Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended |
Sep. 30, 2014 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
NOTE 10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
Commitments |
The Company has commitments under certain firm contractual arrangements (“firm commitments”) to make future payments. These firm commitments secure the future rights to various assets and services to be used in the normal course of operations. The Company’s commitments as of September 30, 2014 have not changed significantly from the disclosures included in the 2014 Form 10-K. |
Contingencies |
The Company routinely is involved in various legal proceedings, claims and governmental inspections or investigations, including those discussed below. The outcome of these matters and claims is subject to significant uncertainty, and the Company often cannot predict what the eventual outcome of pending matters will be or the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters. Fees, expenses, fines, penalties, judgments or settlement costs which might be incurred by the Company in connection with the various proceedings could adversely affect its results of operations and financial condition. |
|
The Company establishes an accrued liability for legal claims when it determines that a loss is both probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Once established, accruals are adjusted from time to time, as appropriate, in light of additional information. The amount of any loss ultimately incurred in relation to matters for which an accrual has been established may be higher or lower than the amounts accrued for such matters. Legal fees associated with litigation and similar proceedings are expensed as incurred. Except as otherwise provided below, for the contingencies disclosed for which there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred, the Company was unable to estimate the amount of loss or range of loss. |
U.K. Newspaper Matters and Related Investigations and Litigation |
On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Wilder v. News Corp., et al. was filed on behalf of all purchasers of 21st Century Fox’s common stock between March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Wilder Litigation”). The plaintiff brought claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were issued regarding alleged acts of voicemail interception at The News of the World. The suit named as defendants 21st Century Fox, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and sought compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained and costs. |
On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon Pension Fund (“Avon”) as lead plaintiff in the litigation and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. Avon filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things, added as defendants the Company’s subsidiary, NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited), and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to comprise February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the litigation, which were granted by the court on March 31, 2014. Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint, and on April 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, which generally repeats the allegations of the amended consolidated complaint and also expands the class period to comprise July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011. On August 11, 2014, defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint, and on October 24, 2014 plaintiffs opposed those motions. The Company’s management believes these claims are entirely without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. As described below, the Company will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox for certain payments made by the Company that relate to, or arise from, the U.K. Newspaper Matters, including all payments in connection with the Wilder Litigation. |
In addition, U.K. and U.S. regulators and governmental authorities continue to conduct investigations initiated in 2011 with respect to the U.K. Newspaper Matters. The investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) is directed at conduct that occurred within 21st Century Fox prior to the creation of the Company. Accordingly, 21st Century Fox has been and continues to be responsible for responding to the DOJ investigation. The Company, together with 21st Century Fox, is cooperating with these investigations. |
Civil claims have also been brought against the Company with respect to the U.K. Newspaper Matters. The Company has admitted liability in many civil cases and has settled a number of cases. The Company has also settled a number of claims through a private compensation scheme established by the Company under which parties could pursue claims against it. While additional civil lawsuits may be filed, no additional civil claims may be brought under the compensation scheme after April 8, 2013. |
In connection with the Separation, the Company and 21st Century Fox agreed in the Separation and Distribution Agreement that 21st Century Fox will indemnify the Company for payments made after the Distribution Date arising out of civil claims and investigations relating to the U.K. Newspaper Matters as well as legal and professional fees and expenses paid in connection with the criminal matters, other than fees, expenses and costs relating to employees (i) who are not directors, officers or certain designated employees or (ii) with respect to civil matters, who are not co-defendants with the Company or 21st Century Fox. In addition, violations of law may result in criminal fines or penalties for which the Company will not be indemnified by 21st Century Fox. 21st Century Fox’s indemnification obligations with respect to these matters will be settled on an after-tax basis. |
|
The Company incurred gross legal and professional fees related to the U.K. Newspaper Matters and costs for civil settlements totaling approximately $28 million and $40 million for the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively. These costs are included in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Company’s Statements of Operations. With respect to the fees and costs incurred during the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, the Company has been or will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox for $14 million, net of tax, and $23 million, net of tax, respectively, pursuant to the indemnification arrangements described above. Accordingly, the Company recorded a contra expense for the after-tax costs that were or will be indemnified of $14 million and $23 million in Selling, general and administrative expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively, and recorded a corresponding receivable from 21st Century Fox. Therefore, the net impact on Selling, general and administrative expenses was $14 million and $17 million for the three months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively. |
Refer to the table below for the net impact of the U.K. Newspaper Matters on Selling, general and administrative expenses recorded in the Statements of Operations: |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | For the three months | |
ended September 30, |
| | 2014 | | | 2013 | |
| | (in millions) | |
Gross legal and professional fees related to the U.K. Newspaper Matters | | $ | 28 | | | $ | 40 | |
Indemnification from 21st Century Fox | | | (14 | ) | | | (23 | ) |
| | | | | | | | |
Net impact on Selling, general and administrative expenses | | $ | 14 | | | $ | 17 | |
| | | | | | | | |
As of September 30, 2014, the Company has provided for its best estimate of the liability for the claims that have been filed and costs incurred and has accrued approximately $115 million, of which approximately $60 million will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox and a corresponding receivable was recorded in Amounts due from 21st Century Fox on the Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2014. It is not possible to estimate the liability or corresponding receivable for any additional claims that may be filed given the information that is currently available to the Company. If more claims are filed and additional information becomes available, the Company will update the liability provision and corresponding receivable for such matters. |
The Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the civil claims or criminal matters. It is possible that these proceedings and any adverse resolution thereof, including any fines or other penalties associated with any plea, judgment or similar result for which the Company will not be indemnified, could damage its reputation, impair its ability to conduct its business and adversely affect its results of operations and financial condition. |
Stockholder Rights Agreement Litigation |
On July 7, 2014, Miramar Police Officers’ Retirement Plan, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and its Board of Directors, styled Miramar Police Officers’ Retirement Plan v. Murdoch et al., C.A. No. 9860-CB. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the Board of Directors breached the terms of a settlement agreement, dated April 12, 2006, by entering into a one-year extension to the Company’s stockholder rights agreement on June 18, 2014 without first seeking stockholder approval. The complaint further alleges that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in approving the one-year extension to the stockholder rights agreement, seeks a declaration that the extension is null and void and requests an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. |
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and on August 25, 2014, plaintiff amended the complaint to seek a declaratory judgment that the Company is bound and subject to the settlement agreement; that the agreement has been breached; that the Board of Directors acted in bad faith by adopting the stockholder rights agreement extension without stockholder approval; and, in the alternative, seeking reformation of the settlement agreement on the grounds of alleged mutual mistake. Thereafter, on September 9, 2014, all defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. |
|
While it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, the Company and the Board of Directors believe that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. |
HarperCollins |
In 2011 and 2012, various civil lawsuits and governmental investigations were commenced against certain publishers, including the Company’s subsidiary, HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. (“HarperCollins”), relating to alleged violations of antitrust and unfair competition laws arising out of the decisions by those publishers to sell their e-books pursuant to an agency relationship. |
The publishers, including HarperCollins, entered into various settlement agreements to resolve these matters. These included a settlement with the DOJ, which, among other things, required that HarperCollins terminate its agreements with certain e-book retailers and placed certain restrictions on any agreements subsequently entered into with such retailers. Additional information about this settlement can be found on the DOJ’s website. The publishers, including HarperCollins, also entered into substantially similar settlements with the European Commission and the Canadian Competition Bureau (“CCB”). The settlements with the DOJ and the European Commission received final approval in September and December 2012, respectively. The consent agreement with respect to the settlement with the CCB was registered with the Competition Tribunal on February 7, 2014. However, on February 21, 2014, Kobo Inc. (“Kobo”) filed an application to rescind or vary the consent agreement with the Competition Tribunal, and, on March 18, 2014, the Competition Tribunal issued an order staying the registration of the consent agreement. The stay will remain in effect pending further order of the Competition Tribunal or final disposition of Kobo’s application. |
The publishers, including HarperCollins, also entered into settlements relating to an investigation led by certain state Attorneys General and a number of purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. and Canada arising out of similar claims. Final approvals of the settlements relating to the U.S. actions were granted in February and December 2013. In May 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement relating to the Canadian actions, and in October and November 2014, the settlement agreement was approved by the relevant courts. |
The Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved HarperCollins matter described above. The legal and professional fees and settlement costs incurred in connection with the other settlements referred to above were not material. |
News America Marketing |
In-Store Marketing and FSI Purchasers |
On April 8, 2014, in connection with a pending action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in which The Dial Corporation, Henkel Consumer Goods, Inc., H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., Foster Poultry Farms, Smithfield Foods, Inc., HP Hood LLC, BEF Foods, Inc., and Spectrum Brands, Inc. (“Spectrum”) allege various claims under federal and state antitrust law against News Corporation, News America Incorporated (“NAI”), News America Marketing FSI L.L.C. (“NAM FSI”), and News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C. (“NAM In-Store Services” and, together with News Corporation, NAI and NAM FSI, the “NAM Group”), plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint on consent of the parties. The fourth amended complaint asserts federal and state antitrust claims both individually and on behalf of two putative classes in connection with plaintiffs’ purchase of in-store marketing services and free-standing insert coupons. The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. The NAM Group answered the fourth amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against The Dial Corporation, H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., and Foster Poultry Farms on April 21, 2014, and discovery is proceeding. The District Court subsequently permitted Spectrum to voluntarily dismiss its claims without prejudice, subject to certain conditions. |
|
On August 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of a class of all persons residing in the United States who purchased in-store marketing services on or after April 5, 2008, and have not purchased those services pursuant to contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses. Plaintiffs did not, however, move to certify a class of purchasers of free-standing insert coupons. The NAM Group filed its opposition to plaintiffs’ motion on October 10, 2014. |
While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, the NAM Group believes it has been compliant with applicable antitrust laws and intends to defend itself vigorously. |
Valassis Communications, Inc. |
On November 8, 2013, Valassis Communications, Inc. (“Valassis”) filed a motion for expedited discovery in Valassis Communications, Inc. v. News America Incorporated, et al., No. 2:06-cv-10240 (E.D. Mich.), which previously settled in February 2010. Also on November 8, 2013, Valassis filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the NAM Group alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and common law business torts. The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. On December 19, 2013, NAI, NAM FSI and NAM In-Store Services opposed the motion for expedited discovery in the previously settled case, and the NAM Group filed a motion to dismiss the newly-filed complaint. |
On February 4, 2014, the magistrate judge entered an order granting the motion for expedited discovery. NAI, NAM FSI and NAM In-Store Services filed their objections to the order before the District Court on February 11, 2014 and concurrently filed a motion to stay the decision of the magistrate judge pending the District Court’s consideration of their objections. On March 10, 2014, NAI, NAM FSI and NAM In-Store Services filed a motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement that sought an order that certain of Valassis’s claims, if they are allowed to proceed, must be considered by a three-member panel of antitrust experts pursuant to the parties’ agreements. On May 20, 2014, the District Court issued an order overruling the objections to the magistrate judge’s decision on Valassis’s motion for expedited discovery and determining that the motion to stay the magistrate judge’s decision was therefore moot. In the same order, the District Court terminated the motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement on the grounds that the issues raised in this motion would be addressed in the context of the NAM Group’s motion to dismiss Valassis’s newly-filed complaint, described below. |
On March 11, 2014, the Court referred the NAM Group’s motion to dismiss Valsassis’s newly-filed complaint to the magistrate judge for determination. On July 16, 2014, the magistrate judge recommended that the District Court grant the NAM Group’s motion in part with respect to certain claims and stay the remainder of the action. Valassis objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the action be stayed, and the NAM Group filed its opposition to Valassis’s objections on August 13, 2014. |
On October 7, 2014, the NAM Group filed a motion for an order requiring Valassis to show cause why its allegations that the NAM Group engaged in unlawful bundling and tying of in-store marketing services and free-standing insert coupons should not be referred to a three-member panel of antitrust experts for resolution pursuant to the parties’ agreements. Valassis filed its response to that motion on October 24, 2014. |
While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of these actions, the NAM Group believes it has been compliant with applicable laws and intends to defend itself vigorously. |
|
Other |
The Company’s operations are subject to tax in various domestic and international jurisdictions and as a matter of course, it is regularly audited by federal, state and foreign tax authorities. The Company believes it has appropriately accrued for the expected outcome of all pending tax matters and does not currently anticipate that the ultimate resolution of pending tax matters will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, future results of operations or liquidity. As subsidiaries of 21st Century Fox prior to the Separation, the Company and each of its domestic subsidiaries have joint and several liability with 21st Century Fox for the consolidated U.S. federal income taxes of the 21st Century Fox consolidated group relating to any taxable periods during which the Company or any of the Company’s domestic subsidiaries are or were a member of the 21st Century Fox consolidated group. Consequently, the Company could be liable in the event any such liability is incurred, and not discharged, by any other member of the 21st Century Fox consolidated group. The Tax Sharing and Indemnification Agreement requires 21st Century Fox to indemnify the Company for any such liability. Disputes or assessments could arise during future audits by the IRS or other taxing authorities in amounts that the Company cannot quantify. |