Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 9: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Chapter 11 Reorganization— On December 8, 2008 (the “Petition Date”), Tribune Company and 110 of its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions for relief (collectively, the “Chapter 11 Petitions”) under chapter 11 (“Chapter 11”) of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”). On October 12, 2009, Tribune CNLBC, LLC (formerly known as Chicago National League Ball Club, LLC) (“Tribune CNLBC”), which held the majority of the assets and liabilities related to the businesses of the Chicago Cubs Major League Baseball franchise (the “Chicago Cubs”), also filed a Chapter 11 Petition and thereafter became a Debtor. As further described in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, a plan of reorganization for the Debtors became effective and the Debtors emerged from Chapter 11 on December 31, 2012 (the “Effective Date”). On March 16, 2015, July 24, 2015, May 11, 2016, and August 12, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court entered final decrees collectively closing 106 of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases. The remaining Debtors’ Chapter 11 proceedings continue to be jointly administered under the caption In re Tribune Media Company, et al., Case No. 08-13141. From the Petition Date and until the Effective Date, the Debtors operated their businesses as “debtors-in-possession” under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and applicable orders of the Bankruptcy Court. See Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 for additional information regarding the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases. Where appropriate, the Company and its business operations as conducted on or prior to December 30, 2012 are also herein referred to collectively as the “Predecessor.” The Company and its business operations as conducted on or subsequent to the Effective Date are also herein referred to collectively as the “Successor,” “Reorganized Debtors” or “Reorganized Tribune Company.” On April 12, 2012, the Debtors, the official committee of unsecured creditors appointed in the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases, and creditors under certain of the Predecessor’s prepetition debt facilities filed the Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization for Tribune Company and its Subsidiaries with the Bankruptcy Court (as subsequently modified, the “Plan”). On July 23, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order confirming the Plan (the “Confirmation Order”). The Plan constitutes a separate plan of reorganization for each of the Debtors and sets forth the terms and conditions of the Debtors’ reorganization. See the “Terms of the Plan” section in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 for a description of the terms and conditions of the confirmed Plan. Since the Effective Date, Reorganized Tribune Company has substantially consummated the various transactions contemplated under the Plan. In particular, the Company has made all distributions of cash, Common Stock and Warrants (each as defined and described in Note 12) that were required to be made under the terms of the Plan to creditors holding allowed claims as of December 31, 2012. Claims of general unsecured creditors that become allowed claims on or after the Effective Date have been or will be paid on the next quarterly distribution date after such allowance. Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Company is also obligated to make certain additional payments to certain creditors, including certain distributions that may become due and owing subsequent to the Effective Date and certain payments to holders of administrative expense priority claims and fees earned by professional advisors during the Chapter 11 proceedings. On the Effective Date, Reorganized Tribune Company held restricted cash of $187 million which was estimated to be sufficient to satisfy such obligations. At September 30, 2016, restricted cash held by the Company to satisfy the remaining claim obligations was $18 million and is estimated to be sufficient to satisfy such obligations. If the aggregate allowed amount of the remaining claims exceeds the restricted cash held for satisfying such claims, the Company would be required to satisfy the allowed claims from its cash on hand from operations. Confirmation Order Appeals—Notices of appeal of the Confirmation Order were filed on July 23, 2012 by (i) Aurelius Capital Management, LP (“Aurelius”), on behalf of its managed entities that were holders of the Predecessor’s senior notes and Exchangeable Subordinated Debentures due 2029 (“PHONES”) and (ii) Law Debenture Trust Company of New York (“Law Debenture”), successor trustee under the indenture for the Predecessor’s prepetition 6.61% debentures due 2027 and the 7.25% debentures due 2096, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“Deutsche Bank”), successor trustee under the indentures for the Predecessor’s prepetition medium-term notes due 2008, 4.875% notes due 2010, 5.25% notes due 2015, 7.25% debentures due 2013 and 7.5% debentures due 2023. Additional notices of appeal were filed on August 2, 2012 by Wilmington Trust Company (“WTC”), as successor indenture trustee for the PHONES, and on August 3, 2012 by EGI-TRB, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company wholly-owned by Sam Investment Trust (a trust established for the benefit of Samuel Zell and his family) (the “Zell Entity,” and, together with Aurelius, Law Debenture, Deutsche Bank and WTC, the “Appellants”). The confirmation appeals were transmitted to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”) and were consolidated, together with two previously-filed appeals by WTC of the Bankruptcy Court’s orders relating to certain provisions in the Plan, under the caption Wilmington Trust Co. v. Tribune Co. (In re Tribune Co.), and under lead Case No. 12-cv-128 (GMS). The Appellants sought, among other relief, to overturn the Confirmation Order and certain prior orders of the Bankruptcy Court embodied in the Plan, including the settlement of certain claims and causes of action related to the series of transactions (collectively, the “Leveraged ESOP Transactions”) consummated by the Predecessor, the Tribune Company employee stock ownership plan, the Zell Entity and Samuel Zell in 2007. See “Terms of the Plan” in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 for a description of the terms and conditions of the confirmed Plan and “Certain Causes of Action Arising From the Leveraged ESOP Transactions” in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 for a description of the Leveraged ESOP Transactions. WTC and the Zell Entity also sought to overturn determinations made by the Bankruptcy Court concerning the priority in right of payment of the PHONES and the subordinated promissory notes held by the Zell Entity and its permitted assignees, respectively. There is currently no stay of the Confirmation Order in place pending resolution of the confirmation-related appeals. In January 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the appeals as equitably moot, based on the substantial consummation of the Plan. On June 18, 2014, the Delaware District Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. The effect of the order was to dismiss all of the appeals, with the exception of the relief requested by the Zell Entity concerning the priority in right of payment of the subordinated promissory notes held by the Zell Entity and its permitted assignees with respect to any state law fraudulent transfer claim recoveries from a creditor trust that was proposed to be formed under a prior version of the Plan, but was not formed under the Plan as confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court. The Delaware District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling to the extent it opined on that issue. On July 16, 2014, Aurelius, Law Debenture and Deutsche Bank timely appealed the Delaware District Court’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August 19, 2015, the Third Circuit affirmed the Delaware District Court’s dismissal of Aurelius’s appeal of the Confirmation Order. The Third Circuit, however, reversed the Delaware District Court’s dismissal of Law Debenture’s and Deutsche Bank’s appeals of the Confirmation Order, and remanded those appeals to the District Court for further proceedings on the merits. On September 11, 2015, the Third Circuit denied Aurelius’s petition for en banc review of the court’s decision and on January 11, 2016, Aurelius filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. That petition was denied on March 31, 2016. If the remaining Appellants succeed on their appeal, our financial condition may be adversely affected. Resolution of Outstanding Prepetition Claims—As of the Effective Date, approximately 7,400 proofs of claim had been filed against the Debtors. Additional claims were filed after the Effective Date, including to amend or supplement previously filed claims. Additional claims were also included in the Debtors’ respective schedules of assets and liabilities which were filed with the Bankruptcy Court. Amounts and payment terms for these claims, if applicable, were established in the Plan. As of October 31, 2016, approximately 3,295 proofs of claim had been withdrawn or expunged as a result of the Debtors’ evaluation of the filed proofs of claim and their efforts to reduce and/or eliminate invalid, duplicative and/or over-stated claims. In addition, approximately 3,755 proofs of claim had been settled or otherwise satisfied pursuant to the terms of the Plan. As of October 31, 2016, approximately 403 proofs of claim remain subject to further evaluation and adjustments. The majority of the remaining proofs of claim were filed by certain of the Company’s former directors and officers, asserting indemnity and other related claims against the Company for claims brought against them in lawsuits arising from the Leveraged ESOP Transactions. Those lawsuits are pending in multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “NY District Court”) in proceedings captioned In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, under the consolidated docket numbers 1:11-md-02296 and 1:12-mc-02296. See “Certain Causes of Action Arising From the Leveraged ESOP Transactions” in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 for a description of the MDL proceedings in the NY District Court as of February 29, 2016. On March 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”) issued a decision upholding the NY District Court’s dismissal of the state law constructive fraudulent transfer causes of action commenced by Deutsche Bank, Law Debenture and WTC, as indenture trustees for the Predecessor’s senior noteholders and PHONES, and, separately, certain retirees (collectively and as subsequently amended, the “SLCFC Actions”), on the alternative grounds set forth in the cross-appeal of the defendants’ liaison counsel on behalf of the defendants. The Second Circuit issued a corrected opinion upholding the dismissal of the SLCFC Actions on March 29, 2016. On September 9, 2016, the plaintiffs in the SLCFC Actions filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Second Circuit’s decision. The remaining lawsuits pending in the MDL proceedings are asserted by the litigation trust formed, pursuant to the Plan, to pursue certain causes of action arising from the Leveraged ESOP Transactions for the benefit of certain creditors that received interests in the litigation trust as part of their distributions under the Plan (the “Litigation Trust”). Under the Plan, such indemnity-type claims against the Company must be set off against any recovery by the Litigation Trust against any of the directors and officers, and the Litigation Trust is authorized to object to the allowance of any such indemnity-type claims. Adjustments to prepetition claims may result from, among other things, negotiations with creditors, further orders of the Bankruptcy Court and, in certain instances, litigation. The ultimate amounts to be paid in settlement of each of these claims, including indemnity claims, will continue to be subject to uncertainty for a period of time after the Effective Date. Reorganization Items, Net—ASC Topic 852, “Reorganizations,” requires that the financial statements for periods subsequent to the filing of the Chapter 11 Petitions distinguish transactions and events that are directly associated with the reorganization from the operations of the business. Reorganization items, net included in the Company’s unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations primarily include professional advisory fees and other costs related to the resolution of unresolved claims and totaled $1 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and September 30, 2015. The Company expects to continue to incur certain expenses pertaining to the Chapter 11 proceedings throughout 2016 and in future periods. FCC Regulation—Various aspects of the Company’s operations are subject to regulation by governmental authorities in the United States. The Company’s television and radio broadcasting operations are subject to FCC jurisdiction under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. FCC rules, among other things, govern the term, renewal and transfer of radio and television broadcasting licenses, and limit the number of media interests in a local market that a single entity can own. Federal law also regulates the rates charged for political advertising and the quantity of advertising within children’s programs. Television and radio broadcast station licenses are granted for terms of up to eight years and are subject to renewal by the FCC in the ordinary course, at which time they may be subject to petitions to deny the license renewal applications. As of November 9, 2016, the Company had FCC authorization to operate 39 television stations and one AM radio station. Under the FCC’s “Local Television Multiple Ownership Rule” (the “Duopoly Rule”), the Company may own up to two television stations within the same Nielsen Designated Market Area (“DMA”) (i) provided certain specified signal contours of the stations do not overlap, (ii) where certain specified signal contours of the stations overlap but, at the time the station combination was created, no more than one of the stations was a top-4-rated station and the market would continue to have at least eight independently-owned full power stations after the station combination is created or (iii) where certain waiver criteria are met. In a report and order issued in August 2016 (the “2014 Quadrennial Review Order”), the FCC, among other things, adopted a rule applying the “top-4” ownership limitation within a market to “affiliation swaps,” that will prohibit transactions between networks and their local station affiliates pursuant to which affiliations are reassigned in a way that results in common ownership or control of two of the top-four rated stations in the DMA. The prohibition is prospective only and does not apply to multiple top-4 network multicast streams broadcast by a single station. The new rule has not yet become effective. The Company owns duopolies permitted under the “top-4/8 voices” test in the Seattle, Denver, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Oklahoma City and New Orleans DMAs. The Indianapolis duopoly is permitted under the Duopoly Rule because it met the top-4/8 voices test at the time we acquired WTTV(TV)/WTTK(TV) in July 2002. Duopoly Rule waivers granted in connection with the FCC’s approval of the Company’s plan of reorganization (the “Exit Order”) or the Local TV Acquisition (the “Local TV Transfer Order”) authorize the Company’s ownership of duopolies in the New Haven-Hartford and Fort Smith-Fayetteville DMAs, and full power “satellite” stations in the Denver and Indianapolis DMAs. Under the FCC’s “Newspaper Broadcast Cross Ownership Rule” (the “NBCO Rule”), the Company and holders of “attributable interests” in the Company generally are prohibited from owning or holding attributable interests in both daily newspapers and broadcast stations in the same market. On August 4, 2014, the Company completed the Publishing Spin-off and retained 381,354 shares of tronc common stock, then representing 1.5% of the outstanding common stock of tronc (see Note 2 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 for further information). The Company determined that it does not have an attributable interest in the daily newspaper business or operations of tronc. As a result of the pro rata distribution of tronc stock to shareholders of the Company, the three attributable shareholders of the Company (collectively, the “Attributable Shareholders”) became attributable shareholders of tronc. The residual common attributable interests of the Attributable Shareholders in the Company and tronc maintain the status quo with respect to these shareholders’ interests in the companies. The Company’s television/newspaper interests are subject to a temporary waiver of the NBCO Rule which was granted by the FCC in conjunction with its approval of the Plan (the “Exit Order”). On November 12, 2013, the Company filed with the FCC a request for extension of the temporary NBCO Rule waivers granted in the Exit Order. That request is pending. In the 2014 Quadrennial Order the FCC modified the NBCO Rule by providing an exception for failed or failing entities and allowing for consideration of waivers of the rule on a case-by-case basis. The new rules have not yet become effective. The FCC’s “National Television Multiple Ownership Rule” prohibits the Company from owning television stations that, in the aggregate, reach more than 39% of total U.S. television households, subject to a 50% discount of the number of television households attributable to UHF stations (the “UHF Discount”). The Company’s current national reach exceeds the 39% cap on an undiscounted basis. In August 2016, the FCC adopted rules eliminating the UHF Discount except for “grandfathered” existing combinations that exceeded the 39% cap as of September 26, 2013. Under the new rule (effective November 23, 2016), absent a waiver, a grandfathered station group would have to come into compliance with the modified cap upon a sale or transfer of control. The elimination of the UHF Discount will affect the Company’s ability to acquire additional television stations (including the Dreamcatcher stations that are the subject of certain option rights held by the Company, see Note 5 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 for further information). The Company provides certain operational support and other services to Dreamcatcher pursuant to shared services agreement (“SSA”). In the 2014 Quadrennial Order, the FCC adopted reporting requirements for SSAs. Meanwhile, in a public notice released on March 12, 2014, the FCC announced that pending and future transactions involving SSAs will be subject to a higher level of scrutiny if they include a combination of certain operational and economic features. Although the Company currently has no transactions pending before the FCC that would be subject to such higher scrutiny, this policy could limit the Company’s future ability to enter into SSAs or similar arrangements. In a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued on March 31, 2014, the FCC sought comment on whether to eliminate or modify its “network non-duplication” and “syndicated exclusivity” rules, pursuant to which local television stations may enforce their contractual exclusivity rights with respect to network and syndicated programming. That proceeding remains pending. Pursuant to the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (“STELA”) Reauthorization Act, enacted in December 2014 (“STELAR”), the FCC has adopted regulations prohibiting a television station from coordinating retransmission consent negotiations or negotiating retransmission consent on a joint basis with a separately owned television station in the same market. The Company does not currently engage in retransmission consent negotiations jointly with any other stations in its markets. In response to Congress’s directive in STELAR, on September 2, 2015, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) seeking comment on whether the FCC should make changes to its rules requiring that commercial broadcast television stations and multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”) negotiate in “good faith” for the retransmission by MVPDs of local television signals. On July 14, 2016, Chairman Wheeler announced that the FCC will not adopt additional rules governing parties’ good faith negotiation obligations, (however, the FCC has not yet formally terminated the proceeding). Federal legislation enacted in February 2012 authorizes the FCC to conduct voluntary “incentive auctions” in order to reallocate certain spectrum currently occupied by television broadcast stations to mobile wireless broadband services, to “repack” television stations into a smaller portion of the existing television spectrum band and to require television stations that do not participate in the auction to modify their transmission facilities, subject to reimbursement for reasonable relocation costs up to an industry-wide total of $1.750 billion. If any of the Company’s television stations are required to change frequencies or otherwise modify their operations, the stations could incur substantial conversion costs, reduction or loss of over-the-air signal coverage or an inability to provide high definition programming and additional program streams. The FCC adopted rules to implement the incentive auction and repacking through a number of orders and public notices. Applications to participate in the auction, were due January 12, 2016. The Company has filed applications to participate in the auction and the auction is currently underway. The Company cannot predict the likelihood, timing or outcome of the incentive auction, or any related FCC regulatory action. The FCC has adopted strict communications prohibitions with respect to the auction, which went into effect on January 12, 2016, and will remain in effect until the FCC publicly announces that the auction has ended (which could be as late as fourth quarter 2016 or later). During such time, the Company and its agents, employees, officers and directors are prohibited from directly or indirectly communicating (both internally and externally) certain information regarding the Company’s auction participation. As described in Note 5 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, the Company completed the Local TV Acquisition on December 27, 2013 pursuant to FCC staff approval granted on December 20, 2013 in the Local TV Transfer Order. On January 22, 2014, Free Press filed an Application for Review seeking review by the full Commission of the Local TV Transfer Order. The Company filed an Opposition to the Application for Review on February 21, 2014. Free Press filed a reply on March 6, 2014. The matter is pending. On January 27, 2016, the FCC announced the initiation of a proceeding entitled “Proposal to Unlock the Set-Top Box: Creating Choice & Innovation.” On February 18, 2016, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making that proposed, among other things, to require program providers to pass through information about what programming is available, such as channel and program information and “entertainment identifier register IDs.” Adoption of this requirement without, among other things, adequately protecting proprietary and intellectual property rights in program guide content of which we are a major producer and distributor, and respecting contracts between entertainment data providers and their customers could negatively affect our entertainment data licensing business. This proceeding is currently pending and the Company cannot predict its outcome or timing. From time to time, the FCC revises existing regulations and policies in ways that could affect the Company’s broadcasting operations. In addition, Congress from time to time considers and adopts substantive amendments to the governing communications legislation. The Company cannot predict such actions or their resulting effect upon the Company’s business and financial position. Other Contingencies—The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants from time to time in actions for matters arising out of their business operations. In addition, the Company and its subsidiaries are involved from time to time as parties in various regulatory, environmental and other proceedings with governmental authorities and administrative agencies. See Note 10 for a discussion of potential income tax liabilities. The Company does not believe that any other matters or proceedings presently pending will have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

NOTE 9: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Chapter 11 Reorganization— On December 8, 2008 (the “Petition Date”), Tribune Company and 110 of its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions for relief (collectively, the “Chapter 11 Petitions”) under chapter 11 (“Chapter 11”) of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”). On October 12, 2009, Tribune CNLBC, LLC (formerly known as Chicago National League Ball Club, LLC) (“Tribune CNLBC”), which held the majority of the assets and liabilities related to the businesses of the Chicago Cubs Major League Baseball franchise (the “Chicago Cubs”), also filed a Chapter 11 Petition and thereafter became a Debtor. As further described in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, a plan of reorganization for the Debtors became effective and the Debtors emerged from Chapter 11 on December 31, 2012 (the “Effective Date”). On March 16, 2015, July 24, 2015, May 11, 2016, and August 12, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court entered final decrees collectively closing 106 of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases. The remaining Debtors’ Chapter 11 proceedings continue to be jointly administered under the caption In re Tribune Media Company, et al., Case No. 08-13141.

From the Petition Date and until the Effective Date, the Debtors operated their businesses as “debtors-in-possession” under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and applicable orders of the Bankruptcy Court. See Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 for additional information regarding the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases.

Where appropriate, the Company and its business operations as conducted on or prior to December 30, 2012 are also herein referred to collectively as the “Predecessor.” The Company and its business operations as conducted on or subsequent to the Effective Date are also herein referred to collectively as the “Successor,” “Reorganized Debtors” or “Reorganized Tribune Company.”

On April 12, 2012, the Debtors, the official committee of unsecured creditors appointed in the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases, and creditors under certain of the Predecessor’s prepetition debt facilities filed the Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization for Tribune Company and its Subsidiaries with the Bankruptcy Court (as subsequently modified, the “Plan”). On July 23, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order confirming the Plan (the “Confirmation Order”). The Plan constitutes a separate plan of reorganization for each of the Debtors and sets forth the terms and conditions of the Debtors’ reorganization. See the “Terms of the Plan” section in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 for a description of the terms and conditions of the confirmed Plan.

Since the Effective Date, Reorganized Tribune Company has substantially consummated the various transactions contemplated under the Plan. In particular, the Company has made all distributions of cash, Common Stock and Warrants (each as defined and described in Note 12) that were required to be made under the terms of the Plan to creditors holding allowed claims as of December 31, 2012. Claims of general unsecured creditors that become allowed claims on or after the Effective Date have been or will be paid on the next quarterly distribution date after such allowance.

Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Company is also obligated to make certain additional payments to certain creditors, including certain distributions that may become due and owing subsequent to the Effective Date and certain payments to holders of administrative expense priority claims and fees earned by professional advisors during the Chapter 11 proceedings. On the Effective Date, Reorganized Tribune Company held restricted cash of $187 million which was estimated to be sufficient to satisfy such obligations. At September 30, 2016, restricted cash held by the Company to satisfy the remaining claim obligations was $18 million and is estimated to be sufficient to satisfy such obligations. If the aggregate allowed amount of the remaining claims exceeds the restricted cash held for satisfying such claims, the Company would be required to satisfy the allowed claims from its cash on hand from operations.

Confirmation Order Appeals—Notices of appeal of the Confirmation Order were filed on July 23, 2012 by (i) Aurelius Capital Management, LP (“Aurelius”), on behalf of its managed entities that were holders of the Predecessor’s senior notes and Exchangeable Subordinated Debentures due 2029 (“PHONES”) and (ii) Law Debenture Trust Company of New York (“Law Debenture”), successor trustee under the indenture for the Predecessor’s prepetition 6.61% debentures due 2027 and the 7.25% debentures due 2096, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“Deutsche Bank”), successor trustee under the indentures for the Predecessor’s prepetition medium-term notes due 2008, 4.875% notes due 2010, 5.25% notes due 2015, 7.25% debentures due 2013 and 7.5% debentures due 2023. Additional notices of appeal were filed on August 2, 2012 by Wilmington Trust Company (“WTC”), as successor indenture trustee for the PHONES, and on August 3, 2012 by EGI-TRB, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company wholly-owned by Sam Investment Trust (a trust established for the benefit of Samuel Zell and his family) (the “Zell Entity,” and, together with Aurelius, Law Debenture, Deutsche Bank and WTC, the “Appellants”). The confirmation appeals were transmitted to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”) and were consolidated, together with two previously-filed appeals by WTC of the Bankruptcy Court’s orders relating to certain provisions in the Plan, under the caption Wilmington Trust Co. v. Tribune Co. (In re Tribune Co.), and under lead Case No. 12-cv-128 (GMS).

The Appellants sought, among other relief, to overturn the Confirmation Order and certain prior orders of the Bankruptcy Court embodied in the Plan, including the settlement of certain claims and causes of action related to the series of transactions (collectively, the “Leveraged ESOP Transactions”) consummated by the Predecessor, the Tribune Company employee stock ownership plan, the Zell Entity and Samuel Zell in 2007. See “Terms of the Plan” in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 for a description of the terms and conditions of the confirmed Plan and “Certain Causes of Action Arising From the Leveraged ESOP Transactions” in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 for a description of the Leveraged ESOP Transactions. WTC and the Zell Entity also sought to overturn determinations made by the Bankruptcy Court concerning the priority in right of payment of the PHONES and the subordinated promissory notes held by the Zell Entity and its permitted assignees, respectively. There is currently no stay of the Confirmation Order in place pending resolution of the confirmation-related appeals. In January 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the appeals as equitably moot, based on the substantial consummation of the Plan. On June 18, 2014, the Delaware District Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. The effect of the order was to dismiss all of the appeals, with the exception of the relief requested by the Zell Entity concerning the priority in right of payment of the subordinated promissory notes held by the Zell Entity and its permitted assignees with respect to any state law fraudulent transfer claim recoveries from a creditor trust that was proposed to be formed under a prior version of the Plan, but was not formed under the Plan as confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court. The Delaware District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling to the extent it opined on that issue. On July 16, 2014, Aurelius, Law Debenture and Deutsche Bank timely appealed the Delaware District Court’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August 19, 2015, the Third Circuit affirmed the Delaware District Court’s dismissal of Aurelius’s appeal of the Confirmation Order. The Third Circuit, however, reversed the Delaware District Court’s dismissal of Law Debenture’s and Deutsche Bank’s appeals of the Confirmation Order, and remanded those appeals to the District Court for further proceedings on the merits. On September 11, 2015, the Third Circuit denied Aurelius’s petition for en banc review of the court’s decision and on January 11, 2016, Aurelius filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. That petition was denied on March 31, 2016. If the remaining Appellants succeed on their appeal, our financial condition may be adversely affected.

Resolution of Outstanding Prepetition Claims—As of the Effective Date, approximately 7,400 proofs of claim had been filed against the Debtors. Additional claims were filed after the Effective Date, including to amend or supplement previously filed claims. Additional claims were also included in the Debtors’ respective schedules of assets and liabilities which were filed with the Bankruptcy Court. Amounts and payment terms for these claims, if applicable, were established in the Plan. As of October 31, 2016, approximately 3,295 proofs of claim had been withdrawn or expunged as a result of the Debtors’ evaluation of the filed proofs of claim and their efforts to reduce and/or eliminate invalid, duplicative and/or over-stated claims. In addition, approximately 3,755 proofs of claim had been settled or otherwise satisfied pursuant to the terms of the Plan.

As of October 31, 2016, approximately 403 proofs of claim remain subject to further evaluation and adjustments. The majority of the remaining proofs of claim were filed by certain of the Company’s former directors and officers, asserting indemnity and other related claims against the Company for claims brought against them in lawsuits arising from the Leveraged ESOP Transactions. Those lawsuits are pending in multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “NY District Court”) in proceedings captioned In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, under the consolidated docket numbers 1:11-md-02296 and 1:12-mc-02296. See “Certain Causes of Action Arising From the Leveraged ESOP Transactions” in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 for a description of the MDL proceedings in the NY District Court as of February 29, 2016. On March 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”) issued a decision upholding the NY District Court’s dismissal of the state law constructive fraudulent transfer causes of action commenced by Deutsche Bank, Law Debenture and WTC, as indenture trustees for the Predecessor’s senior noteholders and PHONES, and, separately, certain retirees (collectively and as subsequently amended, the “SLCFC Actions”), on the alternative grounds set forth in the cross-appeal of the defendants’ liaison counsel on behalf of the defendants. The Second Circuit issued a corrected opinion upholding the dismissal of the SLCFC Actions on March 29, 2016. On September 9, 2016, the plaintiffs in the SLCFC Actions filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Second Circuit’s decision. The remaining lawsuits pending in the MDL proceedings are asserted by the litigation trust formed, pursuant to the Plan, to pursue certain causes of action arising from the Leveraged ESOP Transactions for the benefit of certain creditors that received interests in the litigation trust as part of their distributions under the Plan (the “Litigation Trust”). Under the Plan, such indemnity-type claims against the Company must be set off against any recovery by the Litigation Trust against any of the directors and officers, and the Litigation Trust is authorized to object to the allowance of any such indemnity-type claims.

Adjustments to prepetition claims may result from, among other things, negotiations with creditors, further orders of the Bankruptcy Court and, in certain instances, litigation. The ultimate amounts to be paid in settlement of each of these claims, including indemnity claims, will continue to be subject to uncertainty for a period of time after the Effective Date.

Reorganization Items, Net—ASC Topic 852, “Reorganizations,” requires that the financial statements for periods subsequent to the filing of the Chapter 11 Petitions distinguish transactions and events that are directly associated with the reorganization from the operations of the business. Reorganization items, net included in the Company’s unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations primarily include professional advisory fees and other costs related to the resolution of unresolved claims and totaled $1 million for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and September 30, 2015. The Company expects to continue to incur certain expenses pertaining to the Chapter 11 proceedings throughout 2016 and in future periods.

FCC Regulation—Various aspects of the Company’s operations are subject to regulation by governmental authorities in the United States. The Company’s television and radio broadcasting operations are subject to FCC jurisdiction under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. FCC rules, among other things, govern the term, renewal and transfer of radio and television broadcasting licenses, and limit the number of media interests in a local market that a single entity can own. Federal law also regulates the rates charged for political advertising and the quantity of advertising within children’s programs.

Television and radio broadcast station licenses are granted for terms of up to eight years and are subject to renewal by the FCC in the ordinary course, at which time they may be subject to petitions to deny the license renewal applications. As of November 9, 2016, the Company had FCC authorization to operate 39 television stations and one AM radio station.

Under the FCC’s “Local Television Multiple Ownership Rule” (the “Duopoly Rule”), the Company may own up to two television stations within the same Nielsen Designated Market Area (“DMA”) (i) provided certain specified signal contours of the stations do not overlap, (ii) where certain specified signal contours of the stations overlap but, at the time the station combination was created, no more than one of the stations was a top-4-rated station and the market would continue to have at least eight independently-owned full power stations after the station combination is created or (iii) where certain waiver criteria are met. In a report and order issued in August 2016 (the “2014 Quadrennial Review Order”), the FCC, among other things, adopted a rule applying the “top-4” ownership limitation within a market to “affiliation swaps,” that will prohibit transactions between networks and their local station affiliates pursuant to which affiliations are reassigned in a way that results in common ownership or control of two of the top-four rated stations in the DMA. The prohibition is prospective only and does not apply to multiple top-4 network multicast streams broadcast by a single station. The new rule has not yet become effective. The Company owns duopolies permitted under the “top-4/8 voices” test in the Seattle, Denver, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Oklahoma City and New Orleans DMAs. The Indianapolis duopoly is permitted under the Duopoly Rule because it met the top-4/8 voices test at the time we acquired WTTV(TV)/WTTK(TV) in July 2002. Duopoly Rule waivers granted in connection with the FCC’s approval of the Company’s plan of reorganization (the “Exit Order”) or the Local TV Acquisition (the “Local TV Transfer Order”) authorize the Company’s ownership of duopolies in the New Haven-Hartford and Fort Smith-Fayetteville DMAs, and full power “satellite” stations in the Denver and Indianapolis DMAs.

Under the FCC’s “Newspaper Broadcast Cross Ownership Rule” (the “NBCO Rule”), the Company and holders of “attributable interests” in the Company generally are prohibited from owning or holding attributable interests in both daily newspapers and broadcast stations in the same market. On August 4, 2014, the Company completed the Publishing Spin-off and retained 381,354 shares of tronc common stock, then representing 1.5% of the outstanding common stock of tronc (see Note 2 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 for further information). The Company determined that it does not have an attributable interest in the daily newspaper business or operations of tronc. As a result of the pro rata distribution of tronc stock to shareholders of the Company, the three attributable shareholders of the Company (collectively, the “Attributable Shareholders”) became attributable shareholders of tronc. The residual common attributable interests of the Attributable Shareholders in the Company and tronc maintain the status quo with respect to these shareholders’ interests in the companies.

The Company’s television/newspaper interests are subject to a temporary waiver of the NBCO Rule which was granted by the FCC in conjunction with its approval of the Plan (the “Exit Order”). On November 12, 2013, the Company filed with the FCC a request for extension of the temporary NBCO Rule waivers granted in the Exit Order. That request is pending. In the 2014 Quadrennial Order the FCC modified the NBCO Rule by providing an exception for failed or failing entities and allowing for consideration of waivers of the rule on a case-by-case basis. The new rules have not yet become effective.

The FCC’s “National Television Multiple Ownership Rule” prohibits the Company from owning television stations that, in the aggregate, reach more than 39% of total U.S. television households, subject to a 50% discount of the number of television households attributable to UHF stations (the “UHF Discount”). The Company’s current national reach exceeds the 39% cap on an undiscounted basis. In August 2016, the FCC adopted rules eliminating the UHF Discount except for “grandfathered” existing combinations that exceeded the 39% cap as of September 26, 2013. Under the new rule (effective November 23, 2016), absent a waiver, a grandfathered station group would have to come into compliance with the modified cap upon a sale or transfer of control. The elimination of the UHF Discount will affect the Company’s ability to acquire additional television stations (including the Dreamcatcher stations that are the subject of certain option rights held by the Company, see Note 5 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 for further information).

The Company provides certain operational support and other services to Dreamcatcher pursuant to shared services agreement (“SSA”). In the 2014 Quadrennial Order, the FCC adopted reporting requirements for SSAs. Meanwhile, in a public notice released on March 12, 2014, the FCC announced that pending and future transactions involving SSAs will be subject to a higher level of scrutiny if they include a combination of certain operational and economic features. Although the Company currently has no transactions pending before the FCC that would be subject to such higher scrutiny, this policy could limit the Company’s future ability to enter into SSAs or similar arrangements.

In a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued on March 31, 2014, the FCC sought comment on whether to eliminate or modify its “network non-duplication” and “syndicated exclusivity” rules, pursuant to which local television stations may enforce their contractual exclusivity rights with respect to network and syndicated programming. That proceeding remains pending. Pursuant to the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (“STELA”) Reauthorization Act, enacted in December 2014 (“STELAR”), the FCC has adopted regulations prohibiting a television station from coordinating retransmission consent negotiations or negotiating retransmission consent on a joint basis with a separately owned television station in the same market. The Company does not currently engage in retransmission consent negotiations jointly with any other stations in its markets. In response to Congress’s directive in STELAR, on September 2, 2015, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) seeking comment on whether the FCC should make changes to its rules requiring that commercial broadcast television stations and multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”) negotiate in “good faith” for the retransmission by MVPDs of local television signals. On July 14, 2016, Chairman Wheeler announced that the FCC will not adopt additional rules governing parties’ good faith negotiation obligations, (however, the FCC has not yet formally terminated the proceeding).

Federal legislation enacted in February 2012 authorizes the FCC to conduct voluntary “incentive auctions” in order to reallocate certain spectrum currently occupied by television broadcast stations to mobile wireless broadband services, to “repack” television stations into a smaller portion of the existing television spectrum band and to require television stations that do not participate in the auction to modify their transmission facilities, subject to reimbursement for reasonable relocation costs up to an industry-wide total of $1.750 billion. If any of the Company’s television stations are required to change frequencies or otherwise modify their operations, the stations could incur substantial conversion costs, reduction or loss of over-the-air signal coverage or an inability to provide high definition programming and additional program streams. The FCC adopted rules to implement the incentive auction and repacking through a number of orders and public notices. Applications to participate in the auction, were due January 12, 2016. The Company has filed applications to participate in the auction and the auction is currently underway. The Company cannot predict the likelihood, timing or outcome of the incentive auction, or any related FCC regulatory action. The FCC has adopted strict communications prohibitions with respect to the auction, which went into effect on January 12, 2016, and will remain in effect until the FCC publicly announces that the auction has ended (which could be as late as fourth quarter 2016 or later). During such time, the Company and its agents, employees, officers and directors are prohibited from directly or indirectly communicating (both internally and externally) certain information regarding the Company’s auction participation.

As described in Note 5 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, the Company completed the Local TV Acquisition on December 27, 2013 pursuant to FCC staff approval granted on December 20, 2013 in the Local TV Transfer Order. On January 22, 2014, Free Press filed an Application for Review seeking review by the full Commission of the Local TV Transfer Order. The Company filed an Opposition to the Application for Review on February 21, 2014. Free Press filed a reply on March 6, 2014. The matter is pending.

On January 27, 2016, the FCC announced the initiation of a proceeding entitled “Proposal to Unlock the Set-Top Box: Creating Choice & Innovation.” On February 18, 2016, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making that proposed, among other things, to require program providers to pass through information about what programming is available, such as channel and program information and “entertainment identifier register IDs.” Adoption of this requirement without, among other things, adequately protecting proprietary and intellectual property rights in program guide content of which we are a major producer and distributor, and respecting contracts between entertainment data providers and their customers could negatively affect our entertainment data licensing business. This proceeding is currently pending and the Company cannot predict its outcome or timing.

From time to time, the FCC revises existing regulations and policies in ways that could affect the Company’s broadcasting operations. In addition, Congress from time to time considers and adopts substantive amendments to the governing communications legislation. The Company cannot predict such actions or their resulting effect upon the Company’s business and financial position.

Other Contingencies—The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants from time to time in actions for matters arising out of their business operations. In addition, the Company and its subsidiaries are involved from time to time as parties in various regulatory, environmental and other proceedings with governmental authorities and administrative agencies. See Note 10 for a discussion of potential income tax liabilities.

The Company does not believe that any other matters or proceedings presently pending will have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.