Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Note 16 – Commitments and Contingencies Litigation Matters We are currently involved in certain legal proceedings, and we may from time to time, in the normal course of business, be a party to various ordinary course claims from vendors, landlords, tenants, employees and competitors and to other legal proceedings. If management believes that a loss arising from the action is probable and can reasonably be estimated, the Company records the amount of the loss or the minimum estimated liability when the loss is estimated using a range and no point in the range is more probable than another. Management believes that the ultimate outcome of the matters discussed below, individually and in the aggregate, will not likely have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or overall trends in results of operations. However, litigation and claims are subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable outcomes can occur. An unfavorable outcome might include monetary damages. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the results of operation in the period in which the outcome occurs or in future periods. An unfavorable outcome could also have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or the market prices of the Company’s securities. Environmental and Asbestos Claims on Reading Legacy Operations Certain of our subsidiaries were historically involved in railroad operations, coal mining, and manufacturing. Certain of these subsidiaries appear in the chain-of-title of properties that may suffer from environmental issues. 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. 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 in our opinion not material. Certain Civil Litigation Putative Class Action Litigation The Company is a defendant in two actions asserting putative class action claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act (the “VPPA”): Daniel Valentini and Dallace Butler v. Reading International, Inc (2:24-cv-00255-RFB-MDC (D. Nev.)) (“The Valentini Case”), and Berryman v. Reading International, Inc. (1:24-cv-00750-PAE (S.D.N.Y.)) (“The Berryman Case”). The plaintiffs in these cases allege that the Company is a video tape service provider and knowingly disclosed plaintiff’s movie purchase and video-viewing habits to third parties in violation of the VPPA. Valentini and Butler also allege violation of a parallel state statute (California Code section 1799.3 (the “California Statute”)). Berryman also asserts claims under the NY Arts and Cultural Affairs Law Section 25.07(4) (the “NY Statute”) which regulates the disclosure requirements applicable to ticketing service charges and provides a right to recover “actual damages or fifty dollars, whichever is greater.” Only limited case law exists as to claims regarding the VPPA, a federal statute enacted in 1988. Insofar as we have been able to determine, no case in the U.S. has resulted in an adverse VPPA judgment against a motion picture exhibition company on facts substantially similar to our own. Further, except as discussed below, the precedent that does exist suggests that theaters with websites selling tickets to showings at physical locations are not video tape service providers under the statute, even if they operate websites to sell tickets. The Company has filed motions to dismiss the Valentini and the Berryman claims under Federal rule of Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be provided. The Valentini motion is on hold, pending the outcome of an appeal to the Ninth Circuit of a trial court decision which the Company believes, if affirmed, will likely result in the dismissal of the Valentini case. The District Court in Berryman denied the Company’s motion, but only on the basis that all of the allegations in the Berryman complaint were assumed to be true including allegations as to knowledge. The determination by the Berryman Court at the pleadings stage that a motion picture exhibitor can be a video tape service provider is inconsistent with decisions by U.S. District Courts for the Central District and Northern District of California, Kansas, Minnesota, and North Carolina. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to these VPPA claims, and that there are also material issues to class certification. As the Company does not believe that liability is probable, or that any class will be certified, no reserve has been established. Damages cannot reasonably be estimated with respect to the VPPA claim Berryman also asserts claims under the NY Statute alleging deficiencies in the disclosure provided by our Company with respect to service charges to residents of New York who purchased tickets online to our New York cinemas. We believe that our disclosure at all times satisfied the requirements of the NY Statute. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to this claim. As the Company does not believe that liability is probable, no reserve has been established. Wellington Construction Damage Litigation A subsidiary of the Company is the defendant in litigation in Wellington, New Zealand titled (Body Corporate 78693 v Courtenay Car Park Limited & Ors CIV-2021-485-612 & CIV-2023-485-67) which involves various claims related to the dropping of a concrete beam onto adjacent property by a construction subcontractor working for the general contractor engaged to do demolition work on our subsidiary’s property. Trial was completed on July 25, 2025, and the court has reserved its decision on the outcome of the matter. We believe that there is a reasonable possibility that the Company could be held liable under a contractual indemnity theory, for the defense costs incurred by our general contractor and its sub-contractor in the litigation. The Company has estimated such exposure to be in the range of $0 to $1 million. As the liability is not probable, no reserve has been accrued. Philadelphia Code Violation Litigation Subsequent to the end of the 2nd quarter of 2025, the Company was served with a petition styled City of Philadelphia-Plaintiff vs. Reading International, Inc. Control Number 25074006 filed in the Court of Common Pleas under the City’s Code Enforcement Case Program, which among other things, (i) alleges violations of certain sections of the Philadelphia Code on property allegedly owned or under the control of Reading International in Philadelphia; (ii) seeks an order imposing statutory fines and reinspection fees and allowing the Department of Licenses and Inspections to enter the premises identified as 1120 Callowhill Street, Philadelphia Pennsylvania (the “Premises”) to conduct an interior inspection; and (iii) seeks an order compelling the Defendants to correct all alleged violations. The Company is currently reviewing the claims in the Petition, and has not yet formed a view as to the scope and extent of the Company’s exposure, if any.

Commitments And Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2025

Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]

Note 16 – Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation Matters

We are currently involved in certain legal proceedings, and we may from time to time, in the normal course of business, be a party to various ordinary course claims from vendors, landlords, tenants, employees and competitors and to other legal proceedings. If management believes that a loss arising from the action is probable and can reasonably be estimated, the Company records the amount of the loss or the minimum estimated liability when the loss is estimated using a range and no point in the range is more probable than another. Management believes that the ultimate outcome of the matters discussed below, individually and in the aggregate, will not likely have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or overall trends in results of operations. However, litigation and claims are subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable outcomes can occur. An unfavorable outcome might include monetary damages. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the results of operation in the period in which the outcome occurs or in future periods. An unfavorable outcome could also have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or the market prices of the Company’s securities.

Environmental and Asbestos Claims on Reading Legacy Operations

Certain of our subsidiaries were historically involved in railroad operations, coal mining, and manufacturing. Certain of these subsidiaries appear in the chain-of-title of properties that may suffer from environmental issues. 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. 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 in our opinion not material.

Certain Civil Litigation

Putative Class Action Litigation

The Company is a defendant in two actions asserting putative class action claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act (the “VPPA”): Daniel Valentini and Dallace Butler v. Reading International, Inc (2:24-cv-00255-RFB-MDC (D. Nev.)) (“The Valentini Case”), and Berryman v. Reading International, Inc. (1:24-cv-00750-PAE (S.D.N.Y.)) (“The Berryman Case”). The plaintiffs in these cases allege that the Company is a video tape service provider and knowingly disclosed plaintiff’s movie purchase and video-viewing habits to third parties in violation of the VPPA. Valentini and Butler also allege violation of a parallel state statute (California Code section 1799.3 (the “California Statute”)). Berryman also asserts claims under the NY Arts and Cultural Affairs Law Section 25.07(4) (the “NY Statute”) which regulates the disclosure requirements applicable to ticketing service charges and provides a right to recover “actual damages or fifty dollars, whichever is greater.”

Only limited case law exists as to claims regarding the VPPA, a federal statute enacted in 1988. Insofar as we have been able to determine, no case in the U.S. has resulted in an adverse VPPA judgment against a motion picture exhibition company on facts substantially similar to our own. Further, except as discussed below, the precedent that does exist suggests that theaters with websites selling tickets to showings at physical locations are not video tape service providers under the statute, even if they operate websites to sell tickets.

The Company has filed motions to dismiss the Valentini and the Berryman claims under Federal rule of Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be provided. The Valentini motion is on hold, pending the outcome of an appeal to the Ninth Circuit of a trial court decision which the Company believes, if affirmed, will likely result in the dismissal of the Valentini case. The District Court in Berryman denied the Company’s motion, but only on the basis that all of the allegations in the Berryman complaint were assumed to be true including allegations as to knowledge. The determination by the Berryman Court at the pleadings stage that a motion picture exhibitor can be a video tape service provider is inconsistent with decisions by U.S. District Courts for the Central District and Northern District of California, Kansas, Minnesota, and North Carolina.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses to these VPPA claims, and that there are also material issues to class certification. As the Company does not believe that liability is probable, or that any class will be certified, no reserve has been established. Damages cannot reasonably be estimated with respect to the VPPA claim

Berryman also asserts claims under the NY Statute alleging deficiencies in the disclosure provided by our Company with respect to service charges to residents of New York who purchased tickets online to our New York cinemas. We believe that our disclosure at all times satisfied the requirements of the NY Statute. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to this claim. As the Company does not believe that liability is probable, no reserve has been established.

Wellington Construction Damage Litigation

A subsidiary of the Company is the defendant in litigation in Wellington, New Zealand titled (Body Corporate 78693 v Courtenay Car Park Limited & Ors CIV-2021-485-612 & CIV-2023-485-67) which involves various claims related to the dropping of a concrete beam onto adjacent property by a construction subcontractor working for the general contractor engaged to do demolition work on our subsidiary’s property. Trial was completed on July 25, 2025, and the court has reserved its decision on the outcome of the matter.

We believe that there is a reasonable possibility that the Company could be held liable under a contractual indemnity theory, for the defense costs incurred by our general contractor and its sub-contractor in the litigation. The Company has estimated such exposure to be in the range of $0 to $1 million. As the liability is not probable, no reserve has been accrued.

Philadelphia Code Violation Litigation

Subsequent to the end of the 2nd quarter of 2025, the Company was served with a petition styled City of Philadelphia-Plaintiff vs. Reading International, Inc. Control Number 25074006 filed in the Court of Common Pleas under the City’s Code Enforcement Case Program, which among other things, (i) alleges violations of certain sections of the Philadelphia Code on property allegedly owned or under the control of Reading International in Philadelphia; (ii) seeks an order imposing statutory fines and reinspection fees and allowing the Department of Licenses and Inspections to enter the premises identified as 1120 Callowhill Street, Philadelphia Pennsylvania (the “Premises”) to conduct an interior inspection; and (iii) seeks an order compelling the Defendants to correct all alleged violations. The Company is currently reviewing the claims in the Petition, and has not yet formed a view as to the scope and extent of the Company’s exposure, if any.