Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 9. 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. Other than as previously disclosed in these notes to the Company’s Financial Statements, the Company’s commitments have not changed significantly from the disclosures included in the 2013 Form 10-K. *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 settlements 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 that are not expected to provide a benefit in future periods 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, alleging that false and misleading statements were issued regarding alleged acts of voicemail interception at The News of the World. The suit named as defendants 21st Century Fox, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and sought compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained and costs. On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon Pension Fund (“Avon”) as lead plaintiff in the litigation and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court issued an order providing that an amended consolidated complaint was to be filed by July 31, 2012. 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 include February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. Defendants have filed their motions to dismiss, which are pending. 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, including the Wilder Litigation. In addition, U.K. and U.S. regulators and governmental authorities continue to conduct investigations initiated in 2011 with respect to the U.K. Newspaper Matters. The investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) is directed at conduct that occurred within 21st Century Fox prior to the creation of the Company. Accordingly, 21st Century Fox has been and continues to be responsible for responding to the DOJ investigation. The Company, together with 21st Century Fox, is cooperating with these investigations. The Company has admitted liability in many civil cases related to the voicemail interception allegations and has settled many cases. The Company also announced a private compensation scheme under which parties could pursue claims against it. While additional civil lawsuits may be filed, no additional civil claims may be brought under the compensation scheme after April 8, 2013. In connection with the Separation, 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 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. In addition, violations of law may result in criminal fines or penalties for which the Company will not be indemnified by 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 $40 million and $61 million during the three months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, 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 September 30, 2013, the Company has been or will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox for $23 million, net of tax, pursuant to the indemnification arrangements described above. Accordingly, the Company recorded a contra expense for the after-tax costs that were or will be indemnified of $23 million in Selling, general and administrative expenses and recorded a corresponding receivable from 21st Century Fox. Therefore, the net impact on Selling, general and administrative expenses was $17 million for the three months ended September 30, 2013. As of September 30, 2013, the Company has provided for its best estimate of the liability for the claims that have been filed and costs incurred and has accrued approximately $78 million, of which $53 million will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox and a corresponding receivable was recorded in Amounts due to 21st Century Fox, net on the Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2013. 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 or criminal matters. It is possible that these proceedings and any adverse resolution thereof, including any fines or other penalties associated with any plea, judgment or similar result for which the Company will not be indemnified, could damage its reputation, impair its ability to conduct its business and adversely affect its results of operations and financial condition. HarperCollins Commencing on August 9, 2011, twenty-nine purported consumer class actions were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and for the Northern District of California, which relate to the decisions by certain publishers, including HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. (“HarperCollins”), to begin selling their e-books pursuant to an agency relationship. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the various class actions to the Honorable Denise L. Cote in the Southern District of New York. On January 20, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, again alleging that certain named defendants, including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust and unfair competition laws by virtue of the switch to the agency model for e-books. The actions sought as relief treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. On June 21, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement with HarperCollins, among others, for a class of consumers residing in Minnesota, which is the only state that did not sign onto the settlement agreement with the Attorneys General discussed below, approval of which bars consumers in the other states and territories from participating in these class actions. On August 5, 2013, Judge Cote granted preliminary approval of the Minnesota consumer settlement. While the settlement agreement is still subject to final approval by the court, the Company believes that the proposed settlement will not have a material impact on the results of operations or the financial position of the Company. However, the Company can make no assurances that the proposed settlement will receive final approval. Additional information about In re MDL Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 11-md-02293 (DLC), can be found on Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER). Following an investigation, on April 11, 2012, the DOJ filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain publishers, including HarperCollins, and Apple, Inc. The DOJ’s complaint alleged antitrust violations relating to defendants’ decisions to begin selling e-books pursuant to an agency relationship. The case was assigned to Judge Cote. Simultaneously, the DOJ announced that it had reached a proposed settlement with three publishers, including HarperCollins, and filed a Proposed Final Judgment and related materials detailing that agreement. Among other things, the Proposed Final Judgment required that HarperCollins terminate its agreements with certain eBook retailers and placed certain restrictions on any agreements subsequently entered into with such retailers. On September 5, 2012, Judge Cote entered the Final Judgment. Additional information about the Final Judgment can be found on the DOJ’s website. Following an investigation, on April 11, 2012, 16 state Attorneys General led by Texas and Connecticut (the “AGs”) filed a similar action against certain publishers and Apple, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. On April 26, 2012, the AGs’ action was transferred to Judge Cote. On May 17, 2012, 33 AGs filed a second amended complaint. As a result of a memorandum of understanding agreed upon with the AGs for Texas and Connecticut, HarperCollins was not named as a defendant in this action. Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of understanding, HarperCollins entered into a settlement agreement with the AGs for Texas, Connecticut and Ohio on June 11, 2012. By August 28, 2012, 49 states (all but Minnesota) and five U.S. territories had signed on to that settlement agreement. On August 29, 2012, the AGs simultaneously filed a complaint against HarperCollins and two other publishers, a motion for preliminary approval of that settlement agreement and a proposed distribution plan. On September 14, 2012, Judge Cote granted the AGs’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and approved the AGs’ proposed distribution plan. Notice was subsequently sent to potential class members, and a fairness hearing took place on February 8, 2013 at which Judge Cote gave final approval to the settlement. The settlement is now effective, and the final judgment bars consumers from states and territories covered by the settlement from participating in the class actions. On October 12, 2012, HarperCollins received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Attorney General from the State of Minnesota (the “Minnesota AG”). HarperCollins complied with the Demand on November 16, 2012. On June 26, 2013, the Minnesota AG filed a petition for an order approving an assurance of discontinuance in the Second Judicial District Court for the State of Minnesota, wherein Minnesota agreed to cease its investigation and not seek further legal remedies relating to or arising from the alleged conduct. On June 28, 2013, Judge Gary Bastion signed an order approving the discontinuance. The European Commission conducted an investigation into whether certain companies in the book publishing and distribution industry, including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust laws by virtue of the switch to the agency model for e-books. HarperCollins settled the matter with the European Commission on terms substantially similar to the settlement with the DOJ. On December 13, 2012, the European Commission formally adopted the settlement. Commencing on February 24, 2012, five purported consumer class actions were filed in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario, which relate to the decisions by certain publishers, including HarperCollins, to begin selling their e-books in Canada pursuant to an agency relationship. The actions seek as relief special, general and punitive damages, injunctive relief and the costs of the litigations. While it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of these class actions, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust and competition laws and intends to defend itself vigorously. In July 2012, HarperCollins Canada, a wholly-owned subsidiary of HarperCollins, learned that the Canadian Competition Bureau (“CCB”) had commenced an inquiry regarding the sale of e-books in Canada. HarperCollins currently is cooperating with the CCB with respect to its inquiry. While it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of the inquiry, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust and competition laws. On February 15, 2013, a purported class of independent bricks-and-mortar bookstores filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled The Book House of Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc, et. al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et. al., which relates to the digital rights management protection (“DRM”) of certain publishers’, including HarperCollins’, e-books being sold by Amazon.com, Inc. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on March 21, 2013. The case involves allegations that certain named defendants in the book publishing and distribution industry, including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust laws by virtue of requiring DRM protection. The action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. On April 1, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court heard oral argument on Defendants’ motion to dismiss on April 25, 2013. Additional information about The Book House Of Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc. et. al. v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et. al., Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01111-JSR, can be found on PACER. While it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this class action, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust laws and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved HarperCollins matters described above. During the fiscal years ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, the legal and professional fees and settlement costs incurred in connection with these matters were not material, and as of September 30, 2013, the Company did not have a material accrual related to these matters. Other On August 16, 2013, in connection with a pending action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in which The Dial Corporation, H.J. Heinz Company and Foster Poultry Farms (with Foster Poultry Farms as proposed class representative on behalf of putative classes of purchasers) alleged various claims under federal and state antitrust law against News Corporation, News America Incorporated, News America Marketing FSI L.L.C., and News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C. (together, the “NAM Group”), plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, with plaintiffs 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, BEF Foods, Inc., and Spectrum Brands, Inc. asserting the same federal and state antitrust claims both individually and on behalf of the two putative classes in connection with plaintiffs’ purchase of in-store marketing services and free-standing insert (“FSI”) coupons. The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. On September 24, 2013, the NAM Group’s motion to transfer the action to the Southern District of New York was granted by the district court judge. On October 24, 2013, on consent of the parties, plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint. In a parallel action, News America Marketing FSI L.L.C. and News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against The Dial Corporation, H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company L.P. and Foster Poultry Farms, seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs did not violate federal or state antitrust laws and for damages for breach of contract. On August 28, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On October 21, 2013, on consent of the parties, the court issued an order staying the declaratory judgment action until January 20, 2014. 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 was compliant with applicable antitrust laws and intends to defend itself vigorously. 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 are or 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. The Tax Sharing and Indemnification Agreement 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.

NOTE 9. 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. Other than as previously disclosed in these notes to the Company’s Financial Statements, the Company’s commitments have not changed significantly from the disclosures included in the 2013 Form 10-K.

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 settlements 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 that are not expected to provide a benefit in future periods 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, alleging that false and misleading statements were issued regarding alleged acts of voicemail interception at The News of the World. The suit named as defendants 21st Century Fox, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and sought compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained and costs.

On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon Pension Fund (“Avon”) as lead plaintiff in the litigation and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court issued an order providing that an amended consolidated complaint was to be filed by July 31, 2012. 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 include February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. Defendants have filed their motions to dismiss, which are pending. 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, including the Wilder Litigation.

In addition, U.K. and U.S. regulators and governmental authorities continue to conduct investigations initiated in 2011 with respect to the U.K. Newspaper Matters. The investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) is directed at conduct that occurred within 21st Century Fox prior to the creation of the Company. Accordingly, 21st Century Fox has been and continues to be responsible for responding to the DOJ investigation. The Company, together with 21st Century Fox, is cooperating with these investigations.

The Company has admitted liability in many civil cases related to the voicemail interception allegations and has settled many cases. The Company also announced a private compensation scheme under which parties could pursue claims against it. While additional civil lawsuits may be filed, no additional civil claims may be brought under the compensation scheme after April 8, 2013.

In connection with the Separation, 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 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. In addition, violations of law may result in criminal fines or penalties for which the Company will not be indemnified by 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 $40 million and $61 million during the three months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, 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 September 30, 2013, the Company has been or will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox for $23 million, net of tax, pursuant to the indemnification arrangements described above. Accordingly, the Company recorded a contra expense for the after-tax costs that were or will be indemnified of $23 million in Selling, general and administrative expenses and recorded a corresponding receivable from 21st Century Fox. Therefore, the net impact on Selling, general and administrative expenses was $17 million for the three months ended September 30, 2013.

As of September 30, 2013, the Company has provided for its best estimate of the liability for the claims that have been filed and costs incurred and has accrued approximately $78 million, of which $53 million will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox and a corresponding receivable was recorded in Amounts due to 21st Century Fox, net on the Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2013. 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 or criminal matters. It is possible that these proceedings and any adverse resolution thereof, including any fines or other penalties associated with any plea, judgment or similar result for which the Company will not be indemnified, could damage its reputation, impair its ability to conduct its business and adversely affect its results of operations and financial condition.

HarperCollins

Commencing on August 9, 2011, twenty-nine purported consumer class actions were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and for the Northern District of California, which relate to the decisions by certain publishers, including HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. (“HarperCollins”), to begin selling their e-books pursuant to an agency relationship. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the various class actions to the Honorable Denise L. Cote in the Southern District of New York. On January 20, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, again alleging that certain named defendants, including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust and unfair competition laws by virtue of the switch to the agency model for e-books. The actions sought as relief treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. On June 21, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement with HarperCollins, among others, for a class of consumers residing in Minnesota, which is the only state that did not sign onto the settlement agreement with the Attorneys General discussed below, approval of which bars consumers in the other states and territories from participating in these class actions. On August 5, 2013, Judge Cote granted preliminary approval of the Minnesota consumer settlement. While the settlement agreement is still subject to final approval by the court, the Company believes that the proposed settlement will not have a material impact on the results of operations or the financial position of the Company. However, the Company can make no assurances that the proposed settlement will receive final approval. Additional information about In re MDL Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 11-md-02293 (DLC), can be found on Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER).

Following an investigation, on April 11, 2012, the DOJ filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain publishers, including HarperCollins, and Apple, Inc. The DOJ’s complaint alleged antitrust violations relating to defendants’ decisions to begin selling e-books pursuant to an agency relationship. The case was assigned to Judge Cote. Simultaneously, the DOJ announced that it had reached a proposed settlement with three publishers, including HarperCollins, and filed a Proposed Final Judgment and related materials detailing that agreement. Among other things, the Proposed Final Judgment required that HarperCollins terminate its agreements with certain eBook retailers and placed certain restrictions on any agreements subsequently entered into with such retailers. On September 5, 2012, Judge Cote entered the Final Judgment. Additional information about the Final Judgment can be found on the DOJ’s website.

Following an investigation, on April 11, 2012, 16 state Attorneys General led by Texas and Connecticut (the “AGs”) filed a similar action against certain publishers and Apple, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. On April 26, 2012, the AGs’ action was transferred to Judge Cote. On May 17, 2012, 33 AGs filed a second amended complaint. As a result of a memorandum of understanding agreed upon with the AGs for Texas and Connecticut, HarperCollins was not named as a defendant in this action. Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of understanding, HarperCollins entered into a settlement agreement with the AGs for Texas, Connecticut and Ohio on June 11, 2012. By August 28, 2012, 49 states (all but Minnesota) and five U.S. territories had signed on to that settlement agreement. On August 29, 2012, the AGs simultaneously filed a complaint against HarperCollins and two other publishers, a motion for preliminary approval of that settlement agreement and a proposed distribution plan. On September 14, 2012, Judge Cote granted the AGs’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and approved the AGs’ proposed distribution plan. Notice was subsequently sent to potential class members, and a fairness hearing took place on February 8, 2013 at which Judge Cote gave final approval to the settlement. The settlement is now effective, and the final judgment bars consumers from states and territories covered by the settlement from participating in the class actions.

On October 12, 2012, HarperCollins received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Attorney General from the State of Minnesota (the “Minnesota AG”). HarperCollins complied with the Demand on November 16, 2012. On June 26, 2013, the Minnesota AG filed a petition for an order approving an assurance of discontinuance in the Second Judicial District Court for the State of Minnesota, wherein Minnesota agreed to cease its investigation and not seek further legal remedies relating to or arising from the alleged conduct. On June 28, 2013, Judge Gary Bastion signed an order approving the discontinuance.

The European Commission conducted an investigation into whether certain companies in the book publishing and distribution industry, including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust laws by virtue of the switch to the agency model for e-books. HarperCollins settled the matter with the European Commission on terms substantially similar to the settlement with the DOJ. On December 13, 2012, the European Commission formally adopted the settlement.

Commencing on February 24, 2012, five purported consumer class actions were filed in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario, which relate to the decisions by certain publishers, including HarperCollins, to begin selling their e-books in Canada pursuant to an agency relationship. The actions seek as relief special, general and punitive damages, injunctive relief and the costs of the litigations. While it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of these class actions, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust and competition laws and intends to defend itself vigorously.

In July 2012, HarperCollins Canada, a wholly-owned subsidiary of HarperCollins, learned that the Canadian Competition Bureau (“CCB”) had commenced an inquiry regarding the sale of e-books in Canada. HarperCollins currently is cooperating with the CCB with respect to its inquiry. While it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of the inquiry, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust and competition laws.

On February 15, 2013, a purported class of independent bricks-and-mortar bookstores filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled The Book House of Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc, et. al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et. al., which relates to the digital rights management protection (“DRM”) of certain publishers’, including HarperCollins’, e-books being sold by Amazon.com, Inc. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on March 21, 2013. The case involves allegations that certain named defendants in the book publishing and distribution industry, including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust laws by virtue of requiring DRM protection. The action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. On April 1, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court heard oral argument on Defendants’ motion to dismiss on April 25, 2013. Additional information about The Book House Of Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc. et. al. v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et. al., Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01111-JSR, can be found on PACER. While it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this class action, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust laws and intends to defend itself vigorously.

The Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved HarperCollins matters described above. During the fiscal years ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, the legal and professional fees and settlement costs incurred in connection with these matters were not material, and as of September 30, 2013, the Company did not have a material accrual related to these matters.

Other

On August 16, 2013, in connection with a pending action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in which The Dial Corporation, H.J. Heinz Company and Foster Poultry Farms (with Foster Poultry Farms as proposed class representative on behalf of putative classes of purchasers) alleged various claims under federal and state antitrust law against News Corporation, News America Incorporated, News America Marketing FSI L.L.C., and News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C. (together, the “NAM Group”), plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, with plaintiffs 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, BEF Foods, Inc., and Spectrum Brands, Inc. asserting the same federal and state antitrust claims both individually and on behalf of the two putative classes in connection with plaintiffs’ purchase of in-store marketing services and free-standing insert (“FSI”) coupons. The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. On September 24, 2013, the NAM Group’s motion to transfer the action to the Southern District of New York was granted by the district court judge. On October 24, 2013, on consent of the parties, plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint.

In a parallel action, News America Marketing FSI L.L.C. and News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against The Dial Corporation, H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company L.P. and Foster Poultry Farms, seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs did not violate federal or state antitrust laws and for damages for breach of contract. On August 28, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On October 21, 2013, on consent of the parties, the court issued an order staying the declaratory judgment action until January 20, 2014.

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 was compliant with applicable antitrust laws and intends to defend itself vigorously.

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 are or 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. The Tax Sharing and Indemnification Agreement 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.