Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
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 Our Company is a defendant in two actions asserting putative class action claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act, a federal statute enacted in 1988 (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 our 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. 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 in this case. Further, 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 and that the information disclosed through consumer use of cinema websites like ours does not include “personally identifiable information,” a necessary condition for liability under the VPPA. Our 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 with prejudice. By Opinion and Order dated March 12, 2026, the District Court granted our Company’s motion and dismissed Berryman’s VPPA and NY Statute claims in their entirety, without leave to amend on the basis that we did not disclose an “personally identifiable information.” As a result of the Court’s ruling, no VPPA or NY Statute claims remain pending against the Company in the Berryman action. Plaintiff has no right to appeal such decision until after resolution of the entire case including the below discussed NY AC Statute claims. 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. We believe that our disclosure satisfied the requirements of the NY AC Statute. Berryman has moved for class certification of her claims under the NY AC Statute, and we will file our opposition no later than August 12, 2026. Due to the individualized nature of the allegations, we believe it is unlikely that class certification will be granted on the NY AC Statute claim, and that we will be able to resolve the matter on an individual named-Plaintiff-only basis. We also anticipate a full dismissal of the Valentini VPPA claims, as the Ninth Circuit is likely to affirm a district court decision that theaters are not subject to the VPPA. Even if Valentini’s claims survive dismissal, we believe that we have strong defenses to the VPPA claims, including defense on the grounds that provided the basis for the above described dismissal of the Berryman 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. 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. Our co-defendants have appealed the Court’s decision and, in light of such appeal, we have likewise appealed to protect our position. We are advised by counsel that the appeals process is likely to take a couple of years. 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, our 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) alleged violations of certain sections of the Philadelphia Code on property allegedly owned or under the control of Reading International in Philadelphia; (ii) sought 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 to conduct an interior inspection; and (iii) sought an order compelling the Defendants to correct all alleged violations. This case was settled during the second quarter of 2026 for a nominal amount.

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

Our Company is a defendant in two actions asserting putative class action claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act, a federal statute enacted in 1988 (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 our 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. 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 in this case. Further, 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 and that the information disclosed through consumer use of cinema websites like ours does not include “personally identifiable information,” a necessary condition for liability under the VPPA.

Our 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 with prejudice.

By Opinion and Order dated March 12, 2026, the District Court granted our Company’s motion and dismissed Berryman’s VPPA and NY Statute claims in their entirety, without leave to amend on the basis that we did not disclose an “personally identifiable information.” As a result of the Court’s ruling, no VPPA or NY Statute claims remain pending against the Company in the Berryman action. Plaintiff has no right to appeal such decision until after resolution of the entire case including the below discussed NY AC Statute claims.

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. We believe that our disclosure satisfied the requirements of the NY AC Statute. Berryman has moved for class certification of her claims under the NY AC Statute, and we will file our opposition no later than August 12, 2026. Due to the individualized nature of the allegations, we believe it is unlikely that class certification will be granted on the NY AC Statute claim, and that we will be able to resolve the matter on an individual named-Plaintiff-only basis.

We also anticipate a full dismissal of the Valentini VPPA claims, as the Ninth Circuit is likely to affirm a district court decision that theaters are not subject to the VPPA. Even if Valentini’s claims survive dismissal, we believe that we have strong defenses to the VPPA claims, including defense on the grounds that provided the basis for the above described dismissal of the Berryman VPPA claims.

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. 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. Our co-defendants have appealed the Court’s decision and, in light of such appeal, we have likewise appealed to protect our position. We are advised by counsel that the appeals process is likely to take a couple of years. 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.

During the third quarter of 2025, our 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) alleged violations of certain sections of the Philadelphia Code on property allegedly owned or under the control of Reading International in Philadelphia; (ii) sought 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 to conduct an interior inspection; and (iii) sought an order compelling the Defendants to correct all alleged violations. This case was settled during the second quarter of 2026 for a nominal amount.