Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

15. Commitments and Contingencies

Partnership Parks

On April 1, 1998, we acquired all of the capital stock of Former SFEC for $976.0 million, paid in cash. In addition to our obligations under outstanding indebtedness and other securities issued or assumed in the Former SFEC acquisition, we also guaranteed certain contractual obligations relating to the Partnership Parks. Specifically, we guaranteed the obligations of the general partners of those partnerships to (i) make minimum annual distributions (including rent) of approximately $75.2 million in 2021 (subject to cost of living adjustments) to the limited partners in the Partnership Parks (based on our ownership of units as of December 31, 2020, our share of the distribution will be approximately $33.3 million) and (ii) make minimum capital expenditures at each of the Partnership Parks during rolling five-year periods, based generally on 6% of the Partnership Parks’ revenues. Cash flow from operations at the Partnership Parks is used to satisfy these requirements, before any funds are required from us. We also guaranteed the obligation of our subsidiaries to annually purchase all outstanding limited partnership units to the extent tendered by the unit holders (the "Partnership Park Put"). The agreed price for units tendered in the Partnership Park Put is based on a valuation of each of the respective Partnership Parks (the "Specified Price") that is the greater of (a) a valuation for each of the respective Partnership Parks derived by multiplying such park’s weighted average four year EBITDA (as defined in the agreements that govern the partnerships) by a specified multiple (8.0 in the case of SFOG and 8.5 in the case of SFOT) and (b) a valuation derived from the highest prices previously paid for the units of the Partnership Parks by certain entities. In light of the temporary suspension of operations of the Partnership Parks due to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, which would cause the value of the limited partnership units of the Partnership Parks to decrease in 2021 and thereafter, we adjusted our annual offer to purchase these units to set a minimum price floor for all future purchases. Pursuant to the valuation methodologies described in the preceding sentence, the Specified Price for the Partnership Parks, if determined as of December 31, 2020 is $409.7 million in the case of SFOG and $527.4 million in the case of SFOT. As of December 31, 2020, we owned approximately 31.4% and 53.9% of the Georgia limited partner interests and Texas limited partner interests, respectively. Our obligations with respect to SFOG and SFOT will continue until 2027 and 2028, respectively.

In 2027 and 2028, we will have the option to purchase all remaining units in the Georgia limited partner and the Texas limited partner, respectively, at a price based on the Specified Price, increased by a cost of living adjustment. Pursuant to the 2020 annual offer, we purchased 0.375 units from the Georgia partnership for approximately $1.5 million and 1.5675 units from the Texas partnership for approximately $3.4 million in May 2020. Pursuant to the 2019 annual offer, we did not purchase any units from the Georgia partnership and we purchased 0.1 units from the Texas partnership for approximately $0.2 million in May 2019. As we purchase additional units, we are entitled to a proportionate increase in our share of the minimum annual distributions. The maximum unit purchase obligations for 2021 at both parks aggregates to approximately $523.4 million, representing approximately 68.6% of the outstanding units of SFOG and 46.1% of the outstanding units of SFOT. The $350.0 million accordion feature on the Second Amended and Restated Term Loan B under the Second Amended and Restated Credit Facility is available for borrowing for future "put" obligations if necessary.

In connection with our acquisition of the Former SFEC, we entered into the Subordinated Indemnity Agreement with certain of the Company’s entities, Time Warner and an affiliate of Time Warner (an indirect subsidiary of AT&T Inc. as a result of a merger in 2018), pursuant to which, among other things, we transferred to Time Warner (which has guaranteed all of our obligations under the Partnership Park arrangements) record title to the corporations which own the entities that have purchased and will purchase limited partnership units of the Partnership Parks, and we received an assignment from Time Warner of all cash flow received on such limited partnership units, and we otherwise control such entities. In addition, we issued preferred stock of the managing partner of the partnerships to Time Warner. In the event of a default by us under the Subordinated Indemnity Agreement or of our obligations to our partners in the Partnership Parks, these arrangements would permit Time Warner to take full control of both the entities that own limited partnership units and the managing partner. If we satisfy all such obligations, Time Warner is required to transfer to us the entire equity interests of these entities. The 2018 merger of Time Warner and AT&T Inc. did not affect the Time Warner guarantee of our obligations under the Subordinated Indemnity Agreement.

We incurred $9.1 million of capital expenditures at these parks during the 2020 season and intend to incur approximately $10.2 million of capital expenditures at these parks for the 2021 season, an amount in excess of the minimum required expenditure. Cash flows from operations at the Partnership Parks will be used to satisfy the annual distribution and capital expenditure requirements, before any funds are required from us. The Partnership Parks used approximately $8.4 million of cash in 2020 from operating activities after deduction of capital expenditures and excluding the impact of short-term intercompany advances from or payments to Holdings. As of December 31, 2020 and 2019, we had total loans receivable outstanding of $288.3 million and $239.3 million, respectively, from the partnerships that own the Partnership Parks, primarily to fund the acquisition of Six Flags White Water Atlanta, and to make capital improvements and distributions to the limited partners.

License Agreements

We are party to a license agreement pursuant to which we have the exclusive right on a long-term basis to theme park use in the United States and Canada (excluding the Las Vegas, Nevada metropolitan area) of all animated, cartoon and comic book characters that Warner Bros. and DC Comics have the right to license for such use. The term of the agreement expires in 2053. The license fee is payable on a per-theme park basis, and is subject to CPI increases and scheduled adjustments, including periodic market resets.

In November 1999, we entered into license agreements pursuant to which we have the exclusive right on a long-term basis to parks use in Europe, Central and South America of all animated, cartoon and comic book characters that Warner Bros. and DC Comics have the right to license for such use. Under such agreements, the license fee is based on specified percentages of the gross revenues of the applicable parks.

Insurance

We maintain insurance of the types and in amounts that we believe are commercially reasonable and that are available to businesses in our industry. We maintain multi-layered general liability policies that provide for excess liability coverage of up to $100.0 million per occurrence. For incidents arising on or after December 31, 2008, our self-insured retention is $2.0 million, followed by a $0.5 million deductible per occurrence applicable to all claims in the policy year for our domestic parks and our park in Canada and a nominal amount per occurrence for our parks in Mexico. Defense costs are in addition to these retentions. Our general liability policies cover the cost of punitive damages only in certain jurisdictions. Based upon reported claims and an estimate for incurred, but not reported claims, we accrue a liability for our retention contingencies. For workers’ compensation claims arising after November 15, 2003, our deductible is $0.75 million. We also maintain fire and extended coverage, business interruption, terrorism and other forms of insurance typical to businesses in this industry. The all peril property coverage policies insure our real and personal properties (other than land) against physical damage resulting from a variety of hazards. Additionally, we maintain information security and privacy liability insurance in the amount of $10.0 million with a $0.25 million retention per event.

We generally renegotiate our insurance policies on an annual basis. The majority of our current insurance policies expire on December 31, 2021. We cannot predict the level of the premiums that we may be required to pay for subsequent insurance coverage, the level of any retention applicable thereto, the level of aggregate coverage available or the availability of coverage for specific risks.

Capital Expenditures

We plan to strategically reinvest in our properties to improve the guest experience.

Litigation

Privacy Class Action Lawsuits

On January 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed against Holdings in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois. On April 22, 2016, Great America, LLC was added as a defendant. The complaint asserts that we violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with the admission of season pass holders and members through the finger scan program that commenced in the 2014 operating season at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois, and seeks statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and an injunction. An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 if a company is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii) $5,000 if found to have intentionally or recklessly violated BIPA, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees in each case. The complaint does not allege that any information was misused or disseminated. On April 7, 2017, the trial court certified two questions for consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court of the Second District. On June 7, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court granted our motion to appeal. Accordingly, two questions regarding the interpretation of BIPA were certified for consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court. On December 21, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court found in our favor, holding that the plaintiff had to allege more than a technical violation of BIPA and had to be injured in some way in order to have a right of action. On March 1, 2018, the plaintiff filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On May 30, 2018, the Illinois Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s leave to appeal and oral arguments were heard on November 20, 2018. On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff does not need to allege an actual injury beyond the violation of his rights under BIPA in order to proceed with a complaint. We intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves against this litigation. The amount we have recorded is based on our estimate of the probable outcome of this litigation.

During 2017, four putative class action complaints were filed against Holdings or one of its subsidiaries. Complaints were filed on August 11, 2017, in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois; on September 1, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; on September 11, 2017, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California; and on November 30, 2017, in the Superior Court of Ocean County, New Jersey. The complaints allege that we, in violation of federal law, printed more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on customers’ receipts and/or the expiration dates of those cards. A willful violation may subject a company to liability for actual damages or statutory damages between $100 and $1,000 per person, punitive damages in an amount determined by a court and reasonable attorneys’ fees, all of which are sought by the plaintiffs. The complaints do not allege that any information was misused. On October 20, 2020, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the lawsuits, for an immaterial amount, and preliminary approval was granted by the court on December 3, 2020. All four lawsuits are stayed pending final approval of the settlement by the court.

Securities Class Action Lawsuits

In February 2020, two putative securities class action complaints were filed against Holdings and certain of its former executive officers (collectively, the “defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On March 2, 2020, the two cases were consolidated in an action captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-P (N.D. Tex.) (the “Electrical Workers litigation”), and an amended complaint was filed on March 20, 2020. On May 8, 2020, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. were appointed as lead plaintiffs, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP was appointed as lead counsel, and McKool Smith PC was appointed as liaison counsel. On July 2, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made materially false or misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company’s business, operations and growth prospects, specifically with respect to the development of its Six Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its partner, Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd., in violation of the federal securities laws. The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Holdings’ publicly traded common stock during the period between April 24, 2018 and February 19, 2020. On August 3, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which motion was fully briefed as of September 16, 2020 and remains pending. We believe that these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend this litigation vigorously. However, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit.

Stockholder Derivative Lawsuits

On March 20, 2020, a putative stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed on behalf of nominal defendant Holdings, by Mr. Mark Schwartz in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against certain of its current and former executive officers and directors (the “individual defendants”) in an action captioned Schwartz v. Reid-Anderson, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00262-P (N.D. Tex.). In April 2020, two additional stockholder derivative lawsuits, making substantially identical allegations as the Schwartz complaint, were filed on behalf of nominal defendant Holdings by Trustees of the St. Clair County Employees’ Retirement System and Mr. Mehmet Ali Albayrak in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in actions captioned Martin, et al. v. Reid-Anderson, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00311-P (N.D. Tex.) and Albayrak v. Reid-Anderson, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00312-P (N.D. Tex.), respectively. On April 8, 2020, plaintiffs in all three of these putative derivative actions moved to consolidate the three actions and to appoint lead counsel. On May 8, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate. The consolidated action is captioned In re Six Flags Entertainment Corporation Derivative Litigation, Case No. 4:20-cv-00262-P (N.D. Tex.). On August 10, 2020, plaintiffs filed a consolidated derivative complaint. The consolidated derivative complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, insider selling, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and contribution for violations of federal securities laws. The consolidated derivative complaint references, and makes many of the same allegations, as are set forth in the Electrical Workers litigation, alleging, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties, committed waste, are liable for contribution for, or were unjustly enriched by making, failing to correct, or failing to implement adequate internal controls relating to alleged materially false or misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company’s business, operations and growth prospects, specifically with respect to the prospects of the development of its Six Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its partner, Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd. The consolidated derivative complaint also alleges that a former officer and director sold shares of the Company while allegedly in possession of material non-public information concerning the same. On September 9, 2020, Holdings and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which motion was fully briefed as of October 23, 2020 and remains pending. We believe that these complaints are without merit and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. However, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits.

On May 5, 2020, a putative stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed on behalf of nominal defendant Holdings, by Mr. Richard Francisco in the District Court for Dallas County, Texas, 160th Judicial District, against certain of its current and former executive officers and directors (the “individual defendants”) in an action captioned Francisco v. Reid-Anderson, et al., Case No. DC-20-06425 (160th Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty., Tex.) (the “Francisco action”). The petition in the Francisco action alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The petition in the Francisco action references, and makes many of the same allegations, as are set forth in the Electrical Workers litigation, alleging, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties, were unjustly enriched by, abused their control, committed gross mismanagement, and committed waste by making, failing to correct, or failing to implement adequate internal controls relating to alleged materially false or misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company’s business, operations and growth prospects, specifically with respect to the prospects of the development of its Six Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its partner, Riverside Investment Group Co, Ltd. The petition also alleges that a former officer and director engaged in insider trading. On May 28, 2020, the parties in the Francisco action filed a joint motion to stay proceedings through the resolution of the forthcoming motion to dismiss the Electrical Workers litigation. On June 3, 2020, the court granted the joint motion to stay proceedings. On June 12, 2020, an additional stockholder derivative lawsuit, making substantially identical allegations as the Francisco petition, was filed on behalf of nominal defendant Holdings in the District Court for Dallas County, Texas, 298th Judicial District on behalf of putative stockholder Mr. Cliff Bragdon in an action captioned Bragdon v. Reid-Anderson, et al., Case No. DC-20-08180 (298th Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty., Tex.) (the “Bragdon action”). On July 10, 2020, the court granted an agreed motion filed by the parties in the Francisco and Bragdon actions to consolidate cases, to accept service and an unopposed motion to appoint co-lead and liaison counsel, and to stay both the Francisco and Bragdon actions through resolution of the motion to dismiss the Electrical Workers litigation. The consolidated state derivative action is captioned In re Six Flags Entertainment Corp. Derivative Litigation, Case No. DC-20-06425 (160th Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty., Tex.). On September 8, 2020, the parties to the consolidated state derivative action filed an agreed motion to transfer the case from Dallas County to Tarrant County, which motion was so ordered on September 27, 2020. The consolidated action is now captioned In re Six Flags Ent. Corp. Deriv. Litig., No. 096-

320958-20 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Tarrant Cty.). We believe that these complaints are without merit and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. However, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits.

Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuits

On March 8, 2016, certain plaintiffs filed a complaint against one of our subsidiaries in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, on behalf of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags New England. The complaint alleges violations of Massachusetts law governing employee overtime and rest breaks, and seeks damages in the form of unpaid wages for overtime and meal breaks and related penalties. On November 12, 2020, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the lawsuit, for an immaterial amount, and preliminary approval was granted by the court on December 3, 2020.

On April 20, 2018, a complaint was filed against Holdings and Six Flags Concord, LLC in the Superior Court of Solano County, California, on behalf of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was filed adding Park Management Corp. as a defendant. The amended complaint alleges violations of California law governing, among other things, employee overtime, meal and rest breaks, wage statements, and seeks damages in the form of unpaid wages, and related penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Following mediation on November 30, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle to resolve the lawsuit, for an immaterial amount. The settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by the court.

On September 18, 2019, a complaint was filed against Magic Mountain LLC in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, on behalf of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. An amended complaint was filed on November 24, 2019. On May 27, 2020, a copycat complaint was filed by the same law firm on behalf of a different named plaintiff alleging identical causes of action. The complaints allege violations of California law governing payment of wages, wage statements, and background checks, and seeks statutory damages under California law as well as under the Private Attorneys General Act, and attorneys’ fees costs. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this litigation. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the outcome is currently not determinable and a reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss cannot be made.

On February 14, 2020, a complaint was filed against Magic Mountain, LLC in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, on behalf of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags Magic Mountain. The complaint alleges one cause of action for failure to furnish accurate, itemized wage statements in violation of California labor law, and seeks all applicable statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs. Following mediation on January 13, 2021, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle to resolve the lawsuit, for an immaterial amount. The settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by the court.

On February 20, 2020, a complaint was filed against Park Management Corp. in the Superior Court of Solano County, California, on behalf of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. The complaint alleges violations of California law governing payment of wages, wage statements, and background checks, and seeks statutory damages under California law and attorneys’ fees costs. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this litigation. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the outcome is currently not determinable and a reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss cannot be made.

COVID-19 Park Closure Lawsuits

Since COVID-19 began affecting the operations of our parks in mid-March 2020, three similar purported class action complaints were filed against Holdings or one of its subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 10, 2020, April 13, 2020, and April 21, 2020. These complaints allege that we, in violation of California law, charged members and season passholders while the parks were closed and did not provide refunds for the amounts charged. The complaints seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution, and unspecified injunctive relief. On September 9, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle to resolve the lawsuits, for an immaterial amount, which is subject to preliminary and final approval by the court.

Tax and other contingencies

As of December 31, 2020 and 2019, we had a nominal amount of accrued liabilities for tax and other indemnification contingencies related to certain parks sold in previous years that could be recognized as recovery losses from discontinued operations in the future if such liabilities are not requested to be paid.