Commitments And Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2025
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	NOTE 15 – 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. 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. 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 a similar statute (New York General Business Law Section 671 et seq (the “NY Statute”) and under the NY Arts and Cultural Affairs Law Section 25.07(4) (the “NY AC Statute”) which regulates the disclosure requirements applicable to ticketing service charges and provides a right to recover “actual damages or fifty dollars per violation, whichever is greater.” Only limited case law exists as to claims under VPPA, a federal statute enacted in 1988. We have not identified any U.S. case in which an adverse VPPA judgment has been entered against a motion picture exhibition company on facts substantially similar to those alleged it this case. Further, except as discussed below, the precedent that does exist suggests that theatres with websites selling tickets to cinema exhibitions 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. In the Berryman Case, the District Court initially denied the Company’s previously filed motion to dismiss at the pleadings stage on the basis that all allegations in the complaint, including allegations as to knowledge, were required to be assumed true. Following subsequent developments in applicable case law, including decisions by the Second Circuit clarifying the scope of “personally identifiable information” under VPPA, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the VPPA claims and NY Statute claims included in the Berryman Case. By Opinion and Order dated March 12, 2026, the District Court granted the Company’s motion and dismissed the VPPA and NY Statute claims in their entirety, without leave to amend. As a result of the Court’s ruling, no VPPA or NY Statute claims remain pending against the Company in the Berryman action. Berryman also asserts claims under the NY AC 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. These claims were not the subject of the Company’s renewed motion to dismiss and remain pending. The Company believes that its disclosure satisfied the requirements of the NY AC Statute. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the Valentini Case VPPA claims. 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 by such subsidiary to do demolition work on our subsidiary’s property. Trial was completed on July 25, 2025, and in March 2026, the Court has issued its findings that, while our subsidiary would be liable to the plaintiff’s under a theory of strict liability due to the inherently dangerous nature of the construction activity, our subsidiary is entitled to full indemnity from its general contractor under both contractual indemnity and breach of contract theories of recovery. To the extent our general contractor should for any reason fail to make good on its indemnity obligations to us, our subsidiary’s liability is fully covered by insurance. As of the date of this disclosure, we have no present obligation to settle any amounts in relation to this matter, as the Court has assessed that obligation on other defendants. Philadelphia Code Violation Litigation During the third 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 believes that it has a variety of defenses to the claims, including defenses based on the fact, among other things, that some of the alleged violations were timely cured, that other allegations were timely appealed at the administrative level and that Reading International Inc. did not own the property in question (such property is owned by a subsidiary). The Company is in discussions with the City and is initiating measures including demolition of a building on the property and taking other actions to correct alleged violations through which we believe a resolution of the dispute will be accomplished. As the case was only recently filed, discovery has not yet begun, but based on our conversations with the City and our review of the facts, we do not currently believe that there is a reasonable likelihood that the litigation will result in a material liability to the Company.

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.

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.

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.

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 a similar statute (New York General Business Law Section 671 et seq (the “NY Statute”) and under the NY Arts and Cultural Affairs Law Section 25.07(4) (the “NY AC Statute”) which regulates the disclosure requirements applicable to ticketing service charges and provides a right to recover “actual damages or fifty dollars per violation, whichever is greater.”

Only limited case law exists as to claims under VPPA, a federal statute enacted in 1988. We have not identified any U.S. case in which an adverse VPPA judgment has been entered against a motion picture exhibition company on facts substantially similar to those alleged it this case. Further, except as discussed below, the precedent that does exist suggests that theatres with websites selling tickets to cinema exhibitions 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. In the Berryman Case, the District Court initially denied the Company’s previously filed motion to dismiss at the pleadings stage on the basis that all allegations in the complaint, including allegations as to knowledge, were required to be assumed true.

Following subsequent developments in applicable case law, including decisions by the Second Circuit clarifying the scope of “personally identifiable information” under VPPA, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the VPPA claims and NY Statute claims included in the Berryman Case. By Opinion and Order dated March 12, 2026, the District Court granted the Company’s motion and dismissed the VPPA and NY Statute claims in their entirety, without leave to amend. As a result of the Court’s ruling, no VPPA or NY Statute claims remain pending against the Company in the Berryman action.

Berryman also asserts claims under the NY AC 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. These claims were not the subject of the Company’s renewed motion to dismiss and remain pending. The Company believes that its disclosure satisfied the requirements of the NY AC Statute.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the Valentini Case VPPA claims.

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 by such subsidiary to do demolition work on our subsidiary’s property. Trial was completed on July 25, 2025, and in March 2026, the Court has issued its findings that, while our subsidiary would be liable to the plaintiff’s under a theory of strict liability due to the inherently dangerous nature of the construction activity, our subsidiary is entitled to full indemnity from its general contractor under both contractual indemnity and breach of contract theories of recovery. To the extent our general contractor should for any reason fail to make good on its indemnity obligations to us, our subsidiary’s liability is fully covered by insurance. As of the date of this disclosure, we have no present obligation to settle any amounts in relation to this matter, as the Court has assessed that obligation on other defendants.

Philadelphia Code Violation Litigation

During the third 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 believes that it has a variety of defenses to the claims, including defenses based on the fact, among other things, that some of the alleged violations were timely cured, that other allegations were timely appealed at the administrative level and that Reading International Inc. did not own the property in question (such property is owned by a subsidiary). The Company is in discussions with the City and is initiating measures including demolition of a building on the property and taking other actions to correct alleged violations through which we believe a resolution of the dispute will be accomplished. As the case was only recently filed, discovery

has not yet begun, but based on our conversations with the City and our review of the facts, we do not currently believe that there is a reasonable likelihood that the litigation will result in a material liability to the Company.