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. Except as noted below, the Company’s commitments as of March 31, 2016 have not changed significantly from the disclosures included in the 2015 Form 10-K. In November 2015, the Company entered into a sports programming rights agreement with the National Rugby League to license certain media rights for a five year period from 2018 to 2022 for approximately $775 million (A$1.1 billion). In August 2015, the Company entered into a sports programming rights agreement with the Australian Football League to license certain media rights for a six year period from 2017 to 2022 for approximately $850 million (A$1.2 billion). 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 of 1934, as amended, alleging that false and misleading statements were issued regarding alleged acts of voicemail interception at The News of the World On June 5, 2012, the District Court issued an order appointing the Avon Pension Fund (“Avon”) as lead plaintiff 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 District 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 repeated the allegations of the amended consolidated complaint and also expanded the class period to comprise July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011. Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint, and on September 30, 2015, the District Court granted defendants’ motions in their entirety and dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims. In its memorandum, opinion and order relating to the dismissal, the District Court gave plaintiffs until November 6, 2015 to file a motion for leave to amend their complaint. On October 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s memorandum, opinion and order, which defendants have opposed. 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 (as defined below), including all payments in connection with the Wilder Litigation. In addition, civil claims have been brought against the Company with respect to, among other things, voicemail interception and inappropriate payments to public officials at the Company’s former publication, The News of the World The Sun In connection with the Company’s separation of its businesses (the “Separation”) from 21st Century Fox on June 28, 2013 (the “Distribution Date”), 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 previously concluded 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. 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 $9 million and $24 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and approximately $32 million and $75 million for the nine months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, 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 March 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company has been or will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox for $6 million, net of tax, and $9 million, net of tax, respectively, pursuant to the indemnification arrangements described above. With respect to the fees and costs incurred during the nine months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company has been or will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox for $17 million, net of tax, and $33 million, net of tax, respectively, pursuant to the indemnification arrangements described above. Accordingly, the Company recorded a contra expense in Selling, general and administrative expenses for the after-tax costs that were or will be indemnified of $6 million and $9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and $17 million and $33 million for the nine months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and recorded a corresponding receivable from 21st Century Fox. Therefore, the net impact on Selling, general and administrative expenses was $3 million and $15 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and $15 million and $42 million for the nine months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, 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 For the nine months 2016 2015 2016 2015 (in millions) Gross legal and professional fees related to the U.K. Newspaper Matters $ 9 $ 24 $ 32 $ 75 Indemnification from 21st Century Fox (6 ) (9 ) (17 ) (33 ) Net impact on Selling, general and administrative expenses $ 3 $ 15 $ 15 $ 42 As of March 31, 2016, the Company has provided for its best estimate of the liability for the claims that have been filed and costs incurred, including liabilities associated with employment taxes, and has accrued approximately $108 million, of which approximately $59 million will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox, and a corresponding receivable was recorded in Other current assets on the Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2016. 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. It is possible that these proceedings and any adverse resolution thereof could damage its reputation, impair its ability to conduct its business and adversely affect its results of operations and financial condition. 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 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 U.S. 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 and BEF Foods, Inc. (collectively, the “Named Plaintiffs”) alleged 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”), the Named Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint on consent of the parties. The fourth amended complaint asserted federal and state antitrust claims both individually and on behalf of two putative classes in connection with the purchase of in-store marketing services and free-standing insert coupons. The complaint sought treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. On August 11, 2014, the Named 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 did not purchase those services pursuant to contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses. On June 18, 2015, the District Court granted the Named Plaintiffs’ motion, although it subsequently amended the start date of the claim period to April 26, 2009. On September 10, 2015, the District Court granted a stipulation dismissing with prejudice the Named Plaintiffs’ claims relating to free-standing insert coupons. Trial began on February 29, 2016, and on such date, the parties agreed to settle the litigation. Under the terms of the settlement, which remains subject to District Court approval, the NAM Group agreed, among other things, to pay the plaintiffs and their attorneys approximately $250 million, and the parties agreed to dismiss the litigation with prejudice. The District Court has scheduled a preliminary settlement approval hearing for June 1, 2016. The NAM Group has also settled related claims for approximately $30 million. The Company recorded $280 million for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2016 in NAM Group settlement charge in the Unaudited Consolidated Statements of Operations. Valassis Communications, Inc. On November 8, 2013, Valassis Communications, Inc. (“Valassis”) initiated legal proceedings against certain of the Company’s subsidiaries alleging violations of various antitrust laws. These proceedings are described in further detail below. • Valassis previously initiated an action against NAI, NAM FSI and NAM In-Store Services (collectively, the “NAM Parties”), captioned Valassis Communications, Inc. v. News America Incorporated, et al., No. 2:06-cv-10240 (E.D. Mich.) (“Valassis I”), alleging violations of federal antitrust laws, which was settled in February 2010. On November 8, 2013, Valassis filed a motion for expedited discovery in the previously settled case based on its belief that defendants had engaged in activities prohibited under an order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in connection with the parties’ settlement. On February 4, 2014, the magistrate judge granted Valassis’s motion for expedited discovery. The NAM Parties objected to the magistrate judge’s ruling before the District Court and 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 panel of antitrust experts (the “Antitrust Expert Panel”). On May 20, 2014, the District Court overruled the NAM Parties’ objections to the magistrate judge’s ruling and terminated the motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement as the issues raised in the motion would be addressed in connection with the NAM Group’s motion to dismiss Valassis’s newly filed complaint in Valassis II, described below. On October 7, 2014, the NAM Parties filed a motion for an order requiring Valassis to show cause why its allegations that the NAM Parties engaged in unlawful bundling and tying of in-store marketing services and free-standing insert coupons should not be referred to the Antitrust Expert Panel for resolution pursuant to the parties’ settlement. On November 19, 2014, the magistrate judge denied the NAM Parties’ motion for an order to show cause. The NAM Parties objected to the magistrate judge’s order, and Valassis opposed those objections. On January 20, 2015, the NAM Parties filed a motion for expedited discovery in the previously settled case, which was granted by the magistrate judge on April 14, 2015. On February 3, 2015, Valassis filed a Notice of Violation of an order issued by the District Court in the previously settled case. The Notice contains allegations that are substantially similar to the allegations Valassis made in the new complaint, described below, and seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. The Notice also re-asserts claims of unlawful bundling and tying which the magistrate judge had previously recommended be dismissed from Valassis II on the grounds that such claims could only be brought before the Antitrust Expert Panel. On March 2, 2015, the NAM Parties filed a motion to refer the Notice to the Antitrust Expert Panel or, in the alternative, strike the Notice. The District Court granted the NAM Parties’ motion in part on March 30, 2016 and ordered that the Notice be referred to the Antitrust Expert Panel. The District Court further ordered that the case be administratively closed and that it may be re-opened following proceedings before the Antitrust Expert Panel. • On November 8, 2013, Valassis also filed a new complaint in the U.S. 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 (“Valassis II”). The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. On December 19, 2013, the NAM Group filed a motion to dismiss the newly filed complaint. The District Court referred the NAM Group’s motion to dismiss to the magistrate judge for determination, and 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 regarding alleged bundling and tying conduct and stay the remainder of the action. On March 30, 2016, the District Court adopted in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The District Court ordered that Valassis’s bundling and tying claims be dismissed without prejudice to Valassis’s rights to pursue relief for those claims in Valassis I. The District Court sustained Valassis’s objection to the stay of Valassis II, but further ordered that all remaining claims in the NAM Group’s motion to dismiss be referred to the Antitrust Expert Panel. The District Court further ordered that the case be administratively closed and that it may be re-opened following proceedings before the Antitrust Expert Panel. The Court has scheduled a status conference for May 17, 2016 to discuss the referral to the Antitrust Expert Panel in both Valassis I and Valassis II. 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 in both actions. 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 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. In conjunction with the Separation, the Company entered into the Tax Sharing and Indemnification Agreement with 21st Century Fox, which 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. |