| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments In the normal course of business, we enter into agreements that commit our company to make cash payments in future periods with respect to network and connectivity commitments, purchases of customer premises and other equipment and services, programming contracts and other items. The following table sets forth the U.S. dollar equivalents of such commitments as of March 31, 2022. The commitments included in this table do not reflect any liabilities that are included on our March 31, 2022 condensed consolidated balance sheet. Payments due during: Remainder 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Thereafter Total in millions Network and connectivity commitments $ 168.7 $ 144.3 $ 102.8 $ 96.9 $ 47.0 $ 41.8 $ 629.4 $ 1,230.9 Purchase commitments 332.0 194.8 31.4 17.4 5.8 0.4 0.4 582.2 Programming commitments 142.2 141.5 117.5 70.2 46.6 18.6 — 536.6 Other commitments 67.2 57.1 31.1 31.7 31.4 23.7 104.2 346.4 Total $ 710.1 $ 537.7 $ 282.8 $ 216.2 $ 130.8 $ 84.5 $ 734.0 $ 2,696.1 Network and connectivity commitments include Telenet’s commitments for certain operating costs associated with its leased network. Telenet’s commitments for certain operating costs are subject to adjustment based on changes in the network operating costs incurred by Telenet with respect to its own networks. These potential adjustments are not subject to reasonable estimation and, therefore, are not included in the above table. Purchase commitments include unconditional and legally binding obligations related to (i) the purchase of customer premises, network and other equipment and (ii) certain service-related commitments, including call center, information technology and maintenance services. Programming commitments consist of obligations associated with certain of our programming, studio output and sports rights contracts that are enforceable and legally binding on us as we have agreed to pay minimum fees without regard to (i) the actual number of subscribers to the programming services, (ii) whether we terminate service to a portion of our subscribers or dispose of a portion of our distribution systems or (iii) whether we discontinue our premium sports services. Programming commitments do not include increases in future periods associated with contractual inflation or other price adjustments that are not fixed. Accordingly, the amounts reflected in the above table with respect to these contracts are significantly less than the amounts we expect to pay in these periods under these contracts. Historically, payments to programming vendors have represented a significant portion of our operating costs, and we expect this will continue to be the case in future periods. In this regard, our total programming and copyright costs aggregated $145.0 million and $474.9 million (including amounts related to the U.K. JV Entities) during the three months ended March 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. In addition to the commitments set forth in the table above, we have significant commitments under (i) derivative instruments and (ii) defined benefit plans and similar agreements, pursuant to which we expect to make payments in future periods. For information regarding our derivative instruments, including the net cash paid or received in connection with these instruments during the three months ended March 31, 2022 and 2021, see note 6. We also have commitments pursuant to agreements with, and obligations imposed by, franchise authorities and municipalities, which may include obligations in certain markets to move aerial cable to underground ducts or to upgrade, rebuild or extend portions of our broadband communication systems. Such amounts are not included in the above table because they are not fixed or determinable. Guarantees and Other Credit Enhancements In the ordinary course of business, we may provide (i) indemnifications to our lenders, our vendors and certain other parties and (ii) performance and/or financial guarantees to local municipalities, our customers and vendors. Historically, these arrangements have not resulted in our company making any material payments and we do not believe that they will result in material payments in the future. Legal and Regulatory Proceedings and Other Contingencies Interkabel Acquisition. On November 26, 2007, Telenet and four associations of municipalities in Belgium, which we refer to as the pure intercommunales or the “ PICs ,” announced a non-binding agreement-in-principle to transfer the analog and digital television activities of the PICs, including all existing subscribers, to Telenet. Subsequently, Telenet and the PICs entered into a binding agreement (the 2008 PICs Agreement ), which closed effective October 1, 2008. Beginning in December 2007, Proximus NV/SA ( Proximus ), the incumbent telecommunications operator in Belgium, instituted several proceedings seeking to block implementation of these agreements. Proximus lodged summary proceedings with the President of the Court of First Instance of Antwerp to obtain a provisional injunction preventing the PICs from effecting the agreement-in-principle and initiated a civil procedure on the merits claiming the annulment of the agreement-in-principle. In March 2008, the President of the Court of First Instance of Antwerp ruled in favor of Proximus in the summary proceedings, which ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal of Antwerp in June 2008. Proximus brought an appeal judgment before the Belgian Supreme Court, which confirmed the appeal judgment in September 2010. On April 6, 2009, the Court of First Instance of Antwerp ruled in favor of the PICs and Telenet in the civil procedure on the merits, dismissing Proximus’ request for the rescission of the agreement-in-principle and the 2008 PICs Agreement. On June 12, 2009, Proximus appealed this judgment to the Court of Appeal of Antwerp. In this appeal, Proximus also sought compensation for damages. While these proceedings were suspended indefinitely, other proceedings were initiated, which resulted in a ruling by the Belgian Council of State in May 2014 annulling (i) the decision of the PICs not to organize a public market consultation and (ii) the decision from the PICs’ board of directors to approve the 2008 PICs Agreement. In December 2015, Proximus resumed the civil proceedings pending with the Court of Appeal of Antwerp seeking to have the 2008 PICs Agreement annulled and claiming damages of €1.4 billion ($1.6 billion). On December 18, 2017, the Court of Appeal of Antwerp rejected Proximus’ claim in its entirety. On June 28, 2019, Proximus brought this appeal judgment before the Belgian Supreme Court. On January 22, 2021, the Belgian Supreme Court partially annulled the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Antwerp. The case was referred to the Court of Appeal of Brussels and is currently pending with this Court which will need to make a new decision on the matter within the boundaries of the annulment by the Belgian Supreme Court. It is likely that it will take the Court of Appeal of Brussels several years to decide on the matter. No assurance can be given as to the outcome of these or other proceedings. However, an unfavorable outcome of existing or future proceedings could potentially lead to the annulment of the 2008 PICs Agreement. We do not expect the ultimate resolution of this matter to have a material impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position. No amounts have been accrued by us with respect to this matter as the likelihood of loss is not considered to be probable. Telekom Deutschland Litigation. On December 28, 2012, Unitymedia filed a lawsuit against Telekom Deutschland GmbH ( Telekom Deutschland ) in which Unitymedia asserted that it pays excessive prices for the co-use of Telekom Deutschland’s cable ducts in Unitymedia’s footprint. The Federal Network Agency approved rates for the co-use of certain ducts of Telekom Deutschland in March 2011. Based in part on these approved rates, Unitymedia sought a reduction of the annual lease fees by approximately five-sixths. In addition, Unitymedia sought the return of similarly calculated overpayments from 2009 through the ultimate settlement date, plus accrued interest. In October 2016, the first instance court dismissed this action, and in March 2018, the court of appeal dismissed Unitymedia’s appeal of the first instance court’s decision and did not grant permission to appeal further to the Federal Court of Justice. Unitymedia filed a motion with the Federal Court of Justice to grant permission to appeal, and we are not aware of any further developments on this matter to date. The resolution of this matter may take several years and no assurance can be given that Unitymedia’s claims will be successful. In connection with our sale of the Vodafone Disposal Group in 2019, we will only share in 50% of any amounts recovered, plus 50% of the net present value of certain cost savings in future periods that are attributable to the favorable resolution of this matter, less 50% of associated legal or other third-party fees paid post-completion of the sale of the Vodafone Disposal Group. Any amount we may recover related to this matter will not be reflected in our consolidated financial statements until such time as the final disposition of this matter has been reached. Belgium Regulatory Developments. In June 2018, the Belgisch Instituut voor Post en Telecommunicatie and the regional regulators for the media sectors (together, the Belgium Regulatory Authorities ) adopted a new decision finding that Telenet has significant market power in the wholesale broadband market (the 2018 Decision ). The 2018 Decision imposes on Telenet the obligations to (i) provide third-party operators with access to the digital television platform (including basic digital video and analog video) and (ii) make available to third-party operators a bitstream offer of broadband internet access (including fixed-line telephony as an option). Unlike prior decisions, the 2018 Decision no longer applies “retail minus” pricing on Telenet; however, as of August 1, 2018, this decision imposed a 17% interim price reduction in monthly wholesale cable access prices. On July 5, 2019, the Belgium Regulatory Authorities published for consultation a draft decision regarding “reasonable access tariffs” that would replace the interim prices. On May 26, 2020, the Belgium Regulatory Authorities adopted a final decision regarding the “reasonable access tariffs” (the 2020 Decision ) that represents, for example, a decrease of 11.5% as compared to the interim rates for a 100 Mbps offer combined with TV. These rates are expected to evolve over time due to, among other reasons, broadband capacity usage. The 2020 Decision became effective on July 1, 2020. The 2020 Decision aims to, and in its application may, strengthen Telenet’s competitors by granting them resale access to Telenet’s network to offer competing products and services notwithstanding Telenet’s substantial historical financial outlays in developing the infrastructure. In addition, any resale access granted to competitors could (i) limit the bandwidth available to Telenet to provide new or expanded products and services to the customers served by its network and (ii) adversely impact Telenet’s ability to maintain or increase its revenue and cash flows. The extent of any such adverse impacts ultimately will be dependent on the extent that competitors take advantage of the resale access afforded to Telenet’s network, the rates that Telenet receives for such access and other competitive factors or market developments. Telenet considers the 2018 Decision to be inconsistent with the principle of technology-neutral regulation and the European Single Market Strategy to stimulate further investments in broadband networks. Telenet challenged the 2018 Decision in the Court of Appeal of Brussels and also initiated an action in the European Court of Justice against the European Commission’s decision not to challenge the 2018 Decision. The proceedings before the European Court of Justice have been withdrawn by Telenet in order to avoid undue delays in the Court of Appeal case. In a decision issued on September 4, 2019, the Court of Appeal of Brussels upheld the 2018 Decision. UPC Austria Matter. On July 31 2018, we completed the sale of our Austrian operations, “ UPC Austria ,” to Deutsche Telekom AG ( Deutsche Telekom ). In October 2019, we received notification under the terms of the relevant acquisition agreements from Deutsche Telekom and its subsidiary, T-Mobile Austria Holding GmbH, (together, the UPC Austria Sale Counterparties ), asserting claims of €70.5 million ($78.1 million). The value of the amounts claimed by the UPC Austria Sale Counterparties has since increased to €126.3 million ($140.0 million), plus interest. No amounts have been accrued by our company with respect to this matter as the likelihood of loss is not considered to be probable at this stage. We are unable to provide any meaningful estimate of a possible range of loss because, among other reasons, (i) we believe the assertions are unsupported and/or exaggerated and (ii) there are significant factual matters to be resolved. We intend to vigorously defend this matter. Other Contingency Matters. In connection with the dispositions of certain of our operations, we provided tax indemnities to the counterparties for certain tax liabilities that could arise from the period we owned the respective operations, subject to certain thresholds. While we have not received notification from the counterparties for indemnification, it is reasonably possible that we could, and the amounts involved could be significant. No amounts have been accrued by our company as the likelihood of any loss is not considered to be probable. Further, Liberty Global may be entitled to certain amounts that our disposed operations may recover from taxing authorities. Any such amounts will not be reflected in our consolidated financial statements until such time as the final disposition of such matters has been reached. Other Regulatory Matters. Video distribution, broadband internet, fixed-line telephony, mobile and content businesses are regulated in each of the countries in which we or our affiliates operate. The scope of regulation varies from country to country, although in some significant respects regulation in European markets is harmonized under the regulatory structure of the European Union ( E.U. ). Adverse regulatory developments could subject our businesses to a number of risks. Regulation, including conditions imposed on us by competition or other authorities as a requirement to close acquisitions or dispositions, could limit growth, revenue and the number and types of services offered and could lead to increased operating costs and property and equipment additions. Regulation may also restrict our operations and subject them to further competitive pressure, including pricing restrictions, interconnect and other access obligations, and restrictions or controls on content, including content provided by third parties. Failure to comply with current or future regulation could expose our businesses to various penalties. |
