Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies Litigation Derivative Litigation and James J. Cotter, Jr. Employment Arbitration On June 12, 2015, the Board of Directors terminated James J. Cotter, Jr. as the President and Chief Executive Officer of our Company. That same day, Mr. Cotter, Jr. filed a lawsuit, styled as both an individual and a derivative action, and titled “James J. Cotter, Jr., individually and derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, et al.” Case No,: A-15-719860-V, Dept. XI, against our Company and each of our then sitting Directors (Ellen Cotter, Margaret Cotter, Guy Adams, William Gould, Edward Kane, Douglas McEachern, and Tim Storey) in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark County (the “Nevada District Court”). Since that date, our Company has been engaged in ongoing litigation with Mr. Cotter, Jr. with respect to his claims against our Directors. Mr. Cotter, Jr. has over this period of time twice amended his complaint, removing his individual claims and withdrawing his claims against Tim Storey (but reserving the right to reinstitute such claims), adding claims relating to actions taken by our Board since the filing of his original complaint and adding as defendants two of our directors who were not on our Board at the time of his termination: Judy Codding and Michael Wrotniak. Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s lawsuit, as amended from time to time, is referred to herein as the “Cotter Jr. Derivative Action” and his complaint, as amended from time to time, is referred to herein as the “Cotter Jr. Derivative Complaint.” The defendant directors named in the Cotter Jr. Derivative Complaint, from time to time, are referred to herein as the “Defendant Directors.” The Cotter Jr. Derivative Complaint alleges among other things, that the Defendant Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by terminating Mr. Cotter, Jr. as President and Chief Executive Officer, continuing to make use of the Executive Committee that has been in place for more than the past ten years (but which no longer includes Mr. Cotter, Jr. as a member), making allegedly potentially misleading statements in our Company’s press releases and filings with the SEC, paying certain compensation to Ellen Cotter, allowing the Cotter Estate to make use of Class A Common Stock to pay for the exercise of certain long outstanding stock options to acquire 100,000 shares of Class B Common Stock held of record by the Cotter Estate and determined by the Nevada District Court to be assets of the Cotter Estate, and allowing Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter to vote the 100,000 shares of Class B Common Stock issued upon the exercise of such options, appointing Ellen Cotter as President and Chief Executive Officer, appointing Margaret Cotter as Executive Vice President-Real Estate Management and Development-NYC, and the way in which the Board handled an unsolicited indication of interest made by a third party to acquire all of the stock of our Company. In the lawsuit, Mr. Cotter, Jr. seeks, among other things, reinstatement as President and Chief Executive Officer, a declaration that Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter may not vote the above referenced 100,000 shares of Class B Stock, and alleges as damages fluctuations in the price for our Company’s shares after the announcement of his termination as President and Chief Executive Officer and certain unspecified damages to our Company’s reputation. In addition, our Company is in arbitration with Mr. Cotter, Jr. (Reading International, Inc. v. James J. Cotter, AAA Case No. 01-15-0004-2384, filed July 2015) (the “Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration”) seeking declaratory relief and defending claims asserted by Mr. Cotter, Jr. On January 20, 2017, Mr. Cotter Jr. filed a First Amended Counter-Complaint which includes claims of breach of contract, contractual indemnification, retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5, wrongful discharge, and violations of California Code of Procedure § 1060 based on allegations of unlawful and unfair conduct. Mr. Cotter, Jr. seeks compensatory damages estimated by his counsel at more than $1.2 million, plus unquantified special and punitive damages, penalties, interest and attorney’s fees. On April 9, 2017, the Arbitrator granted without leave to amend the Company’s motion to dismiss Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s claims for retaliation, violation of labor code §1102.5 and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Mr. Cotter, Jr. also brought a direct action in the Nevada District Court (James J. Cotter, Jr. v. Reading International, Inc., a Nevada corporation; Does 1-100 and Roe Entities, 1-100, inclusive, Case No. A-16-735305-B) seeking advancement of attorney’s fees incurred in the Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration. Summary judgment was entered against Mr. Cotter, Jr. with respect to that direct action on October 3, 2016. For a period of approximately 12 months, between August 6, 2015 and August 4, 2016, our Company and our directors other than Mr. Cotter, Jr. were subject to a derivative lawsuit filed in the Nevada District Court captioned T2 Partners Management, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business as Kase Capital Management; T2 Accredited Fund, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business as Kase Fund; T2 Qualified Fund, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business as Kase Qualified Fund; Tilson Offshore Fund, Ltd, a Cayman Islands exempted company; T2 Partners Management I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, doing business as Kase Management; T2 Partners Management Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, doing business as Kase Group; JMG Capital Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Pacific Capital Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “T2 Plaintiffs”), derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, Ellen Cotter, Guy Adams, Edward Kane, Douglas McEachern, Timothy Storey, William Gould and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, as defendants, and, Reading International, Inc., a Nevada corporation, as Nominal Defendant. That complaint was subsequently amended (as amended the “T2 Derivative Complaint”) to add as defendants Directors Judy Codding and Michael Wrotniak (collectively with the directors initially named the “T2 Defendant Directors”) and S. Craig Tompkins, our Company’s legal counsel (collectively with the T2 Defendant Directors, the “T2 Defendants”). The T2 Derivative Action was settled pursuant to a Settlement Agreement between the parties dated August 4, 2016, which as modified was approved by the Nevada District Court on October 6, 2016. The District Court’s Order provided for the dismissal with prejudice of all claims contained in the T2 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and provide that each side would be responsible for its own attorneys’ fees. In the joint press release issued by our Company and the T2 Plaintiffs on July 13, 2016, representatives of the T2 Plaintiffs stated as follows: "We are pleased with the conclusions reached by our investigations as Plaintiff Stockholders and now firmly believe that the Reading Board of Directors has and will continue to protect stockholder interests and will continue to work to maximize shareholder value over the long-term. We appreciate the Company's willingness to engage in open dialogue and are excited about the Company's prospects. Our questions about the termination of James Cotter, Jr., and various transactions between Reading and members of the Cotter family-or entities they control-have been definitively addressed and put to rest. We are impressed by measures the Reading Board has made over the past year to further strengthen corporate governance. We fully support the Reading Board and management team and their strategy to create stockholder value.” The T2 Plaintiffs alleged in their T2 Derivative Complaint various violations of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste by the T2 Defendant Directors. More specifically the T2 Derivative Complaint sought the reinstatement of James J. Cotter, Jr. as President and Chief Executive Officer, an order setting aside the election results from the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, based on an allegation that Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter were not entitled to vote the shares of Class B Common Stock held by the Cotter Estate and the Cotter Trust, and certain monetary damages, as well as equitable injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs of suit. In May 2016, the T2 Plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought a preliminary injunction (1) enjoining the Inspector of Elections from counting at our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders any proxies purporting to vote either the 327,808 Class B shares held of record by the Cotter Estate or the 696,080 Class B shares held of record by the Cotter Trust, and (2) enjoining Ellen Cotter, Margaret Cotter and James J. Cotter, Jr. from voting the above referenced shares at the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. This request for preliminary injunctive relief was denied by the Nevada District Court after a hearing on May 26, 2016. On September 15, 2016, Mr. Cotter, Jr. filed a writ with the Nevada Supreme Court seeking a determination that the Nevada District Court erred in its determination that, by communicating his thoughts about the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action with counsel for the T2 Plaintiffs without any confidentiality or joint representation agreement, Mr. Cotter, Jr’s counsel waived any attorney work product privilege that might otherwise have been applicable to such communication. Our Company is of the view that any privilege was waived by the unprotected communication of such thoughts to a third party such as counsel to the T2 Plaintiffs. On March 23, 2017, the Nevada Supreme Court set oral argument on the matter for the next available calendar. On February 14, 2017, we filed a writ with the Nevada Supreme Court seeking a determination that the Nevada District Court erred in its decision to allow Mr. Cotter, Jr. access to certain communications between the Defendant Directors and Company counsel, which the Defendant Directors and our Company believe to be subject to the attorney-client communication privilege. Specifically, our writ asks the Nevada Supreme Court to determine whether the fact that the Defendant Directors are relying upon the Nevada business judgment rule constitutes, in whole or in part, a waiver of the attorney-client privilege held by us. Our request was substantially mooted by the decision in July 2017 in the Wynn Resorts Case, in which similar issues were considered. In that case, the Nevada Supreme Court stated: Accordingly, we reiterate that the business judgment rule goes beyond shielding directors from personal liability in decision-making. Rather, it also ensures that courts defer to the business judgment of corporate executives and prevents courts from “substitute[ing] [their] own notions of what is or is not sound business judgment,” if “the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company.” [Citations omitted] And, We agree that “it is the existence of legal advice that is material to the question of whether the board acted with due care, not the substance of that advice.” Accordingly, the district court erred when it compelled Wynn Resorts to produce any attorney client privileged . . . documents on the basis that Wynn Resorts waive the attorney-client privilege of those documents by claiming the business judgment rule as a defense. [Citations omitted]. On September 28, 2017 the Nevada Supreme Court concluded judicial economy would best be served if petitioners asked the District Court to reconsider the challenge based on the Wynn Resorts findings. Based in large part on the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Wynn Resorts, The Nevada District Court has now denied Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s motion to discover advice given by Company counsel to the Defendant Directors. Discovery is now complete, and we believe it likely that the Cotter, Jr. Derivative Action will likely go to a jury trial in the first quarter of 2018. The Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration is in the discovery phase. Our Company is and was legally obligated to cover the costs and expenses incurred by our Defendant Directors in defending the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action and the T2 Derivative Action. Furthermore, although in a derivative action, the stockholder plaintiff seeks damages or other relief for the benefit of our Company, and not for the stockholder plaintiff’s individual benefit and, accordingly, we are, at least in theory, only a nominal defendant, as a practical matter, because Mr. Cotter, Jr. is also seeking, among other things, an order that our Board’s determination to terminate Mr. Cotter, Jr. was ineffective and that he be reinstated as the President and Chief Executive Officer of our Company and also limiting the use of our Board’s Executive Committee, and as he asserts potentially misleading statements in certain press releases and filings with the SEC, our Company is also incurring on its own account significant cost and expense defending the decision to terminate Mr. Cotter, Jr. as President and Chief Executive Officer, its board committee structure, and the adequacy of those press releases and filings, in addition to its costs incurred in responding to discovery demands and satisfying indemnity obligations to the Defendant Directors. Likewise, in connection with the T2 Derivative Action, our Company incurred substantial costs defending claims related to the defense of claims relating to the termination of Mr. Cotter, Jr., opposing his reinstatement, and defending the conduct of its annual meetings. Cost incurred in the Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration and in the defense of the Cotter Jr. Attorney’s fees case were direct costs of our Company. The Directors and Officer’s Insurance Policy, in the amount of $10 million, being used to cover a portion of the costs of defending the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action, has been exhausted. We are now covering the defense costs of the Defendant Directors, in addition to our own costs incurred in connection with the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action. On August 7, 2017, our Board appointed a Special Independent Committee to, among other things, review, consider, deliberate, investigate, analyze, explore, evaluate, monitor and exercise general oversight of any and all activities of the Company directly or indirectly involving, responding to or relating to the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action, the Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration and any other litigation or arbitration matters involving any one or more of Ellen Cotter, Margaret Cotter, James J. Cotter, Jr., the Cotter Estate and/or the Cotter Living Trust. Directors Judy Codding, William Gould and Douglas McEachern have been appointed to serve on this Special Independent Committee. The STOMP Arbitration In April 2015, Liberty Theatres, LLC (“Liberty”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, commenced an American Arbitration Association arbitration proceeding (Case No.:01-15-0003-3728) against The Stomp Company Limited Partnership (“Stomp”), the producer of the show STOMP, in response to Stomp’s purported termination of their license agreement with Liberty relating to such show. STOMP has been playing at our Orpheum Theatre in New York City for 23 years and still continues to play to date. Liberty sought specific performance, injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. Stomp counterclaimed for unspecified damages, alleging that Liberty has interfered with the Stomp’s endeavors to move the show to another Off-Broadway theater. Stomp based its purported termination of the license agreement upon the alleged deficient condition of the Orpheum Theater. On December 18, 2015, the Arbitrator issued his Partial Final Award of Arbitration, providing for, among other things (i) the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting Stomp from “transferring or taking actions to market, promote, or otherwise facilitate any transfer of, STOMP to another theatre in New York City having fewer than 500 seats without Liberty’s prior written consent”, (ii) the Stomp’s Notice of Termination purportedly terminating the parties’ license agreement was invalid, null and void and the License Agreement remains in full force and effect, and (iii) the award to Liberty of its reasonable attorneys’ fees in an amount to be determined by the Arbitrator. In explaining his decision to award Liberty its reasonable attorneys’ fees, the Arbitrator stated as follows: “Liberty is entitled to such an award [of attorneys’ fees] not only because it is the prevailing party in this proceeding, but because [the Producer] unfairly disparaged the Orpheum and caused Liberty to incur attorneys’ fees in order to address and resolve [the Producer’s] groundless and frivolous allegations with respect to the Orpheum’s condition, Liberty’s performance under the License Agreement, and Stomp’s reasons for seeking to transfer STOMP to a larger theatre.” In April 2016, we received a Final Award in our arbitration with Stomp. The Final Award awards us $2.3 million in attorney’s fees and costs. In September 2016, the parties agreed on the payment terms of the Final Award (“Payment Agreement”), on a basis that is intended to allow recovery by Liberty of the entire Final Award (plus interest at 4%), while at the same time allowing the show to continue playing at our Orpheum Theater. Under the Payment Agreement, Stomp have paid a total of $1.6 million to-date, $1.1 million of which were received during the nine months ended September 30, 2017. The remaining amount is to be paid over time, with final payment due and payable in June 2019. We have filed a judgment of the arbitral award against Stomp with the New York Supreme Court to protect Liberty in the event Stomp defaults on the Payment Agreement. STOMP continues to play at our Orpheum Theater under a license agreement that was amended by the Payment Agreement.

Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

Derivative Litigation and James J. Cotter, Jr. Employment Arbitration

On June 12, 2015, the Board of Directors terminated James J. Cotter, Jr. as the President and Chief Executive Officer of our Company. That same day, Mr. Cotter, Jr. filed a lawsuit, styled as both an individual and a derivative action, and titled “James J. Cotter, Jr., individually and derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, et al.” Case No,: A-15-719860-V, Dept. XI, against our Company and each of our then sitting Directors (Ellen Cotter, Margaret Cotter, Guy Adams, William Gould, Edward Kane, Douglas McEachern, and Tim Storey) in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark County (the “Nevada District Court”). Since that date, our Company has been engaged in ongoing litigation with Mr. Cotter, Jr. with respect to his claims against our Directors. Mr. Cotter, Jr. has over this period of time twice amended his complaint, removing his individual claims and withdrawing his claims against Tim Storey (but reserving the right to reinstitute such claims), adding claims relating to actions taken by our Board since the filing of his original complaint and adding as defendants two of our directors who were not on our Board at the time of his termination: Judy Codding and Michael Wrotniak. Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s lawsuit, as amended from time to time, is referred to herein as the “Cotter Jr. Derivative Action” and his complaint, as amended from time to time, is referred to herein as the “Cotter Jr. Derivative Complaint.” The defendant directors named in the Cotter Jr. Derivative Complaint, from time to time, are referred to herein as the “Defendant Directors.”

The Cotter Jr. Derivative Complaint alleges among other things, that the Defendant Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by terminating Mr. Cotter, Jr. as President and Chief Executive Officer, continuing to make use of the Executive Committee that has been in place for more than the past ten years (but which no longer includes Mr. Cotter, Jr. as a member), making allegedly potentially misleading statements in our Company’s press releases and filings with the SEC, paying certain compensation to Ellen Cotter, allowing the Cotter Estate to make use of Class A Common Stock to pay for the exercise of certain long outstanding stock options to acquire 100,000 shares of Class B Common Stock held of record by the Cotter Estate and determined by the Nevada District Court to be assets of the Cotter Estate, and allowing Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter to vote the 100,000 shares of Class B Common Stock issued upon the exercise of such options, appointing Ellen Cotter as President and Chief Executive Officer, appointing Margaret Cotter as Executive Vice President-Real Estate Management and Development-NYC, and the way in which the Board handled an unsolicited indication of interest made by a third party to acquire all of the stock of our Company. In the lawsuit, Mr. Cotter, Jr. seeks, among other things, reinstatement as President and Chief Executive Officer, a declaration that Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter may not vote the above referenced 100,000 shares of Class B Stock, and alleges as damages fluctuations in the price for our Company’s shares after the announcement of his termination as President and Chief Executive Officer and certain unspecified damages to our Company’s reputation.

In addition, our Company is in arbitration with Mr. Cotter, Jr. (Reading International, Inc. v. James J. Cotter, AAA Case No. 01-15-0004-2384, filed July 2015) (the “Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration”) seeking declaratory relief and defending claims asserted by Mr. Cotter, Jr. On January 20, 2017, Mr. Cotter Jr. filed a First Amended Counter-Complaint which includes claims of breach of contract, contractual indemnification, retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5, wrongful discharge, and violations of California Code of Procedure § 1060 based on allegations of unlawful and unfair conduct. Mr. Cotter, Jr. seeks compensatory damages estimated by his counsel at more than $1.2 million, plus unquantified special and punitive damages, penalties, interest and attorney’s fees. On April 9, 2017, the Arbitrator granted without leave to amend the Company’s motion to dismiss Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s claims for retaliation, violation of labor code §1102.5 and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.

Mr. Cotter, Jr. also brought a direct action in the Nevada District Court (James J. Cotter, Jr. v. Reading International, Inc., a Nevada corporation; Does 1-100 and Roe Entities, 1-100, inclusive, Case No. A-16-735305-B) seeking advancement of attorney’s fees incurred in the Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration. Summary judgment was entered against Mr. Cotter, Jr. with respect to that direct action on October 3, 2016.

For a period of approximately 12 months, between August 6, 2015 and August 4, 2016, our Company and our directors other than Mr. Cotter, Jr. were subject to a derivative lawsuit filed in the Nevada District Court captioned T2 Partners Management, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business as Kase Capital Management; T2 Accredited Fund, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business as Kase Fund; T2 Qualified Fund, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business as Kase Qualified Fund; Tilson Offshore Fund, Ltd, a Cayman Islands exempted company; T2 Partners Management I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, doing business as Kase Management; T2 Partners Management Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, doing business as Kase Group; JMG Capital Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Pacific Capital Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “T2 Plaintiffs”), derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, Ellen Cotter, Guy Adams, Edward Kane, Douglas McEachern, Timothy Storey, William Gould and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, as defendants, and, Reading International, Inc., a Nevada corporation, as Nominal Defendant. That complaint was subsequently amended (as amended the “T2 Derivative Complaint”) to add as defendants Directors Judy Codding and Michael Wrotniak (collectively with the directors initially named the “T2 Defendant Directors”) and S. Craig Tompkins, our Company’s legal counsel (collectively with the T2 Defendant Directors, the “T2 Defendants”). The T2 Derivative Action was settled pursuant to a Settlement Agreement between the parties dated August 4, 2016, which as modified was approved by the Nevada District Court on October 6, 2016. The District Court’s Order provided for the dismissal with prejudice of all claims contained in the T2 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and provide that each side would be responsible for its own attorneys’ fees.

In the joint press release issued by our Company and the T2 Plaintiffs on July 13, 2016, representatives of the T2 Plaintiffs stated as follows: "We are pleased with the conclusions reached by our investigations as Plaintiff Stockholders and now firmly believe that the Reading Board of Directors has and will continue to protect stockholder interests and will continue to work to maximize shareholder value over the long-term. We appreciate the Company's willingness to engage in open dialogue and are excited about the Company's prospects. Our questions about the termination of James Cotter, Jr., and various transactions between Reading and members of the Cotter family-or entities they control-have been definitively addressed and put to rest. We are impressed by measures the Reading Board has made over the past year to further strengthen corporate governance. We fully support the Reading Board and management team and their strategy to create stockholder value.”

The T2 Plaintiffs alleged in their T2 Derivative Complaint various violations of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste by the T2 Defendant Directors. More specifically the T2 Derivative Complaint sought the reinstatement of James J. Cotter, Jr. as President and Chief Executive Officer, an order setting aside the election results from the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, based on an allegation that Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter were not entitled to vote the shares of Class B Common Stock held by the Cotter Estate and the Cotter Trust, and certain monetary damages, as well as equitable injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs of suit. In May 2016, the T2 Plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought a preliminary injunction (1) enjoining the Inspector of Elections from counting at our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders any proxies purporting to vote either the 327,808 Class B shares held of record by the Cotter Estate or the 696,080 Class B shares held of record by the Cotter Trust, and (2) enjoining Ellen Cotter, Margaret Cotter and James J. Cotter, Jr. from voting the above referenced shares at the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. This request for preliminary injunctive relief was denied by the Nevada District Court after a hearing on May 26, 2016.

On September 15, 2016, Mr. Cotter, Jr. filed a writ with the Nevada Supreme Court seeking a determination that the Nevada District Court erred in its determination that, by communicating his thoughts about the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action with counsel for the T2 Plaintiffs without any confidentiality or joint representation agreement, Mr. Cotter, Jr’s counsel waived any attorney work product privilege that might otherwise have been applicable to such communication. Our Company is of the view that any privilege was waived by the unprotected communication of such thoughts to a third party such as counsel to the T2 Plaintiffs. On March 23, 2017, the Nevada Supreme Court set oral argument on the matter for the next available calendar.

On February 14, 2017, we filed a writ with the Nevada Supreme Court seeking a determination that the Nevada District Court erred in its decision to allow Mr. Cotter, Jr. access to certain communications between the Defendant Directors and Company counsel, which the Defendant Directors and our Company believe to be subject to the attorney-client communication privilege. Specifically, our writ asks the Nevada Supreme Court to determine whether the fact that the Defendant Directors are relying upon the Nevada business judgment rule constitutes, in whole or in part, a waiver of the attorney-client privilege held by us.

Our request was substantially mooted by the decision in July 2017 in the Wynn Resorts Case, in which similar issues were considered. In that case, the Nevada Supreme Court stated:

Accordingly, we reiterate that the business judgment rule goes beyond shielding directors from personal liability in decision-making. Rather, it also ensures that courts defer to the business judgment of corporate executives and prevents courts from “substitute[ing] [their] own notions of what is or is not sound business judgment,” if “the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company.” [Citations omitted]

And,

We agree that “it is the existence of legal advice that is material to the question of whether the board acted with due care, not the substance of that advice.” Accordingly, the district court erred when it compelled Wynn Resorts to produce any attorney client privileged . . . documents on the basis that Wynn Resorts waive the attorney-client privilege of those documents by claiming the business judgment rule as a defense. [Citations omitted].

On September 28, 2017 the Nevada Supreme Court concluded judicial economy would best be served if petitioners asked the District Court to reconsider the challenge based on the Wynn Resorts findings. Based in large part on the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Wynn Resorts, The Nevada District Court has now denied Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s motion to discover advice given by Company counsel to the Defendant Directors.

Discovery is now complete, and we believe it likely that the Cotter, Jr. Derivative Action will likely go to a jury trial in the first quarter of 2018.

The Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration is in the discovery phase.

Our Company is and was legally obligated to cover the costs and expenses incurred by our Defendant Directors in defending the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action and the T2 Derivative Action. Furthermore, although in a derivative action, the stockholder plaintiff seeks damages or other relief for the benefit of our Company, and not for the stockholder plaintiff’s individual benefit and, accordingly, we are, at least in theory, only a nominal defendant, as a practical matter, because Mr. Cotter, Jr. is also seeking, among other things, an order that our Board’s determination to terminate Mr. Cotter, Jr. was ineffective and that he be reinstated as the President and Chief Executive Officer of our Company and also limiting the use of our Board’s Executive Committee, and as he asserts potentially misleading statements in certain press releases and filings with the SEC, our Company is also incurring on its own account significant cost and expense defending the decision to terminate Mr. Cotter, Jr. as President and Chief Executive Officer, its board committee structure, and the adequacy of those press releases and filings, in addition to its costs incurred in responding to discovery demands and satisfying indemnity obligations to the Defendant Directors. Likewise, in connection with the T2 Derivative Action, our Company incurred substantial costs defending claims related to the defense of claims relating to the termination of Mr. Cotter, Jr., opposing his reinstatement, and defending the conduct of its annual meetings. Cost incurred in the Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration and in the defense of the Cotter Jr. Attorney’s fees case were direct costs of our Company.

The Directors and Officer’s Insurance Policy, in the amount of $10 million, being used to cover a portion of the costs of defending the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action, has been exhausted. We are now covering the defense costs of the Defendant Directors, in addition to our own costs incurred in connection with the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action.

On August 7, 2017, our Board appointed a Special Independent Committee to, among other things, review, consider, deliberate, investigate, analyze, explore, evaluate, monitor and exercise general oversight of any and all activities of the Company directly or indirectly involving, responding to or relating to the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action, the Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration and any other litigation or arbitration matters involving any one or more of Ellen Cotter, Margaret Cotter, James J. Cotter, Jr., the Cotter Estate and/or the Cotter Living Trust. Directors Judy Codding, William Gould and Douglas McEachern have been appointed to serve on this Special Independent Committee.

The STOMP Arbitration

In April 2015, Liberty Theatres, LLC (“Liberty”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, commenced an American Arbitration Association arbitration proceeding (Case No.:01-15-0003-3728) against The Stomp Company Limited Partnership (“Stomp”), the producer of the show STOMP, in response to Stomp’s purported termination of their license agreement with Liberty relating to such show. STOMP has been playing at our Orpheum Theatre in New York City for 23 years and still continues to play to date. Liberty sought specific performance, injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. Stomp counterclaimed for unspecified damages, alleging that Liberty has interfered with the Stomp’s endeavors to move the show to another Off-Broadway theater. Stomp based its purported termination of the license agreement upon the alleged deficient condition of the Orpheum Theater.

On December 18, 2015, the Arbitrator issued his Partial Final Award of Arbitration, providing for, among other things (i) the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting Stomp from “transferring or taking actions to market, promote, or otherwise facilitate any transfer of, STOMP to another theatre in New York City having fewer than 500 seats without Liberty’s prior written consent”, (ii) the Stomp’s Notice of Termination purportedly terminating the parties’ license agreement was invalid, null and void and the License Agreement remains in full force and effect, and (iii) the award to Liberty of its reasonable attorneys’ fees in an amount to be determined by the Arbitrator.

In explaining his decision to award Liberty its reasonable attorneys’ fees, the Arbitrator stated as follows: “Liberty is entitled to such an award [of attorneys’ fees] not only because it is the prevailing party in this proceeding, but because [the Producer] unfairly disparaged the Orpheum and caused Liberty to incur attorneys’ fees in order to address and resolve [the Producer’s] groundless and frivolous allegations with respect to the Orpheum’s condition, Liberty’s performance under the License Agreement, and Stomp’s reasons for seeking to transfer STOMP to a larger theatre.”

In April 2016, we received a Final Award in our arbitration with Stomp. The Final Award awards us $2.3 million in attorney’s fees and costs. In September 2016, the parties agreed on the payment terms of the Final Award (“Payment Agreement”), on a basis that is intended to allow recovery by Liberty of the entire Final Award (plus interest at 4%), while at the same time allowing the show to continue playing at our Orpheum Theater. Under the Payment Agreement, Stomp have paid a total of $1.6 million to-date, $1.1 million of which were received during the nine months ended September 30, 2017. The remaining amount is to be paid over time, with final payment due and payable in June 2019. We have filed a judgment of the arbitral award against Stomp with the New York Supreme Court to protect Liberty in the event Stomp defaults on the Payment Agreement. STOMP continues to play at our Orpheum Theater under a license agreement that was amended by the Payment Agreement.