COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments We have 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. Our commitments not recorded on the Balance Sheets primarily consist of operating lease arrangements, talent commitments and purchase obligations for goods and services. Our other commitments primarily consist of debt obligations. Our commitments have not significantly varied from those disclosed within our 2015 Form 10-K. Legal Proceedings In the ordinary course of business, we are defendants in or parties to various legal claims, actions and proceedings. These claims, actions and proceedings are at varying stages of investigation, arbitration or adjudication, and involve a variety of areas of law. On March 10, 2009, Anderson News L.L.C. and Anderson Services L.L.C. (collectively, "Anderson News") filed an antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) against several magazine publishers, distributors and wholesalers, including Time Inc. and one of its subsidiaries, Time Inc. Retail (formerly Time/Warner Retail Sales & Marketing, Inc.) ("TIR"). Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by engaging in an antitrust conspiracy against Anderson News, as well as other related state law claims. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to reduce competition in the wholesale market for single-copy magazines by rejecting the magazine distribution surcharge proposed by Anderson News and another magazine wholesaler and refusing to distribute magazines to them. Plaintiffs are seeking (among other things) an unspecified award of treble monetary damages against defendants, jointly and severally. On August 2, 2010, the District Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and, on October 25, 2010, the District Court denied Anderson News' motion for reconsideration of that dismissal. On November 8, 2010, Anderson News appealed and, on April 3, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Circuit Court”) vacated the District Court's dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case to the District Court. On January 7, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied defendants' petition for writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Circuit Court vacating the District Court's dismissal of the complaint. In February 2014, Time Inc. and several other defendants amended their answers to assert antitrust counterclaims against plaintiffs. On December 19, 2014, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on Anderson News' claims and Anderson News filed a motion for summary judgment on the antitrust counterclaim. On August 20, 2015, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Anderson News’ claims and granted Anderson News’ motion for summary judgment on the defendants’ antitrust counterclaim. On August 25, 2015, Anderson News filed a notice with the Circuit Court appealing the District Court’s dismissal of Anderson News’ claims, and on September 14, 2015, the defendants filed a notice with the Circuit Court appealing the District Court’s dismissal of the defendants’ antitrust counterclaim. On December 8, 2015, Anderson News filed its appellate brief with the Circuit Court and on March 8, 2016, the defendants filed their appellate briefs with the Circuit Court. Anderson’s reply brief was filed on May 9, 2016 and the defendants’ sur-reply brief was filed on May 23, 2016. On November 14, 2011, TIR and several other magazine publishers and distributors filed a complaint in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware against Anderson Media Corporation, the parent company of Anderson News, and several Anderson News affiliates. Plaintiffs, acting on behalf of the Anderson News bankruptcy estate, seek to avoid and recover in excess of $70 million that they allege Anderson News transferred to the Anderson News-affiliated insider defendants in violation of the United States Bankruptcy Code and Delaware state law prior to the involuntary bankruptcy petition filed against Anderson News by certain of its creditors. On December 28, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On June 5, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion. On November 6, 2013, the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay barring claims against the debtor, allowing Time Inc. and others to pursue an antitrust counterclaim against Anderson News in the antitrust action brought by Anderson News in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (described above). On October 26, 2010, the Canadian Minister of National Revenue denied the claims by TIR for input tax credits in respect of goods and services tax that TIR had paid on magazines it imported into, and had displayed at retail locations in, Canada during the years 2006 to 2008, on the basis that TIR did not own those magazines, and issued Notices of Reassessment in the amount of approximately C $52 million . On January 21, 2011, TIR filed an objection to the Notices of Reassessment with the Chief of Appeals of the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA"), arguing that TIR claimed input tax credits only in respect of goods and services tax it actually paid and, regardless of whether its payment of the goods and services tax was appropriate or in error, it is entitled to a rebate for such payments. On September 13, 2013, TIR received Notices of Reassessment in the amount of C $26.9 million relating to the disallowance of input tax credits claimed by TIR for goods and services tax that TIR had paid on magazines it imported into, and had displayed at retail locations in, Canada during the years 2009 to 2010. On October 22, 2013, TIR filed an objection to the Notices of Reassessment received on September 13, 2013 with the Chief of Appeals of the CRA, asserting the same arguments made in the objection TIR filed on January 21, 2011. Beginning in 2015, the collections department of the CRA requested payment of both assessments plus accrued interest or the posting of sufficient security. In each instance, TIR responded by stating that collection should remain stayed pending resolution of the issues raised by TIR’s objection. On February 8, 2016, the Company filed an application for a remission order with the International Trade Policy Division of Finance Canada to seek relief from the assessments and the CRA’s collection efforts. On February 12, 2016, TIR filed a complaint with the Office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsman about the CRA’s failure for more than five years to rule on TIR’s objections to the reassessments. TIR requested that the Ombudsman Office recommend to the CRA that the reassessments be vacated or the CRA support TIR’s application for a remission order. On March 2, 2016, the CRA proposed that the Tax Court of Canada resolve the issue of whether TIR or the publishers are entitled to the input tax credits. On March 9, 2016, TIR agreed to the proposal and on May 6, 2016 filed a Notice of Appeal with the Tax Court of Canada of the assessments issued by the CRA. The matter remains unresolved. Including interest accrued on both reassessments, the total reassessment by the CRA for the years 2006 to 2010 was C $91.1 million as of November 30, 2015. On October 3, 2012, Susan Fox filed a class action complaint (the "Complaint") against Time Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging violations of Michigan’s Video Rental Privacy Act (“VRPA”) as well as claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The VRPA limits the ability of entities engaged in the business of selling, renting or lending retail books or other written materials from disclosing to third parties certain information about customers’ purchase, lease or rental of those materials. The Complaint alleges that Time Inc. violated the VRPA by renting to third parties lists of subscribers to various Time Inc. magazines. The Complaint sought injunctive relief and the greater of statutory damages of $5,000 per class member or actual damages. On December 3, 2012, Time Inc. moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that it failed to state claims for relief and because the named plaintiff lacked standing because she suffered no injury from the alleged conduct. On August 6, 2013, the court granted, in part, and denied, in part, Time Inc.’s motion, dismissing the breach of contract claim but allowing the VRPA and unjust enrichment claims to proceed. On November 11, 2013, Rose Coulter-Owens replaced Susan Fox as the named plaintiff. On March 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to certify a class consisting of all Michigan residents who between March 31, 2009 and November 15, 2013 purchased a subscription to TIME, Fortune or Real Simple magazines through any website other than Time.com, Fortune.com and RealSimple.com. On July 27, 2015, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to certify the class, which we estimate to comprise approximately 40,000 consumers. On August 31, 2015, Time Inc. and the plaintiff moved for summary judgment and on October 1, 2015 both parties filed briefs in opposition to their adversaries’ motions. On February 16, 2016, the court granted Time Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. On March 16, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice with the Circuit Court appealing the District Court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims. On May 26, 2016, Time Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue her claims. Plaintiff filed her opposition brief on June 23, 2016 and Time Inc. filed its reply brief on July 12, 2016. On February 19, 2016, the same law firm representing Coulter-Owens filed another class action, entitled Perlin v. Time Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging violations of the VRPA as well as a claim for unjust enrichment. This lawsuit was filed on behalf of Michigan residents who purchased subscriptions directly from Time Inc. On May 6, 2016 and May 31, 2016, Time Inc. moved to dismiss the Complaint. Perlin filed an opposition brief on June 27, 2016 and Time Inc. filed its reply brief on July 11, 2016. We intend to vigorously defend against or prosecute the matters described above. We establish an accrued liability for specific matters, such as a legal claim, when we determine both that a loss is 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. For the matters disclosed above, we do not believe that any reasonably possible loss in excess of accrued liabilities would be material to the Financial Statements as a whole. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation, claims and other matters, we often cannot predict what the eventual outcome of a pending matter will be, or what the timing or results of the ultimate resolution of a matter will be. Income Tax Uncertainties Our operations are subject to tax in various domestic and international jurisdictions and are regularly audited by federal, state and foreign tax authorities. We believe we have appropriately accrued for the expected outcome of all pending tax matters and do not currently anticipate that the ultimate resolution of pending tax matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, future results of operations or liquidity. In connection with the Spin-Off, we entered into a Tax Matters Agreement with Time Warner that may require us to indemnify Time Warner for certain tax liabilities for periods prior to the Spin-Off. |