Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2018

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

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 and services, non-cancellable operating leases and other items. The following table sets forth the U.S. dollar equivalents of such commitments as of December 31, 2018. The commitments included in this table do not reflect any liabilities that are included in our December 31, 2018 consolidated balance sheet.



	Payments due during:
	2019		2020		2021		2022		2023		Thereafter		Total
	in millions

Network and connectivity commitments	$	629.4	$	282.1	$	243.6	$	60.3	$	44.1	$	776.4	$	2,035.9
Programming commitments	858.0		558.7		286.2		52.1		14.2		44.9		1,814.1
Purchase commitments	742.8		243.9		88.5		31.9		20.4		45.5		1,173.0
Operating leases	123.9		85.4		66.6		54.3		46.8		178.6		555.6
Other commitments	27.0		3.2		0.5		0.3		—		—		31.0
Total	$	2,381.1	$	1,173.3	$	685.4	$	198.9	$	125.5	$	1,045.4	$	5,609.6

Network and connectivity commitments include (i) Telenet’s commitments for certain operating costs associated with its leased network, (ii) commitments associated with our MVNO agreements, primarily in the U.K., and (iii) service commitments associated with our network extension projects, primarily in the U.K. 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 above table with respect to certain of 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 on us as 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 sports services. Programming commitments do not include increases in future periods associated with contractual inflation or other price adjustments that are not fixed. Accordingly, the amounts reflected in the above table with respect to these contracts are significantly less than the amounts we expect to pay in these periods under these contracts. Historically, payments to programming vendors have represented a significant portion of our operating costs, and we expect that this will continue to be the case in future periods. In this regard, our total programming and copyright costs aggregated $1,671.4 million, $1,470.2 million and $1,783.4 million during 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Purchase commitments include unconditional and legally binding obligations related to (i) the purchase of customer premises and other equipment and (ii) certain service-related commitments, including call center, information technology and maintenance services.

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 regarding our derivative instruments, including the net cash paid or received in connection with these instruments during 2018, 2017 and 2016, see note 8. For information regarding our defined benefit plans, see note 16.

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.

Rental expense under non-cancellable operating lease arrangements amounted to $111.8 million, $104.5 million and $125.7 million during 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively. It is expected that in the normal course of business, operating leases that expire generally will be renewed or replaced by similar leases.

We have established various defined contribution benefit plans for our and our subsidiaries’ employees. Our aggregate expense for matching contributions under the various defined contribution employee benefit plans was $41.0 million, $34.7 million and $67.6 million during 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Guarantees and Other Credit Enhancements

In the ordinary course of business, we may provide (i) indemnifications to our lenders, our vendors and certain other parties and (ii) 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 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, Proximus NV/SA (Proximus), the incumbent telecommunications operator in Belgium, instituted several proceedings seeking to block implementation of these agreements. Proximus 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 Proximus in the summary proceedings, which ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal of Antwerp in June 2008. Proximus 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 Proximus’s request for the rescission of the agreement-in-principle and the 2008 PICs Agreement. On June 12, 2009, Proximus appealed this judgment with the Court of Appeal of Antwerp. In this appeal, Proximus is now also seeking compensation for damages. While these proceedings were suspended indefinitely, other proceedings were initiated, which resulted in a ruling by the Belgian Council of State in May 2014 annulling (i) the decision of the PICs not to organize a public market consultation and (ii) the decision from the PICs’ board of directors to approve the 2008 PICs Agreement. In December 2015, Proximus resumed the civil proceedings pending with the Court of Appeal of Antwerp seeking to have the 2008 PICs Agreement annulled and claiming damages of €1.4 billion ($1.6 billion).

In December 2017, the Court of Appeals of Antwerp issued a judgment rejecting Proximus’ claims. Proximus has the right to appeal the Court of Appeals of Antwerp’s judgment with the Belgian Supreme Court, however Proximus has not done so to date. 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 annulment of the 2008 PICs Agreement and/or to an obligation of Telenet to pay compensation for damages, subject to the relevant provisions of the 2008 PICs Agreement, which stipulate that Telenet is responsible for damages in excess of €20.0 million ($22.9 million). 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. No amounts have been accrued by us with respect to this matter as the likelihood of loss is not considered to be probable.

Telekom Deutschland Litigation. On December 28, 2012, Unitymedia filed a lawsuit against Telekom Deutschland GmbH (Telekom Deutschland) in which Unitymedia asserts that it pays excessive prices for the co-use of Telekom Deutschland’s cable ducts in Unitymedia’s footprint. The Federal Network Agency approved rates for the co-use of certain ducts of Telekom Deutschland in March 2011. Based in part on these approved rates, Unitymedia sought a reduction of the annual lease fees (approximately €75 million ($86 million) for 2018) by approximately five-sixths. In addition, Unitymedia is seeking the return of similarly calculated overpayments from 2009 through the ultimate settlement date, plus accrued interest. In October 2016, the first instance court dismissed this action, and in March 2018, the court of appeal dismissed Unitymedia’s appeal of the first instance court’s decision and did not grant permission to appeal further to the Federal Court of Justice. Unitymedia has filed a motion with the Federal Court of Justice to grant permission to appeal. The resolution of this matter may take several years and no assurance can be given

that Unitymedia’s claims will be successful. Any recovery by Unitymedia will not be reflected in our consolidated financial statements until such time as the final disposition of this matter has been reached. If this matter is settled subsequent to the completion of the sale of the Vodafone Disposal Group, we would only share in 50% of any amounts recovered, plus 50% of the net present value of certain cost savings in future periods that are attributable to the favorable resolution of this matter, less 50% of associated legal or other third-party fees paid post-completion of the sale of the Vodafone Disposal Group.

Belgium Regulatory Developments. In June 2018, the Belgisch Instituut voor Post en Telecommunicatie and the regional regulators for the media sectors (together, the Belgium Regulatory Authorities) adopted a new decision finding that Telenet has significant market power in the wholesale broadband market (the 2018 Decision). The 2018 Decision imposes on Telenet the obligations to (i) provide third-party operators with access to the digital television platform (including basic digital video and analog video) and (ii) make available to third-party operators a bitstream offer of broadband internet access (including fixed-line telephony as an option). Unlike prior decisions, the 2018 Decision no longer applies “retail minus” pricing on Telenet; however, as of August 1, 2018, this decision imposes a 17% reduction in monthly wholesale cable resale access prices for an interim period. The Belgium Regulatory Authorities will replace these interim prices with “reasonable access tariffs” around mid-2019.

The 2018 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 afforded to Telenet’s network, the rates that Telenet receives for such access and other competitive factors or market developments. Telenet considers the 2018 Decision to be inconsistent with the principle of technology-neutral regulation and the European Single Market Strategy to stimulate further investments in broadband networks. Telenet has challenged the 2018 Decision in the Brussels Court of Appeal and has also initiated an action in the European Court of Justice against the European Commission’s decision not to challenge the 2018 Decision. The timing and outcome of each of these actions is uncertain.

Virgin Media VAT Matters. Virgin Media’s application of VAT with respect to certain revenue generating activities has been challenged by the U.K. tax authorities. Virgin Media has estimated its maximum exposure in the event of an unfavorable outcome to be £47 million ($60 million) as of December 31, 2018. No portion of this exposure has been accrued by Virgin Media as the likelihood of loss is not considered to be probable. A court hearing was held at the end of September 2014 in relation to the U.K. tax authorities’ challenge and a decision is expected in 2019.

On March 19, 2014, the U.K. government announced a change in legislation with respect to the charging of VAT in connection with prompt payment discounts such as those that we offer to our fixed-line telephony customers. This change, which took effect on May 1, 2014, impacted our company and some of our competitors. The U.K. tax authority issued a decision in the fourth quarter of 2015 challenging our application of the prompt payment discount rules prior to the May 1, 2014 change in legislation. We appealed this decision. As part of the appeal process, we were required to make aggregate payments of £67.0 million ($99.1 million at the respective transaction dates), comprising (i) the challenged amount of £63.7 million (which we paid during the fourth quarter of 2015) and (ii) related interest of £3.3 million (which we paid during the first quarter of 2016). No provision was recorded by our company at that time as the likelihood of loss was not considered to be probable. The aggregate amount paid does not include penalties, which could be significant in the event that penalties were to be assessed. In September 2018, the court rejected our appeal and ruled in favor of the U.K. tax authority. Accordingly, during the third quarter of 2018, we recorded a provision for litigation of £63.7 million ($83.1 million at the average rate for the period) and related interest expense of £3.3 million ($4.4 million at the average rate for the period) in our consolidated statement of operations. We have submitted our grounds for appeal to the Upper Tribunal and expect to receive approval to appeal the judgment during the first quarter of 2019; however, no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter.

Ziggo Acquisition Matter. In July 2015, KPN N.V. appealed the European Commission’s 2014 approval of the acquisition by Liberty Global of Ziggo Holding B.V. (Ziggo). We were not a party to that case. In October 2017, the European Union (E.U.) General Court annulled the European Commission’s approval on procedural grounds in that it found that the European Commission had failed to adequately explain the reasons for elements of its decision. We re-notified our acquisition of Ziggo to the European Commission for a new merger clearance, which was granted on May 30, 2018, and conditioned on remedies substantially similar to the remedies upon which the 2014 merger clearance was based. We consider this matter to be closed.

Other Regulatory Issues. Video distribution, broadband internet, fixed-line telephony, mobile and content businesses are regulated in each of the countries in which we or our affiliates 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 E.U. 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.

Effective April 1, 2017, the rateable value of our existing network and other assets in the U.K. increased significantly. This increase affects the amount we pay for network infrastructure charges as the annual amount payable to the U.K. government is calculated by applying a percentage multiplier to the rateable value of assets. This change has and will continue to significantly increase our network infrastructure charges. As compared to 2018, we expect the aggregate amount of this increase will be £28 million ($36 million) in 2019. Beyond 2019, we expect further but declining increases to these charges through the first quarter of 2022. We continue to believe that these increases are excessive and retain the right of appeal should more favorable agreements be reached with other operators. The rateable value of network and other assets constructed under our network extension program in the U.K. remains subject to review by the U.K. government.

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, withholding and other tax issues and (iii) disputes over interconnection, programming, copyright and channel 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.