COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

a) Programming Rights Agreements and Other Commitments

At June 30, 2013, we had total commitments of US$ 292.9 million (December 31, 2012: US$ 356.8 million) in respect of future programming, including contracts signed with license periods starting after the balance sheet date. These are presented with future minimum operating lease payments for non-cancellable operating leases with remaining terms in excess of one year (net of amounts to be recharged to third parties) and other commitments as follows:



	Programming purchase obligations		Digital transmission obligations		Operating leases		Capital expenditures
2013	$	139,823	$	29,683	$	3,248	$	4,406
2014	78,847		20,302		4,051		1,087
2015	46,716		19,614		2,080		34
2016	22,070		10,002		1,680		—
2017	5,109		9,929		1,611		—
2018 and thereafter	300		37,576		9,639		—
Total	$	292,865	$	127,106	$	22,309	$	5,527

b) Factoring of Trade Receivables

CET 21 has a CZK 830 million (approximately US$ 41.8 million) factoring framework agreement with FCS. Under this facility up to CZK 830 million (approximately US$ 41.8 million) may be factored on a recourse or non-recourse basis. As at June 30, 2013, there were CZK 166.3 million (approximately US$ 8.4 million) (December 31, 2012: CZK 132.4 million, approximately US$ 6.7 million based on June 30, 2013 rates), of receivables subject to the factoring framework agreement (see also Note 4, "Long-term Debt and Other Financing Arrangements" and Note 6, "Accounts Receivable").

c) Other

Top Tone Holdings has exercised its right to acquire additional equity in CME Bulgaria, however the closing of this transaction has not yet occurred because the purchaser financing is still pending. Upon consummation of the equity transfer, we will own 90.0% of our Bulgaria operations.

On February 14, 2013, CET 21 issued a guarantee to a third party supplier pursuant to which CET 21 will reimburse certain costs incurred by the third party, up to CZK 60 million (approximately US$ 3.0 million), in the event that the contract with that third party is terminated prior to 2018. We do not expect the contract to be terminated.

Contingencies

a) Litigation

While we are, from time to time, a party to litigation, arbitration or regulatory proceedings arising in the normal course of our business operations, we are not presently a party to any such litigation, arbitration or regulatory proceeding which could reasonably be expected to have a material effect on our business or consolidated financial statements, including proceedings described below.

Video International Termination

On March 18, 2009, Video International Company Group, CGSC (“VI”), a Russian legal entity, filed a claim in the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) against our wholly-owned subsidiary CME BV, which was, at the time the claim was filed, the principal holding company of our former Ukrainian operations. The claim relates to the termination of an agreement between VI and CME BV dated November 30, 2006 (the “parent agreement”), which was one of four related contracts by which VI subsidiaries, including LLC Video International-Prioritet (“Prioritet”), supplied advertising and marketing services to Studio 1+1 LLC (“Studio 1+1”) and certain affiliates. Following the termination of these agreements on March 24, 2009, Studio 1+1 was required to pay a termination penalty. On June 1, 2009, Studio 1+1 paid UAH 13.5 million (approximately US$ 1.6 million) to Prioritet and set off UAH 7.4 million (approximately US$ 0.9 million) against amounts owing to Studio 1+1 under the advertising and marketing services agreements. In its LCIA claim, VI sought payment of a separate indemnity from CME BV under the parent agreement of US$ 58.5 million. On September 30, 2010, a partial award was issued in the arbitration proceedings, pursuant to which VI’s claim for relief in the amount of US$ 58.5 million was dismissed. The partial award does permit VI to bring a subsequent claim against CME BV as parent guarantor in the event that VI establishes that it is entitled to certain additional compensation under the advertising and marketing services agreements with Studio 1+1 and that such compensation is not satisfied by Studio 1+1. On July 13, 2011, Prioritet filed claims against Studio 1+1 in the Commercial Court of Kiev relating to alleged violations of the advertising services agreement and marketing services agreement and sought relief of approximately UAH 201.0 million (approximately US$ 24.5 million). On September 23, 2011, the Commercial Court of Kiev dismissed Prioritet's claims. On November 7, 2011, the Commercial Court of Appeal of Kiev dismissed an appeal by Prioritet of the lower court's decision. On December 13, 2011, the Superior Commercial Court of Ukraine dismissed an appeal of Prioritet following the decision of the appellate court. On June 5, 2012, the Superior Commercial Court of Ukraine denied Prioritet's request to appeal to the Supreme Court of Ukraine. On June 18, 2012, Prioritet filed a claim against Studio 1+1 in the Commercial Court of Kiev that alleges violations of one of the advertising and marketing services agreements and seeks relief of approximately UAH 42.3 million (approximately US$ 5.2 million). On September 7, 2012, the Commercial Court of Kiev dismissed Prioritet's claims. On October 31, 2012, the Commercial Court of Appeal of Kiev dismissed Prioritet's appeal of the lower court's decision. On March 26, 2013, the Superior Commercial Court of Ukraine denied an appeal by Prioritet following the decision of the appellate court. In addition, on September 28, 2012, VI filed a further claim in the LCIA against CME BV, alleging CME BV owes approximately US$ 4.0 million under the partial award as an indemnity payment VI claims Prioritet is owed from Studio 1+1 in connection with the termination of the advertising and marketing services agreements between Studio 1+1 and Prioritet. On May 15, 2013, a final award was issued in the arbitration proceedings, pursuant to which VI's claim of approximately US$ 4.0 million was dismissed. This award is not subject to appeal.

Slovenian Competition Proceeding

On April 26, 2013 the Competition Protection Agency of the Republic of Slovenia (“CPA”) adopted a decision finding that our wholly-owned subsidiary Produkcija Plus d.o.o. (“Pro Plus”) has abused a dominant position on the Slovenian television advertising market in breach of applicable competition law, by requiring exclusivity from its advertising customers and by applying loyalty discounts in favor of its customers. Pro Plus intends vigorously to contest the decision and filed an appeal with the Slovenian Supreme Court on May 24, 2013. To date, the CPA has not imposed any fine on Pro Plus. The CPA would need to commence a separate proceeding in order to impose a fine, and any fine that may be imposed would be subject to a statutory maximum of ten percent of Pro Plus' annual turnover in the business year preceding the year in which a fine is imposed. No such proceedings have been commenced, and Pro Plus is currently unable to estimate the timing of any such proceeding. Pro Plus is also unable to estimate the size of any potential future fine.

b) Restrictions on dividends from Consolidated Subsidiaries and Unconsolidated Affiliates

Corporate law in the Central and Eastern European countries in which we have operations stipulates generally that dividends may be declared by shareholders, out of yearly profits, subject to the maintenance of registered capital and required reserves after the recovery of accumulated losses. The reserve requirement restriction generally provides that before dividends may be distributed, a portion of annual net profits (typically 5.0%) be allocated to a reserve, which reserve is capped at a proportion of the registered capital of a company (ranging from 5.0% to 25.0%). The restricted net assets of our consolidated subsidiaries and equity in earnings of investments accounted for under the equity method together are less than 25.0% of consolidated net assets.