LITIGATION AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LITIGATION AND CONTINGENCIES	LITIGATION AND CONTINGENCIES The Company is presently involved in various judicial, administrative, regulatory and arbitration proceedings concerning matters arising in the ordinary course of business operations, including but not limited to, personal injury claims, landlord-tenant, antitrust, vendor and other third party disputes, tax disputes, employment and other contractual matters, some of which are described below. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. The Company's theatre operations are also subject to federal, state and local laws governing such matters as wages, working conditions, citizenship and health and sanitation and environmental protection requirements. On October 9, 2012, staff at the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board (the "Regional Board") notified United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. (“UATC”), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, that the Regional Board was contemplating issuing a cleanup and abatement order to UATC with respect to a property in Santa Clara, California that UATC owned and then leased during the 1960s and 1970s. On June 25, 2013, the Regional Board issued a tentative order to UATC setting out proposed site clean-up requirements for UATC with respect to the property. According to the Regional Board, the property in question has been contaminated by dry-cleaning facilities that operated at the property in question from approximately 1961 until 1996. The Regional Board also issued a tentative order to the current property owner, who has been conducting site investigation and remediation activities at the site for several years. UATC submitted comments to the Regional Board on July 28, 2013, objecting to the tentative order. The Regional Board considered the matter at its regular meeting on September 11, 2013 and adopted the tentative order with only minor changes. On October 11, 2013, UATC filed a petition with the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”) for review of the Regional Board’s order. The State Board failed to act on the petition and hence by operation of law it was deemed denied and UATC filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the California Superior Court seeking review and modification of the order. UATC is cooperating with the Regional Board while its petition remains pending before the State Board. To that end, UATC and the current property owner jointly submitted, and on October 27, 2015, the Regional Board approved, a Remedial Action Plan (“RAP”) to remediate the dry-cleaner contamination. UATC intends to vigorously defend this matter. We believe that we are, and were during the period in question described in this paragraph, in compliance with such applicable laws and regulations. On May 5, 2014, NCM, Inc. announced that it had entered into a merger agreement to acquire Screenvision. On November 3, 2014, the DOJ filed an antitrust lawsuit seeking to enjoin the proposed merger between NCM, Inc. and Screenvision. On March 16, 2015, NCM, Inc. announced that it had agreed with Screenvision to terminate the merger agreement. On March 17, 2015, the Company was notified by the DOJ that it has opened an investigation into potential anticompetitive conduct by and coordination among NCM, Inc., National CineMedia, Regal, AMC and Cinemark (the “DOJ Notice”). In addition, the DOJ Notice requested that the Company preserve all documents and information since January 1, 2011 relating to movie clearances or communications or cooperation between and among AMC, Regal and Cinemark or their participation in NCM. On May 28, 2015, the Company received a civil investigative demand (the “CID”) from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, as part of an investigation into potentially anticompetitive conduct under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 and § 2. The Company has also received investigative demands from the antitrust sections of various state attorneys general regarding movie clearances and Regal's various joint venture investments, including National CineMedia. The CID and various state investigative demands require the Company to produce documents and answer interrogatories. The Company may receive additional investigative demands from the DOJ and state attorneys general regarding these or related matters. The Company intends to cooperate with these investigations and any other related Federal or state investigations to the extent any are undertaken. The DOJ and various state investigations may also give rise to additional lawsuits filed against the Company related to clearances and the Company’s investments in its various joint ventures. While we do not believe that the Company has engaged in any violation of Federal or state antitrust or competition laws during its participation in NCM and other joint ventures, we can provide no assurances as to the scope, timing or outcome of the DOJ’s or any other state or Federal governmental reviews of the Company’s conduct. On June 17, 2014, Starlight Cinemas, Inc. ("Starlight") filed a complaint and demand for jury trial in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District against Regal alleging various violations by Regal of California antitrust and unfair competition laws and common law. On July 14, 2014, Regal removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Starlight alleges, among other things, that Regal has adversely affected Starlight's ability to exhibit first-run, feature-length motion pictures at its Corona, California theatre. Starlight is seeking, among other things, compensatory, treble and punitive damages and equitable relief enjoining Regal from engaging in future anticompetitive conduct. Regal filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the motion on October 23, 2014. Starlight’s subsequent attempts to file an amended complaint were struck and denied. On February 5, 2015, Starlight filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The parties’ briefing of the case is complete, and oral argument has not yet been scheduled. Starlight also filed a Motion for Summary Reversal, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on October 8, 2015. Management believes that the allegations and claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against Starlight's claims through the appellate process. On July 23, 2015, Regal accepted service of a complaint filed by Cinema Village, Cinemart (“Cinemart”), which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Cinemart filed an amended complaint on October 20, 2015. Cinemart alleges among other things, that as a result of a clearance, the Company adversely affected the plaintiff’s ability to exhibit first-run, feature-length motion pictures at its Forest Hills, New York theatre. Cinemart is seeking, among other things, compensatory, treble and punitive damages and equitable relief enjoining the Company from engaging in future anticompetitive conduct. On December 18, 2015 the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The parties’ completed their briefing on the motion on February 1, 2016, and oral arguments have not yet been scheduled. Management believes that the allegations and claims are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the Company against the claims. On November 17, 2015, iPic-Gold Class Entertainment LLC (“iPic”) filed a petition in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. iPic filed an amended petition on December 4, 2015, that claims, among other things, that the Company adversely affected the plaintiff’s ability to exhibit first-run motion pictures at its theatre in Houston, Texas. The petition also names AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., AMC Entertainment, Inc., and American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (together “AMC”) and alleges that the Company and AMC conspired together to coordinate their respective positions with distributors regarding the distribution of film to iPic’s theatre in Houston, and a proposed iPic theatre in Frisco, Texas. iPic is seeking under Texas antitrust law and common law, among other things, actual and treble damages and equitable relief enjoining the Company from engaging in future anticompetitive conduct. On January 21, 2016, after an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered a Temporary Injunction Order (“TIO”) which prohibits the Company from (i) requesting that movie studios grant it exclusive film licenses that would exclude iPic from licensing the same film at its Houston theatre; (ii) indicating to a studio that it will not play a film at any of its theatres if the studio licenses the film to the iPic’s Houston theatre; and (iii) communicating with AMC or coordinating their respective communications with any studio, with regard to preventing iPic from receiving licenses to first run films to exhibit at the iPic’s Houston theatre. On February 4, 2016 Regal filed a notice of appeal regarding the TIO, which has been assigned to the Texas First Court of Appeals. A trial in the District Court has been scheduled for October, 2016. Management believes that the allegations and claims are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the Company. On January 27, 2016, Silver Cinemas Acquisition Co., doing business as Landmark Theatres (“Landmark”), filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Landmark alleges, among other things, that Regal has adversely affected Landmark’s ability to license mainstream commercial first run films at its Atlantic Plumbing Cinema in Washington D.C., and that Regal has violated federal and District of Columbia antitrust laws and tortious interference law. Landmark is seeking, among other things, compensatory, treble and punitive damages and equitable relief enjoining Regal from engaging in future anticompetitive conduct. Management believes that the allegations and claims are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the Company against the claims. In situations where management believes that a loss arising from proceedings described herein is probable and can reasonably be estimated, the Company records the amount of the loss, or the minimum estimated liability when the loss is estimated using a range and no amount within the range is more probable than another. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these proceedings is assessed and the estimates are revised, if necessary. The amounts reserved for such proceedings totaled approximately $4.0 million as of December 31, 2015. Management believes any additional liability with respect to these claims and disputes will not be material in the aggregate to the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Under ASC Topic 450, Contingencies—Loss Contingencies, an event is "reasonably possible" if "the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely" and an event is "remote" if "the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight." Thus, references to the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss for cases in which the Company is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss mean the upper end of the range of loss for cases for which the Company believes the risk of loss is more than slight. Management is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for cases described herein in which damages have not been specified and (i) the proceedings are in early stages, (ii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, (iv) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (v) there are novel legal issues presented. However, for these cases, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. Our theatres must comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA") to the extent that such properties are "public accommodations" and/or "commercial facilities" as defined by the ADA. Compliance with the ADA requires that public accommodations "reasonably accommodate" individuals with disabilities and that new construction or alterations made to "commercial facilities" conform to accessibility guidelines unless "structurally impracticable" for new construction or technically infeasible for alterations. Non-compliance with the ADA could result in the imposition of injunctive relief, fines, awards of damages to private litigants and additional capital expenditures to remedy such non-compliance. In prior years, private litigants and the DOJ had filed claims against the Company alleging that a number of theatres with stadium seating violated the ADA because these theatres allegedly failed to provide wheelchair-bound patrons with lines of sight comparable to those available to other members of the general public and denied persons in wheelchairs access to the stadium portion of the theatres. On June 8, 2005, Regal reached an agreement with the DOJ resolving and dismissing the private litigants’ claims and all claims made by the United States under the ADA. On December 9, 2010, the parties renewed the Consent Decree for another three year term. On or about February 5, 2014 the Company filed its final compliance report and fulfilled all of its obligations under the Consent Decree. From time to time, the Company receives claims that the stadium seating offered by theatres allegedly violates the ADA. In these instances, the Company seeks to resolve or dismiss these claims based on the terms of the DOJ settlement or under applicable ADA standards. The accessibility of theatres to persons with visual impairments or that are deaf or hard of hearing remains a topic of interest to the DOJ and they have published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the provision of closed captioning and descriptive audio within the theatre environment. The Company believes it provides the members of the visually and hearing impaired communities with reasonable access to the movie-going experience, and has deployed new digital captioning and descriptive video systems that should meet all such potential requirements or expectations of any federal, state or individual concerns. The Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with all current applicable regulations relating to accommodations for the disabled. The Company intends to comply with future regulations in this regard and except as set forth above, does not currently anticipate that compliance will require the Company to expend substantial funds. The Company has entered into employment contracts (the "employment contracts"), with four of its current executive officers, Ms. Miles and Messrs. Dunn, Ownby, and Brandow, to whom we refer as the "executive" or "executives." Under each of the employment contracts, the Company must indemnify each executive from and against all liabilities with respect to such executive's service as an officer, and as a director, to the extent applicable. In addition, under the employment contracts, each executive is entitled to severance payments in connection with the termination by the Company of the executive without cause, the termination by the executive for good reason, or the termination of the executive, under circumstances in connection with a change in control of the Company (as defined within each employment contract). Pursuant to each employment contract, the Company provides for severance payments if the Company terminates an executive's employment without cause or if an executive terminates his or her employment for good reason; provided, however, such executive must provide written notification to the Company of the existence of a condition constituting good reason within 90 days of the initial existence of such condition and the resignation must occur within two (2) years of such existence date. Under these circumstances, the executive shall be entitled to receive severance payments equal to (i) the actual bonus, pro-rated to the date of termination, that executive would have received with respect to the fiscal year in which the termination occurs; (ii) two times the executive's annual base salary plus one times the executive's target bonus; and (iii) continued coverage under any medical, health and life insurance plans for a 24-month period following the date of termination. If the Company terminates any executive's employment, or if any executive resigns for good reason, within three (3)months prior to, or one (1) year after, a change of control of the Company (as defined within each employment contract), the executive shall be entitled to receive severance payments equal to: (i) the actual bonus, pro-rated to the date of termination, that executive would have received with respect to the fiscal year in which the termination occurs; and (ii)(a) in the case of Ms. Miles, two and one-half times the executive's annual base salary plus two times the executive's target bonus; and (b) in the case of Messrs. Dunn, Ownby, and Brandow, two times the executive's annual salary plus one and one-half times the executive's target bonus; and (iii) continued coverage under any medical, health and life insurance plans for a 30-month period following the date of termination. Pursuant to the employment contracts, the maximum amount of payments and benefits payable to Ms. Miles and Messrs. Dunn, Ownby and Brandow, in the aggregate, if such executives were terminated (in the event of a change of control) would be approximately $12.6 million. Each employment contract contains standard provisions for non-competition and non-solicitation of the Company's employees (other than the executive's secretary or other administrative employee who worked directly for executive) that are effective during the term of the executive's employment and shall continue for a period of one year following the executive's termination of employment with the Company. Each Executive is also subject to a permanent covenant to maintain confidentiality of the Company's confidential information.

LITIGATION AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company is presently involved in various judicial, administrative, regulatory and arbitration proceedings concerning matters arising in the ordinary course of business operations, including but not limited to, personal injury claims, landlord-tenant, antitrust, vendor and other third party disputes, tax disputes, employment and other contractual matters, some of which are described below. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. The Company's theatre operations are also subject to federal, state and local laws governing such matters as wages, working conditions, citizenship and health and sanitation and environmental protection requirements.

On October 9, 2012, staff at the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board (the "Regional Board") notified United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. (“UATC”), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, that the Regional Board was contemplating issuing a cleanup and abatement order to UATC with respect to a property in Santa Clara, California that UATC owned and then leased during the 1960s and 1970s. On June 25, 2013, the Regional Board issued a tentative order to UATC setting out proposed site clean-up requirements for UATC with respect to the property. According to the Regional Board, the property in question has been contaminated by dry-cleaning facilities that operated at the property in question from approximately 1961 until 1996. The Regional Board also issued a tentative order to the current property owner, who has been conducting site investigation and remediation activities at the site for several years. UATC submitted comments to the Regional Board on July 28, 2013, objecting to the tentative order. The Regional Board considered the matter at its regular meeting on September 11, 2013 and adopted the tentative order with only minor changes. On October 11, 2013, UATC filed a petition with the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”) for review of the Regional Board’s order. The State Board failed to act on the petition and hence by operation of law it was deemed denied and UATC filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the California Superior Court seeking review and modification of the order. UATC is cooperating with the Regional Board while its petition remains pending before the State Board. To that end, UATC and the current property owner jointly submitted, and on October 27, 2015, the Regional Board approved, a Remedial Action Plan (“RAP”) to remediate the dry-cleaner contamination. UATC intends to vigorously defend this matter. We believe that we are, and were during the period in question described in this paragraph, in compliance with such applicable laws and regulations.

On May 5, 2014, NCM, Inc. announced that it had entered into a merger agreement to acquire Screenvision. On November 3, 2014, the DOJ filed an antitrust lawsuit seeking to enjoin the proposed merger between NCM, Inc. and Screenvision. On March 16, 2015, NCM, Inc. announced that it had agreed with Screenvision to terminate the merger agreement. On March 17, 2015, the Company was notified by the DOJ that it has opened an investigation into potential anticompetitive conduct by and coordination among NCM, Inc., National CineMedia, Regal, AMC and Cinemark (the “DOJ Notice”). In addition, the DOJ Notice requested that the Company preserve all documents and information since January 1, 2011 relating to movie clearances or communications or cooperation between and among AMC, Regal and Cinemark or their participation in NCM. On May 28, 2015, the Company received a civil investigative demand (the “CID”) from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, as part of an investigation into potentially anticompetitive conduct under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 and § 2. The Company has also received investigative demands from the antitrust sections of various state attorneys general regarding movie clearances and Regal's various joint venture investments, including National CineMedia. The CID and various state investigative demands require the Company to produce documents and answer interrogatories. The Company may receive additional investigative demands from the DOJ and state attorneys general regarding these or related matters. The Company intends to cooperate with these investigations and any other related Federal or state investigations to the extent any are undertaken. The DOJ and various state investigations may also give rise to additional lawsuits filed against the Company related to clearances and the Company’s investments in its various joint ventures. While we do not believe that the Company has engaged in any violation of Federal or state antitrust or competition laws during its participation in NCM and other joint ventures, we can provide no assurances as to the scope, timing or outcome of the DOJ’s or any other state or Federal governmental reviews of the Company’s conduct.

On June 17, 2014, Starlight Cinemas, Inc. ("Starlight") filed a complaint and demand for jury trial in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District against Regal alleging various violations by Regal of California antitrust and unfair competition laws and common law. On July 14, 2014, Regal removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Starlight alleges, among other things, that Regal has adversely affected Starlight's ability to exhibit first-run, feature-length motion pictures at its Corona, California theatre. Starlight is seeking, among other things, compensatory, treble and punitive damages and equitable relief enjoining Regal from engaging in future anticompetitive conduct. Regal filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the motion on October 23, 2014. Starlight’s subsequent attempts to file an amended complaint were struck and denied. On February 5, 2015, Starlight filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The parties’ briefing of the case is complete, and oral argument has not yet been scheduled. Starlight also filed a Motion for Summary Reversal, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on October 8, 2015. Management believes that the allegations and claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against Starlight's claims through the appellate process.

On July 23, 2015, Regal accepted service of a complaint filed by Cinema Village, Cinemart (“Cinemart”), which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Cinemart filed an amended complaint on October 20, 2015. Cinemart alleges among other things, that as a result of a clearance, the Company adversely affected the plaintiff’s ability to exhibit first-run, feature-length motion pictures at its Forest Hills, New York theatre. Cinemart is seeking, among other things, compensatory, treble and punitive damages and equitable relief enjoining the Company from engaging in future anticompetitive conduct. On December 18, 2015 the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The parties’ completed their briefing on the motion on February 1, 2016, and oral arguments have not yet been scheduled. Management believes that the allegations and claims are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the Company against the claims.

On November 17, 2015, iPic-Gold Class Entertainment LLC (“iPic”) filed a petition in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. iPic filed an amended petition on December 4, 2015, that claims, among other things, that the Company adversely affected the plaintiff’s ability to exhibit first-run motion pictures at its theatre in Houston, Texas. The petition also names AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., AMC Entertainment, Inc., and American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (together “AMC”) and alleges that the Company and AMC conspired together to coordinate their respective positions with distributors regarding the distribution of film to iPic’s theatre in Houston, and a proposed iPic theatre in Frisco, Texas. iPic is seeking under Texas antitrust law and common law, among other things, actual and treble damages and equitable relief enjoining the Company from engaging in future anticompetitive conduct. On January 21, 2016, after an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered a Temporary Injunction Order (“TIO”) which prohibits the Company from (i) requesting that movie studios grant it exclusive film licenses that would exclude iPic from licensing the same film at its Houston theatre; (ii) indicating to a studio that it will not play a film at any of its theatres if the studio licenses the film to the iPic’s Houston theatre; and (iii) communicating with AMC or coordinating their respective communications with any studio, with regard to preventing iPic from receiving licenses to first run films to exhibit at the iPic’s Houston theatre. On February 4, 2016 Regal filed a notice of appeal regarding the TIO, which has been assigned to the Texas First Court of Appeals. A trial in the District Court has been scheduled for October, 2016. Management believes that the allegations and claims are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the Company.

On January 27, 2016, Silver Cinemas Acquisition Co., doing business as Landmark Theatres (“Landmark”), filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Landmark alleges, among other things, that Regal has adversely affected Landmark’s ability to license mainstream commercial first run films at its Atlantic Plumbing Cinema in Washington D.C., and that Regal has violated federal and District of Columbia antitrust laws and tortious interference law. Landmark is seeking, among other things, compensatory, treble and punitive damages and equitable relief enjoining Regal from engaging in future anticompetitive conduct. Management believes that the allegations and claims are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the Company against the claims.

In situations where management believes that a loss arising from proceedings described herein is probable and can reasonably be estimated, the Company records the amount of the loss, or the minimum estimated liability when the loss is estimated using a range and no amount within the range is more probable than another. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these proceedings is assessed and the estimates are revised, if necessary. The amounts reserved for such proceedings totaled approximately $4.0 million as of December 31, 2015. Management believes any additional liability with respect to these claims and disputes will not be material in the aggregate to the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Under ASC Topic 450, Contingencies—Loss Contingencies, an event is "reasonably possible" if "the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely" and an event is "remote" if "the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight." Thus, references to the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss for cases in which the Company is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss mean the upper end of the range of loss for cases for which the Company believes the risk of loss is more than slight. Management is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for cases described herein in which damages have not been specified and (i) the proceedings are in early stages, (ii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, (iv) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (v) there are novel legal issues presented. However, for these cases, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

Our theatres must comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA") to the extent that such properties are "public accommodations" and/or "commercial facilities" as defined by the ADA. Compliance with the ADA requires that public accommodations "reasonably accommodate" individuals with disabilities and that new construction or alterations made to "commercial facilities" conform to accessibility guidelines unless "structurally impracticable" for new construction or technically infeasible for alterations. Non-compliance with the ADA could result in the imposition of injunctive relief, fines, awards of damages to private litigants and additional capital expenditures to remedy such non-compliance.

In prior years, private litigants and the DOJ had filed claims against the Company alleging that a number of theatres with stadium seating violated the ADA because these theatres allegedly failed to provide wheelchair-bound patrons with lines of sight comparable to those available to other members of the general public and denied persons in wheelchairs access to the stadium portion of the theatres. On June 8, 2005, Regal reached an agreement with the DOJ resolving and dismissing the private litigants’ claims and all claims made by the United States under the ADA. On December 9, 2010, the parties renewed the Consent Decree for another three year term. On or about February 5, 2014 the Company filed its final compliance report and fulfilled all of its obligations under the Consent Decree. From time to time, the Company receives claims that the stadium seating offered by theatres allegedly violates the ADA. In these instances, the Company seeks to resolve or dismiss these claims based on the terms of the DOJ settlement or under applicable ADA standards.

The accessibility of theatres to persons with visual impairments or that are deaf or hard of hearing remains a topic of interest to the DOJ and they have published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the provision of closed captioning and descriptive audio within the theatre environment. The Company believes it provides the members of the visually and hearing impaired communities with reasonable access to the movie-going experience, and has deployed new digital captioning and descriptive video systems that should meet all such potential requirements or expectations of any federal, state or individual concerns. The Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with all current applicable regulations relating to accommodations for the disabled. The Company intends to comply with future regulations in this regard and except as set forth above, does not currently anticipate that compliance will require the Company to expend substantial funds.

The Company has entered into employment contracts (the "employment contracts"), with four of its current executive officers, Ms. Miles and Messrs. Dunn, Ownby, and Brandow, to whom we refer as the "executive" or "executives." Under each of the employment contracts, the Company must indemnify each executive from and against all liabilities with respect to such executive's service as an officer, and as a director, to the extent applicable. In addition, under the employment contracts, each executive is entitled to severance payments in connection with the termination by the Company of the executive without cause, the termination by the executive for good reason, or the termination of the executive, under circumstances in connection with a change in control of the Company (as defined within each employment contract).

Pursuant to each employment contract, the Company provides for severance payments if the Company terminates an executive's employment without cause or if an executive terminates his or her employment for good reason; provided, however, such executive must provide written notification to the Company of the existence of a condition constituting good reason within 90 days of the initial existence of such condition and the resignation must occur within two (2) years of such existence date. Under these circumstances, the executive shall be entitled to receive severance payments equal to (i) the actual bonus, pro-rated to the date of termination, that executive would have received with respect to the fiscal year in which the termination occurs; (ii) two times the executive's annual base salary plus one times the executive's target bonus; and (iii) continued coverage under any medical, health and life insurance plans for a 24-month period following the date of termination.

If the Company terminates any executive's employment, or if any executive resigns for good reason, within three (3)months prior to, or one (1) year after, a change of control of the Company (as defined within each employment contract), the executive shall be entitled to receive severance payments equal to: (i) the actual bonus, pro-rated to the date of termination, that executive would have received with respect to the fiscal year in which the termination occurs; and (ii)(a) in the case of Ms. Miles, two and one-half times the executive's annual base salary plus two times the executive's target bonus; and (b) in the case of Messrs. Dunn, Ownby, and Brandow, two times the executive's annual salary plus one and one-half times the executive's target bonus; and (iii) continued coverage under any medical, health and life insurance plans for a 30-month period following the date of termination.

Pursuant to the employment contracts, the maximum amount of payments and benefits payable to Ms. Miles and Messrs. Dunn, Ownby and Brandow, in the aggregate, if such executives were terminated (in the event of a change of control) would be approximately $12.6 million.

Each employment contract contains standard provisions for non-competition and non-solicitation of the Company's employees (other than the executive's secretary or other administrative employee who worked directly for executive) that are effective during the term of the executive's employment and shall continue for a period of one year following the executive's termination of employment with the Company. Each Executive is also subject to a permanent covenant to maintain confidentiality of the Company's confidential information.