Commitments and contingencies | Commitments and contingencies Belmond Copacabana Palace 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. Ubud Hanging Gardens 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 appealed this case to the Indonesian Supreme Court, which in December 2016 affirmed the Appellate Court's decision. Belmond is considering its position but is likely to seek review for reconsideration by the 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. Belmond Hotel das Cataratas In September 2014, the Brazilian Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management notified the Company that it was denying the Company's application to extend the term or reduce the rent under the lease for Belmond Hotel das Cataratas, which was entered into in 2007. Belmond had applied for the amendment in 2009 based on its claim that it suffered additional 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. Prior to August 2014, with the agreement of the Ministry, the Company had been paying the base annual rent without an annual adjustment for inflation as provided for in the lease, pending resolution of Belmond’s application. Throughout this period, the Company had expensed the full rental amount and has fully accrued the difference between the rental charge and the amount actually paid. Based on the Ministry’s decision denying any relief, the Ministry directed the Company that it would henceforth assess rent at the contractual rate, which has been included in the table of future rental payments as at March 31, 2017, and that it must pay the difference between the contractual rent and the rent that had been actually paid. On March 20, 2015, the Ministry provided notice to the hotel that an aggregate amount of approximately R$17,000,000 ( $5,365,000 ) was due on March 31, 2015 as a result of its rejection of any relief sought by Belmond. The Company appealed to the Ministry to reconsider its decision on both procedural and substantive grounds. Pending this requested reconsideration and exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Company did not pay to the Ministry the amount claimed. The Company filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court in Paraná State in August 2016 against the Government of Brazil regarding the Ministry’s failure to properly consider and modify the lease concession for Belmond Hotel das Cataratas. The Federal Court granted the Company’s request for an injunction against the Government enforcing its claim and granted the Company’s request for a 25% preliminary reduction in rent, pending a decision on the merits, which the Superior Court upheld on appeal in a decision rendered in September 2016. The Government appealed to a three judge panel of the Superior Court, which upheld the decision of the Federal Court in favor of the Company in a judgment rendered in January 2017. A discovery calendar has been agreed for the litigation on the merits in the Federal Court where the Company intends to continue to pursue its claims vigorously. In the meantime, the Company is paying rent at the reduced amount but continues to accrue rent at the full contractual amount. Amounts accrued at March 31, 2017 totaled R$22,171,000 ( $6,998,000 ). The Company does not believe that any loss above the amounts accrued is likely. Belmond Miraflores Park The Company is contesting a claim by the municipality of Miraflores in Lima, Peru, the location of its Belmond Miraflores Park Hotel (“BMP”), that BMP has violated municipal nuisance ordinances by generating noise and vibration that disturbed certain owners of apartments in an adjoining residential building. The local administrative court ruled in favor of the municipality, levying a nominal fine and injunctive relief that included the potential closure of BMP until the noise and vibration has been eliminated. In March 2016, after the administrative court's ruling was affirmed at the trial and subsequently, the appellate court level, BMP appealed to the Supreme Court of Peru. Enforcement of the ruling has been stayed pending the appeal. BMP does not expect to receive a ruling and formal notification from the Supreme Court until at least May 15, 2017, but BMP is aware that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the municipality. Nonetheless, management believes that the risk of closure of BMP is remote because BMP has completed its remediation and expects to be currently in compliance with municipal noise ordinances and may also seek to acquire the apartments of the owners who had originally complained about being disturbed. Accordingly, management does not believe that a material loss is probable and no accrual has been made in respect of this matter. Cupecoy Village Development N.V. In July 2015, Cupecoy Village Development N.V. ("Cupecoy") 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 contained a number of material miscalculations and misinterpretations of fact and law. The Company had provided a written response to the tax authorities disputing their assessment and expected the resolution of this dispute to result in only an immaterial cost. However, the tax authorities consistently failed to respond or otherwise engage with Belmond or Cupecoy. After multiple attempts to meet with the tax authorities, the Company provided them formal notice of its intention to wind up Cupecoy, which the Company did after receiving no response from the authorities to either a first or second notice. In October 2016, following our application to the court, Cupecoy was declared technically insolvent in light of the 2015 tax claim, at which point the Company determined that any liability in respect of Cupecoy was effectively discharged. A final bankruptcy declaration in respect of Cupecoy was made by the local Dutch court in February 2017. “Cipriani” Trademark 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 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 hotels and 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. 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 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. Capital Commitments Outstanding contracts to purchase property, plant and equipment were approximately $12,203,000 at March 31, 2017 ( December 31, 2016 - $7,772,000 ). Future rental payments and rental expense under operating leases Future rental payments as at March 31, 2017 under operating leases in respect of equipment rentals and leased premises are payable as follows: $’000 Remainder of 2017 9,541 2018 12,524 2019 10,796 2020 10,663 2021 11,401 2022 9,289 2023 and thereafter 62,755 Future rental payments under operating leases 126,969 Rental expense for the three months ended March 31, 2017 amounted to $3,498,000 ( March 31, 2016 - $2,620,000 ). |