Commitments And Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	NOTE 13 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Insofar as our Company is aware, there are no claims, arbitration proceedings, or litigation proceedings that constitute material contingent liabilities of our Company. Such 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. Discussed below are certain litigation matters which, however, have been significant to our Company. Litigation Matters 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 the plaintiffs, 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 the defendants, 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. 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 environmental conditions at properties that we have acquired for development and which will need to be addressed in the future as part of the development process. 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 to asbestos and/or 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 employees of our historic railroad operations and who may claim direct or 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. Related Litigation Matters The following table provides a list of legal matters and their current status relating to the derivative action brought against the Company and our directors by James J. Cotter, Jr. (“Cotter, Jr.”) and to Cotter, Jr.’s efforts to cause a change of control of the Company. DescriptionPlaintiffFiled withCurrent Status Cotter, Jr. Derivative Litigation against all Director: James J. Cotter, Jr., individually and derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, et al.” Case No,: A-15-719860-V Cotter, Jr.Nevada District CourtOn October 1, 2020, the Nevada Supreme Court determined that the District Court had erred when it denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case for lack of standing on the part of Cotter, Jr., to bring such an action, vacated the District Court’s orders denying the motions to dismiss and remanded for entry of judgment. The Supreme Court sustained the District Court’s award to our Company of costs in the amount of $809,000 and having received such amount, Reading authorized the District Court to enter satisfaction of judgment on January 6, 2021. This matter is now at an end. Cotter Trust Litigation: Determination of Status of Cotter, Jr., as Trustee: In re James J. Cotter Living Trust dated August 1, 2000 (Case No. BP159755) Our Company is not a party to the Trust Litigation. However, as the Cotter Voting Trust is anticipated to at some currently undetermined future date, to hold a majority of our Company’s voting control, we include here certain information as to the status of that litigation. Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter, as TrusteesCalifornia Superior CourtThe California Superior Court has ruled that Cotter, Jr., is not a trustee of either the James J. Cotter Living Trust (the “Cotter Living Trust”) or of the voting trust established under the Cotter Living Trust (the “Cotter Voting Trust”) to eventually hold the Class B Voting Common Stock beneficially owned by Mr. Cotter, Sr., at the time of his passing. The California Superior Court further determined that Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter are the sole trustees of the Cotter Living Trust and that Margaret Cotter is the sole trustee of the Cotter Voting Trust. Accordingly, Cotter, Jr., has neither dispositive power nor voting power over any of the Class B Voting Common Stock currently held by the Cotter Estate or the Cotter Living Trust, or which it is anticipated will be held by the Cotter Voting Trust. The time to appeal that ruling has now lapsed. The California Superior Court has also determined that the amendment to the Cotter Living Trust championed by Mr. Cotter, Jr., was not effective as Mr. Cotter, Sr. was not competent at the time it was purportedly executed and as it was procured by undue influence (the “Living Trust Ruling”). At December 31, 2021, the Cotter Estate held 427,808 shares of Class B Voting Stock, representing 25.5% of the voting power of such class. The Cotter Living Trust held 696,080 shares of Class B Voting Stock at such date, representing 41.4% of the voting power of such class. It is anticipated that, when funded, the Cotter Voting Trust will own 1,123,888 shares of Class B Voting Stock, representing 66.9% of the voting power of such class (the “Cotter Voting Stock”).  Cotter Trust Litigation: Motions re sale of: In re James J. Cotter Living Trust dated August 1, 2000 (Case No. BP159755)Cotter, Jr. and Guardian Ad LitemCalifornia Superior CourtIn response to the ex parte petition of Cotter, Jr. filed on March 23, 2016, the California Superior Court on March 23, 2018 directed that an unnamed temporary trustee ad litem be appointed to solicit offers to purchase the Cotter Voting Stock. On appellate review, the California Court of Appeal reversed the California Superior Court, determined that Cotter, Jr. did not have standing to purse that ex parte motion. However, issues as to the ongoing control of our Company are still uncertain. The Superior Court, at the request of Mr. Cotter, Jr., appointed a guardian ad litem (the “GAL”) to represent the interests of the beneficiaries of the Cotter Voting Trust. The GAL has motions pending (i) to divide the Cotter Voting Trust into separate trusts, one for the benefit of Margaret Cotter’s children and one for the benefit of James J. Cotter, Jr.’s children, (ii) in order to achieve diversification of the assets of these trusts, to sell the Class B stock eventually to be held by the Cotter Voting Trust, and (iii) to immediately retain a valuation expert to advise him as to value of the Class B Voting Stock to be eventually held by the Cotter Voting Trust. A petition brought by Margaret Cotter and Ellen Cotter, as Co-Trustees of the Cotter Living Trust, to disqualify the GAL on the basis that he cannot simultaneously represent the interests of Margaret Cotter and James J. Cotter, Jr’s, children as the interests of those children differ, was denied by the California Superior Court and that order is currently subject to appeal. Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter, as Co-Trustees of the Cotter Living Trust, have advised that they believe that it was the intention of their father that the Class B Voting Stock be held in the Cotter Voting Trust as long as possible and that they intend to oppose any splitting of the Cotter Voting Trust and/or sale of the Class B Voting Stock eventually to be held by the Cotter Voting Trust. James J. Cotter, Jr., has a pending petition to remove Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter as trustees of the Cotter Living Trust (a motion for which no discovery schedule, briefing schedule or hearing date has been set). Also, James J. Cotter, Jr., has historically supported the above described petition brought by the GAL to divide up the Cotter Voting Trust and sell the Class B Voting Stock to be held by the Cotter Voting Trust. The status of these petitions is uncertain, as James J. Cotter, Jr., passed away on March 10, 2021. As a consequence of the Superior Court’s Living Trust Ruling, Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter, as Co-Trustees of the Cotter Living Trust, have brought a petition to enforce the no-contest clause of the Cotter Living Trust, which if successful would remove Mr. Cotter, Jr., and his descendants as beneficiaries of the Cotter Living Trust, It would also moot Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s petitions (to the extent that they survive his passing), as he would be neither a trustee nor a beneficiary of the Cotter Living Trust. Mr. Cotter, Jr. has opposed the Co-Trustees petition to enforce the no-contest clause and brought an Anti-SLAPP claim against the Co-Trustees. That Anti-SLAPP claim was dismissed by the California Superior Court, which dismissal is now on appeal. The parties to these legal proceedings, including the GAL, have reached a Settlement in Principle, subject to Court approval, which Settlement in Principle is described above. These outstanding legal proceedings have been temporarily stayed pending a final determination on the Settlement in Principle by the Superior Court of the State of California. California Employment Litigation Our Company is currently a defendant in certain California employment matters which include substantially overlapping wage and hour claims relating to our California cinema operations as described below. 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”) 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. 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”) 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” and the “Wagner Class Action Complaint”). Following mediation, the Wagner Individual Complaint was settled, and final judgment entered on February 10, 2021, at what we believe to have been its nuisance value. The remaining 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. On July 13, 2021, following a mediation, the parties agreed to settle the claims set forth in the remaining lawsuits (specifically, the Brown Class Action Complaint, the Wagner PAGA Claim and the Wagner Class Action Complaint) for the Company’s payment of $4.0 million (the “Settlement Amount”). The settlement is contingent upon the execution and delivery of a final settlement agreement (which is currently being negotiated) and final court approval. The Settlement Amount is to be paid in two installments, one-half within 30 days of final court approval and the balance nine-months thereafter. A court hearing on the settlement is not expected until the second quarter of this year. We have accrued the Settlement Amount in cinema segment administrative expense. General Distributors Limited v. Reading Wellington Properties Arbitration On June 18, 2021, General Distributors Limited (“GDL”), an owner and operator of supermarkets in New Zealand, filed an arbitration statement of claim (the “Statement of Claim”) in Auckland, New Zealand, against our wholly owned subsidiary, Reading Wellington Properties, Limited (“RWPL”), relating to the enforceability of an Agreement to Lease (the “ATL”) entered into between the parties in February 2013, contemplating the construction by RWPL and the lease by GDL of a supermarket in Wellington, New Zealand on property owned by RWPL. The ATL contemplated that GDL would also obtain certain rights to use parking spaces in an adjacent 9 story parking structure owned by another of our wholly owned subsidiaries, Courtenay Carpark Limited (the “Parking Garage”). However, as a result of the Kaikōura earthquake on November 14, 2016, it was necessary to demolish the Parking Garage. It has not been rebuilt and there is currently no plan to rebuild it and neither RWPL nor Courtenay Carpark Limited have any legal right to rebuild it under presently existing laws controlling land use in Wellington. Accordingly, we believe that it became impossible to deliver the specific parking rights contemplated by the ATL and, given the materiality of these parking rights to the transaction contemplated by the ATL, that the ATL has been frustrated and is of no ongoing force and effect. GDL asserts a different view and is seeking a declaration that the ATL remains binding upon the parties and for specific performance by RWPL of the ATL. RWPL has filed a response contesting GDL’s claims, and raising various affirmative defenses, including frustration and a failure of the parties to reach any specifically enforceable agreement as to certain fundament construction and construction cost issues. No damages are being sought by GDL, other than costs, and no reserves for this matter have been established. RWPL is a limited liability company, its only asset being the parcel of unimproved land on which the supermarket was to be built. The first round of discovery is complete, and arbitration is currently slated for the 4th quarter of this year, if settlement is not reached. Under applicable New Zealand law, the arbitrator’s findings of fact are final, but asserted errors of law may be appealed to the court. In the interim, the parties have been, and are continuing to have, “without prejudice” discussions as to possible alternatives pursuant to which a grocery store of the type contemplated by the parties could be developed and leased to GDL.

Commitments And Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]

NOTE 13 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Insofar as our Company is aware, there are no claims, arbitration proceedings, or litigation proceedings that constitute material contingent liabilities of our Company. Such 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. Discussed below are certain litigation matters which, however, have been significant to our Company. Litigation Matters 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 the plaintiffs, 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 the defendants, 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. 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 environmental conditions at properties that we have acquired for development and which will need to be addressed in the future as part of the development process. 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 to asbestos and/or 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 employees of our historic railroad operations and who may claim direct or 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. Related Litigation Matters The following table provides a list of legal matters and their current status relating to the derivative action brought against the Company and our directors by James J. Cotter, Jr. (“Cotter, Jr.”) and to Cotter, Jr.’s efforts to cause a change of control of the Company. DescriptionPlaintiffFiled withCurrent Status Cotter, Jr. Derivative Litigation against all Director: James J. Cotter, Jr., individually and derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, et al.” Case No,: A-15-719860-V Cotter, Jr.Nevada District CourtOn October 1, 2020, the Nevada Supreme Court determined that the District Court had erred when it denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case for lack of standing on the part of Cotter, Jr., to bring such an action, vacated the District Court’s orders denying the motions to dismiss and remanded for entry of judgment. The Supreme Court sustained the District Court’s award to our Company of costs in the amount of $809,000 and having received such amount, Reading authorized the District Court to enter satisfaction of judgment on January 6, 2021. This matter is now at an end. Cotter Trust Litigation: Determination of Status of Cotter, Jr., as Trustee: In re James J. Cotter Living Trust dated August 1, 2000 (Case No. BP159755) Our Company is not a party to the Trust Litigation. However, as the Cotter Voting Trust is anticipated to at some currently undetermined future date, to hold a majority of our Company’s voting control, we include here certain information as to the status of that litigation. Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter, as TrusteesCalifornia Superior CourtThe California Superior Court has ruled that Cotter, Jr., is not a trustee of either the James J. Cotter Living Trust (the “Cotter Living Trust”) or of the voting trust established under the Cotter Living Trust (the “Cotter Voting Trust”) to eventually hold the Class B Voting Common Stock beneficially owned by Mr. Cotter, Sr., at the time of his passing. The California Superior Court further determined that Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter are the sole trustees of the Cotter Living Trust and that Margaret Cotter is the sole trustee of the Cotter Voting Trust. Accordingly, Cotter, Jr., has neither dispositive power nor voting power over any of the Class B Voting Common Stock currently held by the Cotter Estate or the Cotter Living Trust, or which it is anticipated will be held by the Cotter Voting Trust. The time to appeal that ruling has now lapsed. The California Superior Court has also determined that the amendment to the Cotter Living Trust championed by Mr. Cotter, Jr., was not effective as Mr. Cotter, Sr. was not competent at the time it was purportedly executed and as it was procured by undue influence (the “Living Trust Ruling”). At December 31, 2021, the Cotter Estate held 427,808 shares of Class B Voting Stock, representing 25.5% of the voting power of such class. The Cotter Living Trust held 696,080 shares of Class B Voting Stock at such date, representing 41.4% of the voting power of such class. It is anticipated that, when funded, the Cotter Voting Trust will own 1,123,888 shares of Class B Voting Stock, representing 66.9% of the voting power of such class (the “Cotter Voting Stock”).  Cotter Trust Litigation: Motions re sale of: In re James J. Cotter Living Trust dated August 1, 2000 (Case No. BP159755)Cotter, Jr. and Guardian Ad LitemCalifornia Superior CourtIn response to the ex parte petition of Cotter, Jr. filed on March 23, 2016, the California Superior Court on March 23, 2018 directed that an unnamed temporary trustee ad litem be appointed to solicit offers to purchase the Cotter Voting Stock. On appellate review, the California Court of Appeal reversed the California Superior Court, determined that Cotter, Jr. did not have standing to purse that ex parte motion. However, issues as to the ongoing control of our Company are still uncertain. The Superior Court, at the request of Mr. Cotter, Jr., appointed a guardian ad litem (the “GAL”) to represent the interests of the beneficiaries of the Cotter Voting Trust. The GAL has motions pending (i) to divide the Cotter Voting Trust into separate trusts, one for the benefit of Margaret Cotter’s children and one for the benefit of James J. Cotter, Jr.’s children, (ii) in order to achieve diversification of the assets of these trusts, to sell the Class B stock eventually to be held by the Cotter Voting Trust, and (iii) to immediately retain a valuation expert to advise him as to value of the Class B Voting Stock to be eventually held by the Cotter Voting Trust. A petition brought by Margaret Cotter and Ellen Cotter, as Co-Trustees of the Cotter Living Trust, to disqualify the GAL on the basis that he cannot simultaneously represent the interests of Margaret Cotter and James J. Cotter, Jr’s, children as the interests of those children differ, was denied by the California Superior Court and that order is currently subject to appeal. Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter, as Co-Trustees of the Cotter Living Trust, have advised that they believe that it was the intention of their father that the Class B Voting Stock be held in the Cotter Voting Trust as long as possible and that they intend to oppose any splitting of the Cotter Voting Trust and/or sale of the Class B Voting Stock eventually to be held by the Cotter Voting Trust. James J. Cotter, Jr., has a pending petition to remove Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter as trustees of the Cotter Living Trust (a motion for which no discovery schedule, briefing schedule or hearing date has been set). Also, James J. Cotter, Jr., has historically supported the above described petition brought by the GAL to divide up the Cotter Voting Trust and sell the Class B Voting Stock to be held by the Cotter Voting Trust. The status of these petitions is uncertain, as James J. Cotter, Jr., passed away on March 10, 2021. As a consequence of the Superior Court’s Living Trust Ruling, Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter, as Co-Trustees of the Cotter Living Trust, have brought a petition to enforce the no-contest clause of the Cotter Living Trust, which if successful would remove Mr. Cotter, Jr., and his descendants as beneficiaries of the Cotter Living Trust, It would also moot Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s petitions (to the extent that they survive his passing), as he would be neither a trustee nor a beneficiary of the Cotter Living Trust. Mr. Cotter, Jr. has opposed the Co-Trustees petition to enforce the no-contest clause and brought an Anti-SLAPP claim against the Co-Trustees. That Anti-SLAPP claim was dismissed by the California Superior Court, which dismissal is now on appeal. The parties to these legal proceedings, including the GAL, have reached a Settlement in Principle, subject to Court approval, which Settlement in Principle is described above. These outstanding legal proceedings have been temporarily stayed pending a final determination on the Settlement in Principle by the Superior Court of the State of California. California Employment Litigation Our Company is currently a defendant in certain California employment matters which include substantially overlapping wage and hour claims relating to our California cinema operations as described below. 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”) 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. 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”) 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” and the “Wagner Class Action Complaint”). Following mediation, the Wagner Individual Complaint was settled, and final judgment entered on February 10, 2021, at what we believe to have been its nuisance value. The remaining 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. On July 13, 2021, following a mediation, the parties agreed to settle the claims set forth in the remaining lawsuits (specifically, the Brown Class Action Complaint, the Wagner PAGA Claim and the Wagner Class Action Complaint) for the Company’s payment of $4.0 million (the “Settlement Amount”). The settlement is contingent upon the execution and delivery of a final settlement agreement (which is currently being negotiated) and final court approval. The Settlement Amount is to be paid in two installments, one-half within 30 days of final court approval and the balance nine-months thereafter. A court hearing on the settlement is not expected until the second quarter of this year. We have accrued the Settlement Amount in cinema segment administrative expense. General Distributors Limited v. Reading Wellington Properties Arbitration On June 18, 2021, General Distributors Limited (“GDL”), an owner and operator of supermarkets in New Zealand, filed an arbitration statement of claim (the “Statement of Claim”) in Auckland, New Zealand, against our wholly owned subsidiary, Reading Wellington Properties, Limited (“RWPL”), relating to the enforceability of an Agreement to Lease (the “ATL”) entered into between the parties in February 2013, contemplating the construction by RWPL and the lease by GDL of a supermarket in Wellington, New Zealand on property owned by RWPL. The ATL contemplated that GDL would also obtain certain rights to use parking spaces in an adjacent 9 story parking structure owned by another of our wholly owned subsidiaries, Courtenay Carpark Limited (the “Parking Garage”). However, as a result of the Kaikōura earthquake on November 14, 2016, it was necessary to demolish the Parking Garage. It has not been rebuilt and there is currently no plan to rebuild it and neither RWPL nor Courtenay Carpark Limited have any legal right to rebuild it under presently existing laws controlling land use in Wellington. Accordingly, we believe that it became impossible to deliver the specific parking rights contemplated by the ATL and, given the materiality of these parking rights to the transaction contemplated by the ATL, that the ATL has been frustrated and is of no ongoing force and effect. GDL asserts a different view and is seeking a declaration that the ATL remains binding upon the parties and for specific performance by RWPL of the ATL. RWPL has filed a response contesting GDL’s claims, and raising various affirmative defenses, including frustration and a failure of the parties to reach any specifically enforceable agreement as to certain fundament construction and construction cost issues. No damages are being sought by GDL, other than costs, and no reserves for this matter have been established. RWPL is a limited liability company, its only asset being the parcel of unimproved land on which the supermarket was to be built. The first round of discovery is complete, and arbitration is currently slated for the 4th quarter of this year, if settlement is not reached. Under applicable New Zealand law, the arbitrator’s findings of fact are final, but asserted errors of law may be appealed to the court. In the interim, the parties have been, and are continuing to have, “without prejudice” discussions as to possible alternatives pursuant to which a grocery store of the type contemplated by the parties could be developed and leased to GDL.