Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

In the normal course of business, we have entered into agreements that commit our company to make cash payments in future periods with respect to network and connectivity commitments, programming contracts, purchases of customer premises and other equipment, non-cancelable operating leases and other items. The U.S. dollar equivalents of such commitments as of March 31, 2014 are presented below:



	Payments due during:
	Remainder of 2014		Year ending December 31,
	Remainder of 2014		2015		2016		2017		2018		2019		Thereafter		Total
	in millions

Network and connectivity commitments	$	285.7	$	332.3	$	274.8	$	255.0	$	133.5	$	99.4	$	1,187.6	$	2,568.3
Programming commitments	401.7		418.6		298.8		145.0		38.4		0.4		—		1,302.9
Purchase commitments	754.3		156.7		67.7		11.4		3.8		—		—		993.9
Operating leases	138.0		154.7		128.4		103.1		67.9		55.9		270.2		918.2
Other commitments	335.3		275.9		186.6		139.2		82.8		31.7		38.4		1,089.9
Total (a)	$	1,915.0	$	1,338.2	$	956.3	$	653.7	$	326.4	$	187.4	$	1,496.2	$	6,873.2

_______________


(a)	The commitments reflected in this table do not reflect any liabilities that are included in our March 31, 2014 condensed consolidated balance sheet.

Network and connectivity commitments include (i) Telenet’s commitments for certain operating costs associated with its leased network, (ii) commitments associated with our mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) agreements and (iii) certain repair and maintenance, fiber capacity and energy commitments of Unitymedia KabelBW. Subsequent to October 1, 2015, Telenet’s commitments for certain operating costs are subject to adjustment based on changes in the network operating costs incurred by Telenet with respect to its own networks. These potential adjustments are not subject to reasonable estimation and, therefore, are not included in the above table. The amounts reflected in the table with respect to our MVNO commitments represent fixed minimum amounts payable under these agreements and therefore may be significantly less than the actual amounts we ultimately pay in these periods.

Programming commitments consist of obligations associated with certain of our programming, studio output and sports rights contracts that are enforceable and legally binding in that we have agreed to pay minimum fees without regard to (i) the actual number of subscribers to the programming services, (ii) whether we terminate service to a portion of our subscribers or dispose of a portion of our distribution systems or (iii) whether we discontinue our premium film or sports services. In addition, programming commitments do not include increases in future periods associated with contractual inflation adjustments. The amounts reflected in the table with respect to these contracts are significantly less than the amounts we expect to pay in these periods under these contracts. Payments to programming vendors have in the past represented, and are expected to continue to represent in the future, a significant portion of our operating costs. In this regard, during the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, the third-party programming and copyright costs incurred by our broadband communications and DTH operations aggregated $517.0 million and $292.5 million, respectively. The ultimate amount payable in excess of the contractual minimums of our studio output contracts, which expire at various dates through 2019, is dependent upon the number of subscribers to our premium movie service and the theatrical success of the films that we exhibit.

Purchase commitments include unconditional purchase obligations associated with commitments to purchase customer premises and other equipment that are enforceable and legally binding on us.

Commitments arising from acquisition agreements (including with respect to the Ziggo Merger Agreement, as defined and described in note 2) are not reflected in the above table.

In addition to the commitments set forth in the table above, we have significant commitments under (i) derivative instruments and (ii) defined benefit plans and similar agreements, pursuant to which we expect to make payments in future periods. For information concerning our derivative instruments, including the net cash paid or received in connection with these instruments during the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, see note 4.

We also have commitments pursuant to agreements with, and obligations imposed by, franchise authorities and municipalities, which may include obligations in certain markets to move aerial cable to underground ducts or to upgrade, rebuild or extend portions of our broadband communication systems. Such amounts are not included in the above table because they are not fixed or determinable.

Guarantees and Other Credit Enhancements

In the ordinary course of business, we may provide indemnifications to our lenders, our vendors and certain other parties and performance and/or financial guarantees to local municipalities, our customers and vendors. Historically, these arrangements have not resulted in our company making any material payments and we do not believe that they will result in material payments in the future.

Legal and Regulatory Proceedings and Other Contingencies

Interkabel Acquisition. On November 26, 2007, Telenet and four associations of municipalities in Belgium, which we refer to as the pure intercommunalues or the “PICs,” announced a non-binding agreement-in-principle to transfer the analog and digital television activities of the PICs, including all existing subscribers, to Telenet. Subsequently, Telenet and the PICs entered into a binding agreement (the 2008 PICs Agreement), which closed effective October 1, 2008. Beginning in December 2007, Belgacom NV/SA (Belgacom), the incumbent telecommunications operator in Belgium, instituted several proceedings seeking to block implementation of these agreements. It lodged summary proceedings with the President of the Court of First Instance of Antwerp to obtain a provisional injunction preventing the PICs from effecting the agreement-in-principle and initiated a civil procedure on the merits claiming the annulment of the agreement-in-principle. In March 2008, the President of the Court of First Instance of Antwerp ruled in favor of Belgacom in the summary proceedings, which ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal of Antwerp in June 2008. Belgacom brought this appeal judgment before the Cour de Cassation (the Belgian Supreme Court), which confirmed the appeal judgment in September 2010. On April 6, 2009, the Court of First Instance of Antwerp ruled in favor of the PICs and Telenet in the civil procedure on the merits, dismissing Belgacom’s request for the rescission of the agreement-in-principle and the 2008 PICs Agreement. On June 12, 2009, Belgacom appealed this judgment with the Court of Appeal of Antwerp. In this appeal, Belgacom is now also seeking compensation for damages should the 2008 PICs Agreement not be rescinded. However, the claim for compensation has not yet been quantified. At the introductory hearing, which was held on September 8, 2009, the proceedings on appeal were postponed indefinitely at the request of Belgacom.

In parallel with the above proceedings, Belgacom filed a complaint with the Government Commissioner seeking suspension of the approval by the PICs’ board of directors of the agreement-in-principle and initiated suspension and annulment procedures before the Belgian Council of State against these approvals and subsequently against the board resolutions of the PICs approving the 2008 PICs Agreement. In this complaint, Belgacom’s primary argument was that the PICs should have organized a public market consultation before entering into the agreement-in-principal and the 2008 PICs Agreement. Belgacom’s efforts to suspend approval of these agreements were unsuccessful. In the annulment cases, the Belgian Council of State decided on May 2, 2012 to refer a number of questions of interpretation of European Union (EU) law for preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice. On November 14, 2013, the European Court of Justice ruled that a majority of the reasons invoked by the PICs not to organize a market consultation were not overriding reasons of public interest to justify abolishing the PICs duty to organize such consultation. The annulment case was subsequently resumed with the Belgian Council of State, which will be required to follow the interpretation given by the European Court of Justice with respect to the points of EU law. On January 16, 2014, the Advocate General with the Council of State recommended that the decisions of the board of the PICs not to organize a public market consultation be annulled. Written and oral pleadings will now be submitted and take place over the next several months with a final decision by the Belgian Council of State expected in 2014 or 2015.

It is possible that Belgacom or another third party or public authority will initiate further legal proceedings in an attempt to block the integration of the PICs’ analog and digital television activities or obtain the rescission of the 2008 PICs Agreement. No assurance can be given as to the outcome of these or other proceedings. However, an unfavorable outcome of existing or future proceedings could potentially lead to the rescission of the 2008 PICs Agreement and/or to an obligation for Telenet to pay compensation for damages, subject to the relevant provisions of the 2008 PICs Agreement, which stipulate that Telenet is only responsible for damages in excess of €20.0 million ($27.5 million). In light of the fact that Belgacom has not quantified the amount of damages that it is seeking and we have no basis for assessing the amount of losses we would incur in the unlikely event that the 2008 PICs Agreement were to be rescinded, we cannot provide a reasonable estimate of the range of loss that would be incurred in the event the ultimate resolution of this matter were to be unfavorable to Telenet. However, we do not expect the ultimate resolution of this matter to have a material impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Deutsche Telekom Litigation. On December 28, 2012, Unitymedia KabelBW filed a lawsuit against Telekom Deutschland GmbH (Deutsche Telekom), an operating subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG, in which Unitymedia KabelBW asserts that it pays excessive prices for the co-use of Deutsche Telekom’s cable ducts in Unitymedia KabelBW’s footprint. The Federal Network Agency approved rates for the co-use of certain ducts of Deutsche Telekom in March 2011. Based in part on these approved rates, Unitymedia KabelBW is seeking a reduction of the annual lease fees (approximately €76 million ($105 million) for 2012) by approximately two-thirds and the return of similarly calculated overpayments from 2009 through the ultimate settlement date, plus accrued interest. The resolution of this matter may take several years and no assurance can be given that Unitymedia KabelBW’s claims will be successful. Any recovery by Unitymedia KabelBW will not be reflected in our consolidated financial statements until such time as the final disposition of this matter has been reached.

Vivendi Litigation. A wholly-owned subsidiary of our company is a plaintiff in certain litigation titled Liberty Media Corporation, et. al. v. Vivendi S.A. and Universal Studio. A predecessor of Liberty Global was a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation (Liberty Media) through June 6, 2004. In connection with Liberty Media’s prosecution of the action, our subsidiary assigned its rights to Liberty Media in exchange for a contingent payout in the event Liberty Media recovered any amounts as a result of the action. Our subsidiary’s interest in any such recovery will be equal to 10% of the recovery amount, including any interest awarded, less the amount to be retained by Liberty Media for (i) all fees and expenses incurred by Liberty Media in connection with the action (including expenses to be incurred in connection with any appeals and the payment of certain deferred legal fees) and (ii) agreed upon interest on such fees and expenses. On January 17, 2013, following a jury trial, the court entered a final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of €944 million ($1,300 million), including prejudgment interest. Vivendi S.A. and Universal Studios have filed a notice of appeal of the court’s final judgment to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, the amount that our subsidiary may ultimately recover in connection with the final resolution of the action, if any, is uncertain. Any recovery by our company will not be reflected in our consolidated financial statements until such time as the final disposition of this matter has been reached.

Liberty Puerto Rico Matter. Liberty Puerto Rico, as the surviving entity in a series of transactions completed in November 2012 pursuant to which Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico LLC was combined with OneLink Communications (OneLink), with OneLink as the surviving entity, is a party to certain claims asserted by the incumbent telephone operator against OneLink based on alleged conduct of OneLink that occurred prior to the OneLink acquisition (the PRTC Claim), including a claim that OneLink acted in an anticompetitive manner in connection with a series of legal and regulatory proceedings it initiated against the incumbent telephone operator in Puerto Rico beginning in 2009. In December 2013, an additional claim was asserted against OneLink alleging harm to consumers based on the purported conduct of OneLink that formed the basis for the PRTC Claim. The claimant in the December 2013 action sought to join the PRTC Claim as a representative of the entire class of consumers who are alleged to have suffered harm as a result of the purported OneLink conduct. In February 2014, the court ruled that the December 2013 action could not be joined with the PRTC Claim. The court ruling did not preclude the claimant from pursuing a class action claim in a separate action. In March 2014, the claimant in the December 2013 claim filed a separate class action claim in Puerto Rico (the “Class Action Claim”) substantially similar to the claims asserted in the December 2013 claim. The former owners of OneLink have partially indemnified us for any losses we may incur in connection with the PRTC Claim up to a specified maximum amount. However, the indemnity does not cover any potential losses resulting from the Class Action Claim. Our acquisition accounting for the OneLink acquisition includes a provision and a related indemnification asset representing Liberty Puerto Rico’s best estimate of the net loss that it may incur upon the ultimate resolution of the PRTC Claim. While Liberty Puerto Rico expects that the net amount required to satisfy these contingencies will not materially differ from the estimated amount it has accrued, no assurance can be given that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have an adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position in any given period.

Netherlands Regulatory Developments. In December 2011, the Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM), formerly Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatia Authoriteit, completed a market assessment of the television market in the Netherlands, concluding that there were no grounds for regulation of that market. On December 22, 2011, referring to its final assessment of the television market, ACM rejected previously filed requests from a number of providers to perform a new market analysis of the television market. This decision by ACM was appealed by such providers to the Dutch Supreme Administrative Court. On November 5, 2012, the Dutch Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeals against ACM’s decision.

In May 2012, the Dutch Senate adopted laws that provide, among other matters, the power to ACM to impose an obligation for the mandatory resale of television services and to the Commissariaat voor de Media to supervise the resale obligation introduced by these new laws. These laws became effective on January 1, 2013 notwithstanding the above-described November 5, 2012 decision of the Dutch Supreme Administrative Court. On January 29, 2014, a Dutch civil court, in a proceeding initiated by UPC Netherlands B.V., declared the resale obligation laws non-binding because they infringe EU law. The Dutch Government did not appeal the January 19, 2014 decision, and the Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs has indicated that a new law will be prepared withdrawing the resale obligation laws. In addition, on October 24, 2012, the European Commission opened formal infringement proceedings against the Dutch government on the basis that the new laws pertaining to resale breach EU law. The Dutch government responded to the infringement proceedings on June 25, 2013 and the European Commission is currently reviewing the response. If such response is deemed to be unsatisfactory to the European Commission, it may refer the matter to the European Court of Justice. The infringement proceeding at the European Commission against the Dutch government is still pending. It is unclear how the Dutch civil court ruling and the indication by the Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs to withdraw the laws will impact the European Commission proceedings. We cannot predict the effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position from any implementation of a resale regime.

Belgium Regulatory Developments. In December 2010, the Belgisch Instituut voor Post en Telecommunicatie and the regional regulators for the media sectors (together, the Belgium Regulatory Authorities) published their respective draft decisions reflecting the results of their joint analysis of the broadcasting market in Belgium.

After a public consultation, the draft decisions were submitted to the European Commission. The European Commission issued a notice on the draft decision that criticized the analysis of the broadcasting markets on several grounds, including the fact that the Belgium Regulatory Authorities failed to analyze upstream wholesale markets. It also expressed doubts as to the necessity and proportionality of the various remedies.

The Belgium Regulatory Authorities adopted a final decision on July 1, 2011 (the July 2011 Decision) with some minor revisions. The regulatory obligations imposed by the July 2011 Decision include (i) an obligation to make a resale offer at “retail minus’’ of the cable analog package available to third-party operators (including Belgacom), (ii) an obligation to grant third-party operators (except Belgacom) access to digital television platforms (including the basic digital video package) at “retail minus,” and (iii) an obligation to make a resale offer at “retail minus’’ of broadband internet access available to beneficiaries of the digital television access obligation that wish to offer bundles of digital video and broadband internet services to their customers (except Belgacom).

After Telenet submitted draft reference offers regarding the obligations described above in February 2012, to which the Belgium Regulatory Authorities subsequently made their observations, launched a national consultation process and consulted with the European Commission. Although the European Commission expressed doubts regarding the analog resale offers on August 8, 2013, the European Commission did not object to the decision on the reference offers. The Belgium Regulatory Authorities published the final decision on September 9, 2013. The regulated wholesale services must be available approximately six months after a third-party operator files a letter of intent and pays an advance payment to each cable operator. On December 27, 2013, wireless operator Mobistar submitted a letter of intent and paid the advance payment on January 10, 2013. Accordingly, the reference offers could be operational as soon as the third quarter of 2014.

On April 2, 2013, the Belgium Regulatory Authorities issued a draft decision regarding the “retail-minus” tariffs of minus 35% for basic TV (basic analog and digital video package) and minus 30% for the bundle of basic TV and broadband internet services. A “retail-minus” method of pricing involves a wholesale tariff calculated as the retail price for the offered service by Telenet, excluding VAT and copyrights, and further deducting the retail costs avoided by offering the wholesale service (such as costs for billing, franchise, consumer service, marketing and sales). On October 4, 2013, the Belgium Regulatory Authorities notified a draft quantitative decision to the European Commission in which they changed the “retail-minus” tariffs to minus 30% for basic TV (basic analog and digital video package) and to minus 23% for the bundle of basic TV and broadband internet services. Even though the European Commission made a number of comments regarding the appropriateness of certain assumptions in the proposed costing methodology, the Belgium Regulatory Authorities adopted such retail-minus tariffs on December 11, 2013.

Telenet filed an appeal against the July 2011 Decision with the Brussels Court of Appeal. On September 4, 2012, the Brussels Court of Appeal rejected Telenet’s request to suspend the July 2011 Decision pending the proceedings on the merits. Due to this rejection and the approval of the reference offers by the Belgium Regulatory Authorities, Telenet is now required to begin the process of implementing its reference offers. A final ruling on the merits can be expected during the second or third quarter of 2014. Telenet also filed an appeal with the Brussels Court of Appeal against the decision regarding the qualitative and the quantitative aspects of the reference offers. Wireless operator Mobistar also filed an appeal against the decision regarding the quantitative aspects of the reference offers. A decision with respect to these appeals is not expected before the fourth quarter of 2014. There can be no certainty that Telenet’s appeals will be successful.

The July 2011 Decision aims to, and in its application may, strengthen Telenet’s competitors by granting them resale access to Telenet’s network to offer competing products and services notwithstanding Telenet’s substantial historical financial outlays in developing the infrastructure. In addition, any resale access granted to competitors could (i) limit the bandwidth available to Telenet to provide new or expanded products and services to the customers served by its network and (ii) adversely impact Telenet’s ability to maintain or increase its revenue and cash flows. The extent of any such adverse impacts ultimately will be dependent on the extent that competitors take advantage of the resale access ultimately afforded to Telenet’s network and other competitive factors or market developments.

FCO Regulatory Issues. Our acquisition of Kabel BW GmbH (KBW) was subject to the approval of the Federal Cartel Office (FCO) in Germany, which approval was received in December 2011. In January 2012, two of our competitors, including the incumbent telecommunications operator, each filed an appeal against the FCO regarding its decision to approve our acquisition of KBW. On August 14, 2013, the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal issued a ruling that set aside the FCO’s clearance decision. Although the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal did not grant the right to appeal against its ruling to the Federal Supreme Court, on September 16, 2013, we filed a formal request to appeal to the Federal Court of Justice seeking permission to appeal the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal’s decision and our reasoned submission was filed on December 16, 2013. During the first quarter of 2014, interested third parties commented on our submission. We currently expect that the Federal Court of Justice will rule on our request during the third quarter of 2014. The Düsseldorf Court of Appeal’s ruling is not legally binding until all appeals have been rejected. If we are not granted the right to appeal, or if any appeal is unsuccessful and the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal’s ruling to overturn the FCO clearance becomes final and binding, our acquisition of KBW would be remitted to the FCO for a new phase II review. The FCO would have the power to clear the deal subject to additional remedies or, although we do not expect either to be the outcome, to refuse clearance of the transaction or clear the transaction unconditionally. We will continue to pursue any available opportunity to appeal the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal’s ruling. We do not expect that the continued proceedings relating to these appeals will have any impact on the integration and development of our operations in Germany or the day-to-day running of our business. We cannot predict the final outcome of this appeal process, however, any new decision by the FCO with respect to our acquisition of KBW as a result of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal’s ruling, including any decision that increases the existing conditions we are subject to in connection with the FCO’s initial approval of our acquisition of KBW or imposes additional conditions, could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

FCO Communication. The FCO has communicated to us that it is reviewing customary practices regarding the duration of contracts with multiple dwelling units for analog television services, including with respect to one such contract that the FCO had previously identified between Unitymedia KabelBW and a landlord as potentially being subject to amendment by order. The FCO indicated that the contract term of 10 years may be an infringement of European and German antitrust laws and that it is inclined to open a test case that could set a precedent for all (or almost all) market participants. We cannot predict the outcome of these FCO proceedings, however, any FCO decision that would limit the duration of our contracts with multiple dwelling units could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Financial Transactions Tax. Eleven countries in the EU, including Belgium, Germany, Austria and Slovakia, are participating in an enhanced cooperation procedure to introduce a financial transactions tax (FTT). Under the draft language of the FTT proposal, a wide range of financial transactions could be taxed at rates of at least 0.01% for derivative transactions based on the notional amount and 0.1% for other covered financial transactions based on the underlying transaction price. Each of the individual countries would be permitted to determine an exact rate, which could be higher than the proposed rates of 0.01% and 0.1%. Any implementation of the FTT could have a global impact because it would apply to all financial transactions where a financial institution is involved (including unregulated entities that engage in certain types of covered activity) and either of the parties (whether the financial institution or its counterparty) is in one of the eleven participating countries. Although ongoing debate in the relevant countries demonstrates continued momentum around the FTT, uncertainty remains as to when the FTT would be implemented and the breadth of its application. We currently believe that the likelihood of the FTT becoming effective during 2014 is remote. Any imposition of the FTT could increase banking fees and introduce taxes on internal transactions that we currently perform. Due to the uncertainty regarding the FTT, we are currently unable to estimate the financial impact that the FTT could have on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Virgin Media VAT Matter. Our application of the VAT with respect to certain revenue generating activities has been challenged by the U.K. tax authorities. We have estimated our maximum exposure in the event of an unfavorable outcome to be £37.2 million ($62.0 million) as of March 31, 2014. No portion of this exposure has been accrued by our company as the likelihood of loss is not considered to be probable. An initial hearing on these matters took place during 2013 but was adjourned with no conclusion. The next hearing is expected to take place in September 2014.

Other Regulatory Issues. Video distribution, broadband internet, fixed-line telephony, mobile and content businesses are regulated in each of the countries in which we operate. The scope of regulation varies from country to country, although in some significant respects regulation in European markets is harmonized under the regulatory structure of the EU. Adverse regulatory developments could subject our businesses to a number of risks. Regulation, including conditions imposed on us by competition or other authorities as a requirement to close acquisitions or dispositions, could limit growth, revenue and the number and types of services offered and could lead to increased operating costs and property and equipment additions. In addition, regulation may restrict our operations and subject them to further competitive pressure, including pricing restrictions, interconnect and other access obligations, and restrictions or controls on content, including content provided by third parties. Failure to comply with current or future regulation could expose our businesses to various penalties.

We have security accreditations across a range of business-to-business (B2B) products and services in order to increase our offerings to public sector organizations in the U.K. These accreditations are granted subject to periodic reviews of our policies and procedures by U.K. governmental authorities. A review of one of our most significant accreditations is ongoing. If we were to fail to maintain this or other accreditations or obtain new accreditations when required, it could impact our ability to provide certain offerings to the public sector.

Other. In addition to the foregoing items, we have contingent liabilities related to matters arising in the ordinary course of business, including (i) legal proceedings, (ii) issues involving VAT and wage, property and other tax issues and (iii) disputes over interconnection, programming, copyright and carriage fees. While we generally expect that the amounts required to satisfy these contingencies will not materially differ from any estimated amounts we have accrued, no assurance can be given that the resolution of one or more of these contingencies will not result in a material impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position in any given period. Due, in general, to the complexity of the issues involved and, in certain cases, the lack of a clear basis for predicting outcomes, we cannot provide a meaningful range of potential losses or cash outflows that might result from any unfavorable outcomes.