NOTE 14. 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. The following table summarizes the Company’s material firm commitments as of June 30, 2015:


	As of June 30, 2015
	Payments Due by Period
	Total		1 year		2-3 years		4-5 years		After 5 years
	(in millions)
Purchase obligations^(a)	$	941	$	353	$	220	$	118	$	250
Sports programming rights^(b)		324		125		181		15		3
Operating leases^(c)
Land and buildings		1,710		138		276		264		1,032
Plant and machinery		5		3		2		—		—

Total commitments and contractual obligations	$	2,980	$	619	$	679	$	397	$	1,285

^(a)	The Company has commitments under purchase obligations related to printing contracts, capital projects, marketing agreements and other legally binding commitments.

^(b)	The Company has sports programming rights commitments with National Rugby League, Football Federation Australia, English Premier League as well as certain other broadcast rights which are payable through fiscal 2021.

^(c)

The Company leases office facilities, warehouse facilities, printing plants and equipment. These leases, which are classified as operating leases, are expected to be paid at certain dates through fiscal 2062. This amount includes approximately $280 million of office facilities that have been subleased from 21st Century Fox.

The Company has certain contracts to purchase newsprint, ink and plates that require the Company to purchase a percentage of its total requirements for production. Since the quantities purchased annually under these contracts are not fixed and based on the Company’s total requirements, the amount of the related payments for these purchases is excluded from the table above.

In accordance with ASC 715, the net liability for pension and other postretirement benefit plans recognized as of June 30, 2015 was approximately $281 million (See Note 15—Retirement Benefit Obligations). This amount is affected by, among other items, statutory funding levels, changes in plan demographics and assumptions and investment returns on plan assets. Because of the current overall funded status of the Company’s material plans, the accrued liability does not represent expected near-term liquidity needs and, accordingly, this amount is not included in the contractual obligations table.

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 settlement costs 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 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 and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. 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 comprise February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the litigation, which were granted by the court on March 31, 2014. Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint, and on April 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, which generally repeats the allegations of the amended consolidated complaint and also expands the class period to comprise July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011. Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint, and plaintiffs opposed those motions. On November 21, 2014, defendants filed their replies to plaintiffs’ opposition, and the motions were fully submitted to the court. 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 all payments in connection with the Wilder Litigation.

In addition, governmental authorities in the U.K. continue to conduct investigations initiated in 2011 with respect to the U.K. Newspaper Matters. The Company is cooperating with these investigations.

Civil claims have also been brought against the Company with respect to the U.K. Newspaper Matters. The Company has admitted liability in many civil cases and has settled a number of cases. The Company has also settled a number of claims through a private compensation scheme established by the Company 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 $101 million, $169 million and $183 million for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2015, 2014 and 2013, 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 fiscal years ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the Company has been or will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox for $51 million, net of tax, and $97 million, net of tax, respectively, pursuant to the indemnification arrangements described above. Accordingly, the Company recorded a contra expense in Selling, general and administrative expenses for the after-tax costs that were or will be indemnified of $51 million and $97 million for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and recorded a corresponding receivable from 21st Century Fox. Therefore, the net impact on Selling, general and administrative expenses were $50 million and $72 million for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Refer to the table below for the net impact of the U.K. Newspaper Matters on Selling, general and administrative expenses recorded in the Statements of Operations:


	For the fiscal years ended June 30,
	2015			2014			2013
	(in millions)
Gross legal and professional fees related to the U.K. Newspaper Matters	$	101		$	169		$	183
Indemnification from 21st Century Fox		(51	)		(97	)		—

Net impact on Selling, general and administrative expenses	$	50		$	72		$	183

With respect to the fees and costs incurred on or prior to June 30, 2013, the Company will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox for $40 million, net of tax, and the Company recorded an indemnification asset of $40 million as of June 30, 2013. As the liabilities were incurred while the Company was a wholly-owned subsidiary of 21st Century Fox, the indemnification asset was established as part of the Separation through 21st Century Fox’s investment in equity.

As of June 30, 2015, the Company has provided for its best estimate of the liability for the claims that have been filed and costs incurred, including liabilities associated with employment taxes, and has accrued approximately $125 million, of which approximately $63 million will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox, and a corresponding receivable was recorded in Amounts due from 21st Century Fox on the Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2015. 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.

Stockholder Rights Agreement Litigation

On July 7, 2014, Miramar Police Officers’ Retirement Plan, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and its Board of Directors, styled Miramar Police Officers’ Retirement Plan v. Murdoch et al., C.A. No. 9860-CB. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the Board of Directors breached the terms of a settlement agreement, dated April 12, 2006, by entering into a one-year extension to the Company’s stockholder rights agreement on June 18, 2014 without first seeking stockholder approval. The complaint further alleges that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in approving the one-year extension to the stockholder rights agreement, seeks a declaration that the extension is null and void and requests an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and on August 25, 2014, plaintiff amended the complaint to seek a declaratory judgment that the Company is bound and subject to the settlement agreement; that the agreement has been breached; that the Board of Directors acted in bad faith by adopting the stockholder rights agreement extension without stockholder approval; and, in the alternative, seeking reformation of the settlement agreement on the grounds of alleged mutual mistake. Thereafter, on September 9, 2014, all defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 7, 2015, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety on the grounds that the Company is not bound by the settlement agreement.

HarperCollins

In 2011 and 2012, various civil lawsuits and governmental investigations were commenced against certain publishers, including the Company’s subsidiary, HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. (“HarperCollins”), relating to alleged violations of antitrust and unfair competition laws arising out of the decisions by those publishers to sell their e-books pursuant to an agency relationship.

The publishers, including HarperCollins, entered into various settlement agreements to resolve these matters. These included a settlement with the DOJ, which, among other things, required that HarperCollins terminate its agreements with certain e-book retailers and placed certain restrictions on any agreements subsequently entered into with such retailers. Additional information about this settlement can be found on the DOJ’s website. The publishers, including HarperCollins, also entered into substantially similar settlements with the European Commission and the Canadian Competition Bureau (“CCB”). The settlements with the DOJ and the European Commission received final approval in September and December 2012, respectively. The consent agreement with respect to the settlement with the CCB was registered with the Competition Tribunal on February 7, 2014. However, on February 21, 2014, Kobo Inc. (“Kobo”) filed an application to rescind or vary the consent agreement with the Competition Tribunal, and, on March 18, 2014, the Competition Tribunal issued an order staying the registration of the consent agreement. The stay will remain in effect pending further order of the Competition Tribunal or final disposition of Kobo’s application.

The Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved HarperCollins matter described above. The legal and professional fees and settlement costs incurred in connection with the other settlements referred to above were not material.

News America Marketing

In-Store Marketing and FSI Purchasers

On April 8, 2014, in connection with a pending action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in which 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 and BEF Foods, Inc. allege various claims under federal and state antitrust law against News Corporation, News America Incorporated (“NAI”), News America Marketing FSI L.L.C. (“NAM FSI”), and News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C. (“NAM In-Store Services” and, together with News Corporation, NAI and NAM FSI, the “NAM Group”), plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint on consent of the parties. The fourth amended complaint asserts federal and state antitrust claims both individually and on behalf of two putative classes in connection with plaintiffs’ purchase of in-store marketing services and free-standing insert coupons. The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. The NAM Group answered the fourth amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against The Dial Corporation, H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., and Foster Poultry Farms on April 21, 2014, and discovery is proceeding.

On August 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of a class of all persons residing in the United States who purchased in-store marketing services on or after April 5, 2008, and have not purchased those services pursuant to contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses. Plaintiffs did not, however, move to certify a class of purchasers of free-standing insert coupons. On June 18, 2015, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and on July 2, 2015, the NAM Group filed a petition for leave to appeal the District Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which plaintiffs have opposed.

While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, the NAM Group believes it has been compliant with applicable antitrust laws and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Valassis Communications, Inc.

On November 8, 2013, Valassis Communications, Inc. (“Valassis”) initiated legal proceedings against certain of the Company’s subsidiaries alleging violations of various antitrust laws. These proceedings are described in further detail below.

•

Valassis previously initiated an action against NAI, NAM FSI and NAM In-Store Services (collectively, the “NAM Parties”), captioned Valassis Communications, Inc. v. News America Incorporated, et al., No. 2:06-cv-10240 (E.D. Mich.), alleging violations of federal antitrust laws, which was settled in February 2010. On November 8, 2013, Valassis filed a motion for expedited discovery in the previously settled case based on its belief that defendants had engaged in activities prohibited under an order issued by the District Court in connection with the parties’ settlement.

On February 4, 2014, the magistrate judge granted Valassis’s motion for expedited discovery. The NAM Parties objected to the magistrate judge’s ruling before the District Court and filed a motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement that sought an order that certain of Valassis’s claims, if they are allowed to proceed, must be considered by a panel of antitrust experts. On May 20, 2014, the District Court overruled the NAM Parties’ objections to the magistrate judge’s ruling and terminated the motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement as the issues raised in the motion would be addressed in connection with the NAM Group’s motion to dismiss Valassis’s newly filed complaint, described below.

On October 7, 2014, the NAM Group filed a motion for an order requiring Valassis to show cause why its allegations that the NAM Group engaged in unlawful bundling and tying of in-store marketing services and free-standing insert coupons should not be referred to a panel of antitrust experts for resolution pursuant to the parties’ settlement. On November 19, 2014, the magistrate judge denied the NAM Group’s motion for an order to show cause. The NAM Group objected to the magistrate judge’s order, and Valassis opposed those objections. On January 20, 2015, the NAM Parties filed a motion for expedited discovery in the previously settled case, which was granted by the magistrate judge on April 14, 2015.

On February 3, 2015, Valassis filed a Notice of Violation of an order issued by the District Court in the previously settled case. The Notice contains allegations that are substantially similar to the allegations Valassis made in the new complaint, described below, and seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. The Notice also re-asserts claims of unlawful bundling and tying which the magistrate judge had previously recommended be dismissed from the action described below on the grounds that such claims could only be brought before the panel of antitrust experts. On March 2, 2015, the NAM Group filed a motion to refer the Notice to the panel of antitrust experts or, in the alternative, strike the Notice, which Valassis has opposed.

•

On November 8, 2013, Valassis also filed a new complaint in the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the NAM Group alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and common law business torts. The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. On December 19, 2013, the NAM Group filed a motion to dismiss the newly filed complaint.

The District Court referred the NAM Group’s motion to dismiss to the magistrate judge for determination, and on July 16, 2014, the magistrate judge recommended that the District Court grant the NAM Group’s motion in part with respect to certain claims and stay the remainder of the action. Valassis has objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the action be stayed.

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 has been compliant with applicable laws and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Other

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 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.