacabana Palace, relating to the recapitalization of CHP in 1995, but the Court reduced the total award against SCL to approximately $27,000,000 . SCL further appealed the judgments during the second quarter of 2013 to the Superior Court of Justice in Brasilia. SCL sold its shares in CHP to the Company in 2000. Years later, in 2006, SCL entered insolvency proceedings in the U.S. and Bermuda that are continuing in Bermuda. Possible claims could be asserted against the Company or CHP in connection with this Brazilian litigation that has to date only involved SCL, although no claims have been asserted. As a precautionary measure to defend the hotel, CHP commenced a declaratory lawsuit in the Rio state court in December 2013 seeking judicial declarations that no fraud was committed against the SCL plaintiffs when the shares in CHP were sold to the Company in 2000 and that the sale of the shares did not render SCL insolvent. Pending rulings on those declarations, the court granted CHP an injunction preventing the SCL plaintiffs from provisionally enforcing their 2011 judgments against CHP, which judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal in May 2014. In September 2014, CHP sought reconsideration from the appellate court of this decision, but the court dismissed its request, resulting in the return of the declaratory lawsuit proceedings to the Rio State Court. Management cannot estimate the range of possible loss if the SCL plaintiffs assert claims against the Company or CHP, and Belmond has made no accruals in respect of this matter. If any such claims were brought, Belmond would continue to defend its interests vigorously. In November 2013, the third-party owner of Ubud Hanging Gardens in Bali, Indonesia dispossessed Belmond from the hotel under long-term lease without prior notice. As a result, Belmond was unable to continue operating the hotel and, accordingly, to prevent any confusion to its guests, Belmond ceased referring to the property in its sales and marketing materials, including all electronic marketing. Belmond believed that the owner's actions were unlawful and in breach of the lease arrangement and constituted a wrongful dispossession. Belmond pursued its legal remedies through arbitration proceedings required under the lease. In June 2015, a Singapore arbitration panel issued its final award in favor of Belmond, holding that the owner had breached Indonesian law and the lease, and granting monetary damages and costs to the Company in an amount equal to approximately $8,500,000 . Since its receipt of the arbitral award, Belmond has been engaged in the process of enforcing this arbitral award in the Indonesian courts. Starting in April 2014, the Indonesian trial courts have dismissed six separate actions filed by the owner for lack of jurisdiction due to the arbitration clause in the parties’ lease. The owner has appealed these decisions, one of which was reversed by the Appellate Court in October 2014. Belmond has appealed this case to the Indonesian Supreme Court. As supplemental proceedings to its arbitration claim, Belmond commenced contempt proceedings in the High Court in London, England, where the owner resided, for pursuing the Indonesian proceedings contrary to an earlier High Court injunction, and obtained against the owner in July 2014 a contempt order, which subsequently resulted in the court issuing a committal order of imprisonment for 120 days. The owner left England before the court order was issued and has not yet served the sentence. Belmond does not believe there is any merit in the owner’s outstanding Indonesian actions and is vigorously defending its rights while it seeks to enforce the Singapore arbitral award. While the Company can give no assurances, it believes that it should ultimately be able to enforce its arbitral award. Given the uncertainty involved in this litigation, Belmond recorded in the year ended December 31, 2013, a non-cash impairment charge in the amount of $7,031,000 relating to long-lived assets and goodwill of Ubud Hanging Gardens and has not booked a receivable in respect of the award. In September 2014, the Secretary of the Brazilian Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management notified the Company that the Ministry was denying its application to amend the lease for Belmond Hotel das Cataratas, which was entered into in 2007, among other things, to extend the term and reduce the rent. Belmond had applied for the amendment in 2009 based on its claim that it suffered unanticipated and/or unforeseeable costs in performing the refurbishment of the hotel as required by the lease and related tender documentation in order to raise the standard of the property to a five star luxury standard. The Company has appealed to the Secretary to re-consider its decision on both procedural and substantive grounds. If the Secretary does not alter its decision, the Company can appeal directly to the Minister for Planning and ultimately to the Brazilian courts. Belmond’s current annual lease expense for the hotel is R$16,715,000 (equivalent to $4,697,000 at March 31, 2016 ). However, until August 2014, the Company had been paying, with the approval of the Ministry, the amount of R$11,065,000 ( $3,109,000 ) per annum without an annual adjustment for inflation as provided in the lease, pending resolution of the case. The Company has expensed the full rental amount. Consequently, the difference between the cumulative rental charge and the amount paid plus monetary correction, which totals R$19,219,000 ( $5,400,000 ), has been fully accrued. Based on the Secretary’s decision, the Ministry will be assessing rent at the contractual rate, which has been included in the table of future rental payments as at March 31, 2016 below. Beyond the amounts accrued, management estimates that the range of possible additional loss to Belmond could be between R$1,000,000 and R$1,500,000 (equivalent to $281,000 and $421,000 at March 31, 2016 ) plus interest from the date of the September 2014 decision until a final non-appealable decision is rendered. On March 20, 2015, the Ministry provided notice to the hotel that an aggregate amount of approximately R$17,000,000 ( $4,778,000 ) was due on March 31, 2015 as a result of the denial of the application. The Secretary has yet to address Belmond’s request for re-consideration of the Ministry’s decision, so that pending this requested reconsideration and exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Company has not paid to the Ministry the amount claimed due. In the meantime, the Company is considering proceedings against the Ministry in the Brazilian courts. In January 2015, Peru Belmond Hotels S.A. received notification of a claim filed by the Public Prosecutor's office of the Regional Government of Cusco, seeking annulment of a contract and public deed of amendment extending the term of the Belmond Sanctuary Lodge concession for ten years from May 2015 to May 2025. The claim alleged that the amendment was invalid principally because the President of the Region, who executed the public deed on December 27, 2013, did not have proper authority to execute the amendment because a resolution dismissing him from office had been issued the day before. The court of first instance dismissed the case in May 2015 on technical grounds and the claimant appealed to the Superior Court of Cusco. At a hearing before the Superior Court of Cusco in September 2015, the Superior Court overturned the decision of the court of first instance and declared that the entire proceeding be vacated. The court of first instance reconsidered the matter in January 2016 and again dismissed the Public Prosecutor's claim on technical grounds. The Public Prosecutor's office has appealed this decision as well and a hearing is scheduled for June 16, 2016 at the Superior Court of Cusco. As both a procedural and substantive matter, Belmond believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to contest the matter vigorously. In July 2015, Cupecoy Village Development N.V. received notification from the tax authorities in Sint Maarten of an intention to issue tax assessments for periods 2007-2010 in respect of wages taxes, social security, turnover tax and penalties, which Belmond believes indicates a maximum possible loss of $16,500,000 . Belmond believes that the report received from the tax authorities contains a number of material miscalculations and misinterpretations of fact and law. The Company has provided a written response to the tax authorities disputing their assessment and expects the resolution of this dispute to result in only an immaterial cost. In May 2010, after prevailing in litigation at the trial and appellate court levels, Belmond settled litigation in the United Kingdom for infringement of its U.K. and Community (European wide) registrations for the “Cipriani” trademark. Defendants paid the amount of $3,947,000 to Belmond in March 2010 with the balance of $9,833,000 being payable in installments over five years with interest. Belmond received the final payment in the amount of $1,178,000 in June 2015. Subsequent to Belmond’s success before the U.K. courts, there have arisen a number of European trademark opposition and infringement cases relating to Belmond "Cipriani" and "Hotel Cipriani" Community trademarks. These include an ongoing invalidity action filed by Arrigo Cipriani in the European Trade Mark Office (“OHIM”) against Belmond’s "Cipriani" Community trademark. To date, Belmond has successfully rebutted this challenge at every level of administrative appeal, and this case is now before the General Court where Belmond also expects to prevail. Belmond has recently been successful in securing the cancellation in Portugal of a trademark application filed by an affiliated company of the Cipriani family for “Cipriani”. Belmond has also been successful in obtaining cancellations of "Cipriani" trademark applications made by the Cipriani family's corporate entity in Russia. In addition, there are a number of ongoing trademark disputes with the Cipriani family in Italy: in January 2015, the Cipriani family and affiliated entities commenced proceedings against Belmond in the Court of Venice, asserting that a 1967 agreement pursuant to which the family sold their interest in the Hotel Cipriani constituted a coexistence agreement allowing both the Company to use “Hotel Cipriani” and the Cipriani family to use “Cipriani”, and in August 2015, pursuant to a separate claim filed by the Cipriani family, the Court of Venice ruled in favor of the Cipriani family, determining that their use of their full name (rather than just an initial with their surname), would not constitute infringement of the Company’s registered trademark. The Court’s ruling purports to apply to restaurants on an EU-wide basis (other than the U.K.) rather than only Italy. The Company has appealed this decision. Separate proceedings brought by Belmond in Spain to defend Belmond's marks against a use by the Cipriani family and its affiliated entities of "Cipriani" to promote a restaurant have been stayed pending the outcome of the Venice appeal. While Belmond believes that it has meritorious cases in all of these Italian proceedings, Belmond cannot estimate the range of possible additional loss to Belmond if it should not prevail in any or all of these cases and Belmond has made no accruals in these matters. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are parties to various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. These proceedings generally include matters relating to labor disputes, tax claims, personal injury cases, lease negotiations and ownership disputes. The outcome of each of these matters cannot be determined with certainty, and the liability that the relevant parties may ultimately incur with respect to any one of these matters in the event of a negative outcome may be in excess of amounts currently accrued for with respect to these matters. Where a reasonable estimate can be made, the additional losses or range of loss that may be incurred in excess of the amount recognized from the various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business are disclosed separately for each claim, including a reference to where it is disclosed. However, for certain of the legal proceedings, management is unable to estimate the loss or range of loss that may result from these claims due to the highly complex nature or early stage of the legal proceedings. Future rental payments as at March 31, 2016 under operating leases in respect of equipment rentals and leased premises are payable as follows: $’000 Remainder of 2016 6,979 2017 9,667 2018 10,024 2019 8,695 2020 8,706 2021 9,550 2022 and thereafter 62,896 Future rental payments under operating leases 116,517 Rental expense for the three months ended March 31, 2016 amounted to $2,620,000 ( March 31, 2015 - $2,844,000 ). Belmond has granted to James Sherwood, a former director of the Company, a right of first refusal to purchase the Belmond Hotel Cipriani in Venice, Italy in the event Belmond proposes to sell it. The purchase price would be the offered sale price in the case of a cash sale or the fair market value of the hotel, as determined by an independent valuer, in the case of a non-cash sale. Mr. Sherwood has also been granted an option to purchase the hotel at fair market value if a change in control of the Company occurs. Mr. Sherwood may elect to pay 80% of the purchase price if he exercises his right of first refusal, or 100% of the purchase price if he exercises his purchase option, by a non-recourse promissory note secured by the hotel payable in ten equal annual installments with interest at LIBOR . This right of first refusal and purchase option are not assignable and expire one year after Mr. Sherwood’s death. These agreements relating to the Belmond Hotel Cipriani between Mr. Sherwood and Belmond and its predecessor companies have been in place since 1983 and were last amended and restated in 2005. |