Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies Litigation General We are currently involved in certain legal proceedings and, as required, have accrued estimates of probable and estimable losses for the resolution of these claims, including legal costs. Where we are a plaintiff, we accrue legal fees as incurred on an on-going basis and make no provision for any potential settlement amounts until received. In Australia, the prevailing party is usually entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees, which recoveries typically work out to be approximately 60% of the amounts actually spent where first-class legal counsel is engaged at customary rates. Where we are a plaintiff, we have likewise made no provision for the liability for the defendant’s attorneys' fees in the event we are determined not to be the prevailing party. Where we are a defendant, we accrue for probable damages that insurance may not cover as they become known and can be reasonably estimated, as permitted under ASC 450-20 Loss Contingencies. In our opinion, any claims and litigation in which we are currently involved are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position, or liquidity. It is possible, however, that future results of the operations for any particular quarterly or annual period could be materially affected by the ultimate outcome of the legal proceedings. From time-to-time, we are involved with claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of our business that may include contractual obligations, insurance claims, tax claims, employment matters, and anti-trust issues, among other matters. All of these matters require significant judgments based on the facts known to us. These judgments are inherently uncertain and can change significantly when additional facts become known. We provide accruals for matters that have probable likelihood of occurrence and can be properly estimated as to their expected negative outcome. We do not record expected gains until the proceeds are received by us. However, we typically make no accruals for potential costs of defense, as such amounts are inherently uncertain and dependent upon the scope, extent and aggressiveness of the activities of the applicable plaintiff. Environmental and Asbestos Claims on Reading Legacy Operations Certain of our subsidiaries were historically involved in railroad operations, coal mining, and manufacturing. Also, certain of these subsidiaries appear in the chain-of-title of properties that may suffer from pollution. Accordingly, certain of these subsidiaries have, from time-to-time, been named in and may in the future be named in various actions brought under applicable environmental laws. Also, we are in the real estate development business and may encounter from time-to-time unanticipated environmental conditions at properties that we have acquired for development. These environmental conditions can increase the cost of such projects and adversely affect the value and potential for profit of such projects. We do not currently believe that our exposure under applicable environmental laws is material in amount. From time to time, there are claims brought against us relating to the exposure of former employees of our railroad operations to asbestos and coal dust. These are generally covered by an insurance settlement reached in September 1990 with our insurance providers. However, this insurance settlement does not cover litigation by people who were not our employees and who may claim second-hand exposure to asbestos, coal dust and/or other chemicals or elements now recognized as potentially causing cancer in humans. Our known exposure to these types of claims, asserted or probable of being asserted, is not material. Cotter Jr. Derivative Litigation This action was originally brought by James J. Cotter, Jr. (“Cotter Jr.”) in June 2015 in the Nevada District Court against all of the Directors of the Company and against the Company as a nominal defendant: James J. Cotter, Jr., individually and derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, et al.” Case No: A-15-719860-V. Summary judgment has been entered against Cotter, Jr., and in favor of all defendants and a $1.55 million cost judgment has been entered against Cotter, Jr., and in favor of our Company. Cotter, Jr. has appealed both judgements. Our application for attorney’s fees was denied, and we have appealed that determination. The issues on appeal are currently being briefed. The appeals have been consolidated and fully briefed and are scheduled for hearing before the Nevada Supreme Court on September 8, 2020. As the Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy covering Cotter, Jr.’s claims in the Derivative Case ($10.0 million) has been exhausted, the financial burden of defending our Directors against these claims, as required by applicable Nevada Law, has fallen upon our Company. During 2019, out-of-pocket third-party costs in the amount of approximately $925,000 were incurred by our Company in defending against these claims. For the six months ended June 30, 2020, an additional $75,000 had been expensed, relating principally to the preparation of appellate briefs with respect to the Derivative Litigation. Employment Litigation The Company is currently involved in two California employment matters which include substantially overlapping wage and hour claims: Taylor Brown, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Reading Cinemas et al. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern, Case No. BCV-19-1000390 (“Brown v. RC,” and the “Brown Class Action Complaint” respectively) and Peter M. Wagner, Jr., an individual, vs. Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, Case NO. 37-2019-00030695-CU-WT-CTL (“Wagner v. CEI,” and the “Wagner Individual Complaint” respectively). Brown v. RC was initially filed in December 2018, as an individual action and refiled as a putative class action in February 2019, but not served until June 24, 2019. These lawsuits seek damages, and attorneys’ fees, relating to alleged violations of California labor laws relating to meal periods, rest periods, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, timely pay upon termination and wage statements violations. Wagner v. CEI was filed as a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in June 2019. The following month, in July 2019, a notice was served on us by separate counsel for Mr. Wagner under the California Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (Cal. Labor Code Section 2698, et seq) (the “Wagner PAGA Claim”) purportedly asserting in a representational capacity claims under the PAGA statute, overlapping, in substantial part, the allegations set forth in the Brown Class Action Complaint. On March 6, 2020, Wagner filed a purported class action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, again covering basically the same allegations as set forth in the Brown Class Action Complaint, and titled Peter M. Wagner, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. Reading International, Inc., Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. and Does 1 through 25, Case No. 37-2020-000127-CU-OE-CTL (the “Wagner Class Action”). Neither plaintiff has specified the amount of damages sought. The Company is investigating and intends to vigorously defend the allegations of the Brown Class Action Complaint, the Wagner Individual Complaint, the Wagner PAGA Claim and the Wagner Class Action Complaint. In addition, we have denied that a PAGA representative action is appropriate. These matters are in their early stages, and the putative class actions have not been certified. As these cases are in early stages, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or the range of potential loss, if any; however, the Company believes that its potential liability with respect to such matters is not material to its overall financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Accordingly, the Company has not established a reserve for loss in connection with these matters.

Commitments And Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]

Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation General

We are currently involved in certain legal proceedings and, as required, have accrued estimates of probable and estimable losses for the resolution of these claims, including legal costs.

Where we are a plaintiff, we accrue legal fees as incurred on an on-going basis and make no provision for any potential settlement amounts until received. In Australia, the prevailing party is usually entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees, which recoveries typically work out to be approximately 60% of the amounts actually spent where first-class legal counsel is engaged at customary rates. Where we are a plaintiff, we have likewise made no provision for the liability for the defendant’s attorneys' fees in the event we are determined not to be the prevailing party.

Where we are a defendant, we accrue for probable damages that insurance may not cover as they become known and can be reasonably estimated, as permitted under ASC 450-20 Loss Contingencies. In our opinion, any claims and litigation in which we are currently involved are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position, or liquidity. It is possible, however, that future results of the operations for any particular quarterly or annual period could be materially affected by the ultimate outcome of the legal proceedings. From time-to-time, we are involved with claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of our business that may include contractual obligations, insurance claims, tax claims, employment matters, and anti-trust issues, among other matters.

All of these matters require significant judgments based on the facts known to us. These judgments are inherently uncertain and can change significantly when additional facts become known. We provide accruals for matters that have probable likelihood of occurrence and can be properly estimated as to their expected negative outcome. We do not record expected gains until the proceeds are received by us. However, we typically make no accruals for potential costs of defense, as such amounts are inherently uncertain and dependent upon the scope, extent and aggressiveness of the activities of the applicable plaintiff.

Environmental and Asbestos Claims on Reading Legacy Operations

Certain of our subsidiaries were historically involved in railroad operations, coal mining, and manufacturing. Also, certain of these subsidiaries appear in the chain-of-title of properties that may suffer from pollution. Accordingly, certain of these subsidiaries have, from time-to-time, been named in and may in the future be named in various actions brought under applicable environmental laws. Also, we are in the real estate development business and may encounter from time-to-time unanticipated environmental conditions at properties that we have acquired for development. These environmental conditions can increase the cost of such projects and adversely affect the value and potential for profit of such projects. We do not currently believe that our exposure under applicable environmental laws is material in amount.

From time to time, there are claims brought against us relating to the exposure of former employees of our railroad operations to asbestos and coal dust. These are generally covered by an insurance settlement reached in September 1990 with our insurance providers. However, this insurance settlement does not cover litigation by people who were not our employees and who may claim

second-hand exposure to asbestos, coal dust and/or other chemicals or elements now recognized as potentially causing cancer in humans. Our known exposure to these types of claims, asserted or probable of being asserted, is not material.

Cotter Jr. Derivative Litigation

This action was originally brought by James J. Cotter, Jr. (“Cotter Jr.”) in June 2015 in the Nevada District Court against all of the Directors of the Company and against the Company as a nominal defendant: James J. Cotter, Jr., individually and derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, et al.” Case No: A-15-719860-V. Summary judgment has been entered against Cotter, Jr., and in favor of all defendants and a $1.55 million cost judgment has been entered against Cotter, Jr., and in favor of our Company. Cotter, Jr. has appealed both judgements. Our application for attorney’s fees was denied, and we have appealed that determination. The issues on appeal are currently being briefed. The appeals have been consolidated and fully briefed and are scheduled for hearing before the Nevada Supreme Court on September 8, 2020. As the Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy covering Cotter, Jr.’s claims in the Derivative Case ($10.0 million) has been exhausted, the financial burden of defending our Directors against these claims, as required by applicable Nevada Law, has fallen upon our Company. During 2019, out-of-pocket third-party costs in the amount of approximately $925,000 were incurred by our Company in defending against these claims. For the six months ended June 30, 2020, an additional $75,000 had been expensed, relating principally to the preparation of appellate briefs with respect to the Derivative Litigation.

Employment Litigation

The Company is currently involved in two California employment matters which include substantially overlapping wage and hour claims: Taylor Brown, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Reading Cinemas et al. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern, Case No. BCV-19-1000390 (“Brown v. RC,” and the “Brown Class Action Complaint” respectively) and Peter M. Wagner, Jr., an individual, vs. Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, Case NO. 37-2019-00030695-CU-WT-CTL (“Wagner v. CEI,” and the “Wagner Individual Complaint” respectively). Brown v. RC was initially filed in December 2018, as an individual action and refiled as a putative class action in February 2019, but not served until June 24, 2019. These lawsuits seek damages, and attorneys’ fees, relating to alleged violations of California labor laws relating to meal periods, rest periods, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, timely pay upon termination and wage statements violations. Wagner v. CEI was filed as a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in June 2019. The following month, in July 2019, a notice was served on us by separate counsel for Mr. Wagner under the California Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (Cal. Labor Code Section 2698, et seq) (the “Wagner PAGA Claim”) purportedly asserting in a representational capacity claims under the PAGA statute, overlapping, in substantial part, the allegations set forth in the Brown Class Action Complaint. On March 6, 2020, Wagner filed a purported class action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, again covering basically the same allegations as set forth in the Brown Class Action Complaint, and titled Peter M. Wagner, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. Reading International, Inc., Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. and Does 1 through 25, Case No. 37-2020-000127-CU-OE-CTL (the “Wagner Class Action”). Neither plaintiff has specified the amount of damages sought.

The Company is investigating and intends to vigorously defend the allegations of the Brown Class Action Complaint, the Wagner Individual Complaint, the Wagner PAGA Claim and the Wagner Class Action Complaint. In addition, we have denied that a PAGA representative action is appropriate. These matters are in their early stages, and the putative class actions have not been certified. As these cases are in early stages, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or the range of potential loss, if any; however, the Company believes that its potential liability with respect to such matters is not material to its overall financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Accordingly, the Company has not established a reserve for loss in connection with these matters.