NOTE 3: PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER 11

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 U.S. 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 below, a plan of reorganization for the Debtors became effective and the Debtors emerged from Chapter 11 on December 31, 2012 (the “Effective Date”). The Bankruptcy Court has entered final decrees that have collectively closed 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. In general, as debtors-in-possession, the Debtors were authorized under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to continue to operate as ongoing businesses, but could not engage in transactions outside the ordinary course of business without the prior approval of the Bankruptcy Court. 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.”

Plan of Reorganization—In order to emerge from Chapter 11, a Chapter 11 plan that satisfies the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code and provides for emergence from bankruptcy as a going concern must be proposed and confirmed by a bankruptcy court. A plan of reorganization addresses, among other things, prepetition obligations, sets forth the revised capital structure of the newly-reorganized entities and provides for their corporate governance subsequent to emergence from court supervision under Chapter 11.

On April 12, 2012, the Debtors, Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. (“Oaktree”), Angelo, Gordon & Co. L.P. (“AG”), the Creditors’ Committee (defined below) and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan” and, together with the Debtors, Oaktree, AG and the Creditors’ Committee, the “Plan Proponents”) filed the Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization for Tribune Company and its Subsidiaries with the Bankruptcy Court (as subsequently modified by the Plan Proponents, 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 below for a description of the terms and conditions of the confirmed Plan.

The Debtors’ plan of reorganization was the product of extensive negotiations and contested proceedings before the Bankruptcy Court, principally relating to the resolution of certain claims and causes of action arising between certain of the Company’s creditors in connection with the series of transactions (collectively, the “Leveraged ESOP Transactions”) consummated by the Predecessor and the Tribune Company employee stock ownership plan (the “ESOP”), 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 Samuel Zell in 2007.

The Debtors’ emergence from bankruptcy as a restructured company was subject to the consent of the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) for the assignment of the Debtors’ FCC broadcast and auxiliary station licenses to the Reorganized Debtors. On April 28, 2010, the Debtors filed applications with the FCC to obtain FCC approval for the assignment of the FCC licenses from the Debtors as “debtors-in possession” to the Reorganized Debtors. On November 16, 2012, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and order (the “Exit Order”) granting the Company’s applications to assign its broadcast and auxiliary station licenses from the debtors-in-possession to the Company’s licensee subsidiaries. In the Exit Order, the FCC granted the Reorganized Debtors a permanent newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership waiver in the Chicago market, temporary newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership waivers in the New York, Los Angeles, Miami-Fort Lauderdale and Hartford-New Haven markets and two other waivers permitting common ownership of television stations in Connecticut and Indiana. See the “FCC Regulation” section of Note 12 for further information.

Following receipt of the FCC’s consent to the implementation of the Plan, but prior to the Effective Date, the Company and its subsidiaries consummated an internal restructuring, pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of the Plan. These restructuring transactions included, among other things, (i) converting certain of the Company’s subsidiaries into limited liability companies or merging certain of the Company’s subsidiaries into newly-formed limited liability companies, (ii) consolidating and reallocating certain operations, entities, assets and liabilities within the organizational structure of the Company and (iii) establishing a number of real estate holding companies.

On the Effective Date, all of the conditions precedent to the effectiveness of the Plan were satisfied or waived, the Debtors emerged from Chapter 11, and the settlements, agreements and transactions contemplated by the Plan to be effected on the Effective Date were implemented, including, among other things, the appointment of a new board of directors and the initiation of distributions to creditors. As a result, the ownership of the Company changed from the ESOP to certain of the Company’s creditors on the Effective Date. On January 17, 2013, the board of directors of Reorganized Tribune Company (the “Board”) appointed a chairman of the Board and a new chief executive officer. Such appointments were effective immediately.

In connection with the Debtors’ emergence from Chapter 11, on the Effective Date and in accordance with and subject to the terms of the Plan, (i) the ESOP was deemed terminated in accordance with its terms, (ii) the unpaid principal and interest remaining on the promissory note of the ESOP in favor of the Company was forgiven, (iii) all of the Company’s $0.01 par value common stock held by the ESOP was canceled, including the 8,294,000 of the shares held by the ESOP that were committed for release or allocated to employees at December 30, 2012 (as further described below) and (iv) new shares of the Company were issued to shareholders who did not meet the necessary criteria to qualify as a subchapter S corporation shareholder. As a result, Reorganized Tribune Company converted from a subchapter S corporation to a C corporation under the IRC. On the Effective Date, the $37 million reported as common shares held by the ESOP, net of unearned compensation, was eliminated, the Predecessor Warrants (as defined and described below) were cancelled and the $225 million subordinated promissory note due December 20, 2018 (including accrued and unpaid interest) was terminated and extinguished.

Terms of the Plan—The following is a summary of the material settlements and other agreements entered into, distributions made and transactions consummated by the Company on or about the Effective Date pursuant to, and in accordance with, the terms of the Plan. The following summary only highlights certain of the substantive provisions of the Plan and is not intended to be a complete description of, or a substitute for a full and complete reading of, the Plan and the agreements and other documents related thereto, including those described below.

•

Cancellation of certain prepetition obligations: On the Effective Date, the Debtors’ prepetition equity (other than equity interests in subsidiaries of Tribune Company), debt and certain other obligations were cancelled, terminated and/or extinguished, including: (i) the 56,521,739 shares of the Predecessor’s $0.01 par value common stock held by the ESOP, (ii) the warrants to purchase 43,478,261 shares of the Predecessor’s $0.01 par value common stock held by the Zell Entity and certain other minority interest holders, (iii) the aggregate $225 million subordinate promissory notes (including accrued and unpaid interest) held by the Zell Entity and certain other minority interest holders, (iv) all of the Predecessor’s other outstanding notes and debentures and the indentures governing such notes and debentures (other than for purposes of allowing holders of the notes to receive distributions under the Plan and allowing the trustees for the senior noteholders and the holders of the Predecessor’s Exchangeable Subordinated Debentures due 2029 (“PHONES”) to exercise certain limited rights), and (v) the Predecessor’s prepetition credit facilities applicable to the Debtors (other than for purposes of allowing creditors under a $8.028 billion senior secured credit agreement (as amended, the “Credit Agreement”) to receive distributions under the Plan and allowing the administrative agent for such facilities to exercise certain limited rights).

•

Assumption of prepetition executory contracts and unexpired leases: On the Effective Date, any prepetition executory contracts or unexpired leases of the Debtors that were not previously assumed or rejected pursuant to Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code or rejected pursuant to the Plan were deemed assumed by the applicable Reorganized Debtors, including certain prepetition executory contracts for broadcast rights.

•

Distributions to Creditors: On the Effective Date (or as soon as practicable thereafter), (i) holders of allowed senior loan claims received approximately $2.9 billion in cash, approximately 98.2 million shares of Common Stock and Warrants (as defined and described below), plus interests in the Litigation Trust (as defined and described below), (ii) holders of allowed claims related to a $1.6 billion twelve-month bridge facility entered into on December 20, 2007 (the “Bridge Facility”) received a pro rata share of $65 million in cash (equal to approximately 3.98% of their allowed claim) plus interests in the Litigation Trust (as defined and described below), (iii) holders of allowed senior noteholder claims (including the fee claims of indenture trustees for the senior notes) received a pro rata share of either $431 million of cash or a “strip” of consideration consisting of 6.27% of the proceeds from a term loan facility, common stock or warrants in the Company and cash (collectively, a “Strip”) (on average, equal to approximately 33.3% of their allowed claim) plus interests in the Litigation Trust (as defined and described below), (iv) holders of allowed other parent claims received either (a) cash or a Strip in an amount equal to approximately 35.18% of their allowed claim plus a pro rata share of additional cash or a Strip, as applicable, of approximately $2 million or (b) cash or a Strip in an amount equal to approximately 32.73% of their allowed claim plus a pro rata share of additional cash or a Strip, as applicable, of approximately $2 million plus interests in the Litigation Trust (as defined and described below), (v) holders of allowed general unsecured claims against the Debtors other than Tribune Company and convenience claims against the Company received cash in an amount equal to 100% of their allowed claim, and (vi) holders of unclassified claims, priority non-tax claims and certain other secured claims received cash in an amount equal to 100% of their allowed claim. In the aggregate, the Company distributed approximately $3.516 billion of cash, approximately 100 million shares of Common Stock and Warrants (as defined and described below) with a fair value determined pursuant to the Plan of approximately $4.536 billion and interests in the Litigation Trust (as defined and described below). In addition, the Company transferred $187 million of cash to certain restricted accounts for the limited purpose of funding certain future claim payments and professional fees.

In addition, on the Effective Date, letters of credit issued under the Predecessor’s debtor-in-possession facility were replaced with new letters of credit under a new revolving credit facility and subsequently terminated. All allowed priority tax and non-tax claims and other secured claims not paid on the Effective Date and subsidiary interests were reinstated and allowed administrative expense claims will be paid in full when due.

•

Issuance of new equity securities: As of the Effective Date, the Company issued 78,754,269 shares of Class A Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share, and 4,455,767 shares of Class B Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share. Any holder (with the exception of AG, JPMorgan and Oaktree, each of which previously submitted ownership information to the FCC) who possessed greater than 4.99% of the Class A Common Stock after allocation of the Warrants and holders making voluntary elections, was instead allocated Class B Common Stock until such holder’s Class A Common Stock represented no more than 4.99% of the Company’s Class A Common Stock in order to comply with the FCC ownership rules and requirements. The Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock generally provide identical economic rights, but holders of the Class B Common Stock have limited voting rights, including that such holders have no right to vote in the election of directors. Subject to the ownership limitation noted above, each share of Class A Common Stock is convertible into one share of Class B Common Stock and each share of Class B Common Stock is convertible into one share of Class A Common Stock, in each case, at the option of the holder at any time. In addition, on the Effective Date, the Company entered into a warrant agreement (the “Warrant Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company issued 16,789,972 warrants to purchase Common Stock (the “Warrants”). The Company issued the Warrants in lieu of Common Stock to creditors that were otherwise eligible to receive Common Stock in connection with the implementation of the Plan in order to comply with the FCC’s foreign ownership restrictions.

Furthermore, pursuant to the Company’s certificate of incorporation and the Warrant Agreement, in the event the Company determines that the ownership or proposed ownership of Common Stock or Warrants, as applicable, would be inconsistent with or violate any federal communications laws, materially limit or impair any business activities or proposed business activities of the Company under any federal communications laws, or subject the Company to any regulation under any federal communications laws to which the Company would not be subject, but for such ownership or proposed ownership, the Company may, among other things: (i) require a holder of Common Stock or Warrants to promptly furnish information reasonably requested by the Company, including information with respect to citizenship, ownership structure, and other ownership interests and affiliations; (ii) refuse to permit a proposed transfer or conversion of Common Stock, or condition transfer or conversion on the prior consent of the FCC; (iii) refuse to permit a proposed exercise of Warrants, or condition exercise on the prior consent of the FCC; (iv) suspend the rights of ownership of the holders of Common Stock or Warrants; (v) require the conversion of any or all shares of Common Stock held by a stockholder into shares of any other class of capital stock of the Company with equivalent economic value, including the conversion of shares of Class A Common Stock into shares of Class B Common Stock or the conversion of shares of Class B Common Stock into shares of Class A Common Stock; (vi) require the exchange of any or all shares of Common Stock held by any stockholder of the Company for Warrants to acquire the same number and class of shares of capital stock in the Company; (vii) to the extent the foregoing are not reasonably feasible, redeem any or all such shares of Common Stock; or (viii) exercise other appropriate remedies, at law or in equity, in any court of competent jurisdiction to prevent or cure any such situation. As permitted under the Plan, the Reorganized Debtors have adopted an equity incentive plan for the purpose of granting awards to directors, officers and employees of the Company and its subsidiaries.

•

Registration Rights Agreement: On the Effective Date, the Company entered into a registration rights agreement (the “Registration Rights Agreement”) with certain entities related to AG (the “AG Group”), Oaktree Tribune, L.P., an affiliate of Oaktree (the “Oaktree Group”) and Isolieren Holding Corp., an affiliate of JPMorgan (the “JPM Group,” and each of the JPM Group, AG Group and Oaktree Group, a “Stockholder Group”) and certain other holders of Registrable Securities who become a party thereto. See Note 15 for further information.

•

Exit credit facilities: On the Effective Date, the Company entered into a $1.100 billion secured term loan facility with a syndicate of lenders led by JPMorgan (the “Term Loan Exit Facility”), the proceeds of which were used to fund certain required distributions to creditors under the Plan. In addition, on the Effective Date, the Company, along with certain of its reorganized operating subsidiaries as additional borrowers, entered into a secured asset-based revolving credit facility of up to $300 million, subject to borrowing base availability, with a syndicate of lenders led by Bank of America, N.A. (the “ABL Exit Facility” and together with the Term Loan Exit Facility, the “Exit Financing Facilities”) to fund ongoing operations. The Exit Financing Facilities were terminated and repaid in full on December 27, 2013.

•

Settlement of certain causes of action related to the Leveraged ESOP Transactions: The Plan provided for the settlement of certain causes of action arising in connection with the Leveraged ESOP Transactions, against the lenders under the Credit Agreement, JPMorgan as administrative agent under the Credit Agreement, the agents, arrangers, joint bookrunner and other similar parties under the Credit Agreement, the lenders under the Bridge Facility and the administrative agent under the Bridge Facility. It also included a “Step Two/Disgorgement Settlement” of claims for disgorgement of prepetition payments made by the Predecessor on account of the debt incurred in connection with the closing of the second step of the Leveraged ESOP Transactions on December 20, 2007 against parties who elected to participate in such settlement. These settlements resulted in incremental recovery to creditors other than lenders under the Credit Agreement and the Bridge Facility of approximately $521 million above their “natural” recoveries absent such settlements.

•

The Litigation Trust: On the Effective Date, except for those claims released as part of the settlements described above, all other causes of action related to the Leveraged ESOP Transactions held by the Debtors’ estates and preserved pursuant to the terms of the Plan (the “Litigation Trust Preserved Causes of Action”) were transferred to a litigation trust formed, pursuant to the Plan, to pursue the Litigation Trust Preserved Causes of Action for the benefit of certain creditors that received interests in the litigation trust as part of their distributions under the Plan (the “Litigation Trust”). The Litigation Trust is managed by an independent third party trustee (the “Litigation Trustee”) and advisory board and, pursuant to the terms of the agreements forming the Litigation Trust, the Company is not able to exert any control or influence over the administration of the Litigation Trust, the pursuit of the Litigation Trust Preserved Causes of Action or any other activities of the Litigation Trust. In connection with the formation of the Litigation Trust, and pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Company entered into a credit agreement (the “Litigation Trust Loan Agreement”) with the Litigation Trust whereby the Company made a non-interest bearing loan of $20 million in cash to the Litigation Trust on the Effective Date. Subject to the Litigation Trust’s right to maintain an expense fund of up to $25 million, under the terms of the Litigation Trust Loan Agreement, the Litigation Trust is required to repay to the Company the principal balance of the loan with the proceeds received by the Litigation Trust from the pursuit of the Litigation Trust Preserved Causes of Action only after the first $90 million in proceeds, if any, are disbursed to certain holders of interests in the Litigation Trust. Concurrent with the disbursement of the $20 million loan to the Litigation Trust on the Effective Date, the Predecessor recorded a valuation allowance of $20 million against the principal balance of the loan given the uncertainty as to the timing and amount of principal repayments to be received in the future. In addition, pursuant to certain agreements entered into between the Company and the Litigation Trust, on the Effective Date in accordance with the Plan, the Company is required to reasonably cooperate with the Litigation Trustee in connection with the Litigation Trustee’s pursuit of the Litigation Trust Preserved Causes of Action by providing reasonable access to records and information relating to the Litigation Trust Preserved Causes of Action, provided, however, that the Litigation Trust is required to reimburse the Company for reasonable and documented out-of-pocket expenses, subject to limited exceptions, in performing its obligations under such agreements up to a cap of $625,000. The Company has the right to petition the Bankruptcy Court to increase the cap upon a showing that the Company’s costs significantly exceed $625,000. On January 4, 2013, the Company filed a notice with the Bankruptcy Court stating that, in the opinion of the independent valuation expert retained by the Company, the fair market value of the Litigation Trust Preserved Causes of Action as of the Effective Date was $358 million.


•	Other Plan provisions: The Plan and Confirmation Order also contain various discharges, injunctive provisions and releases that became operative on the Effective Date.

Since the Effective Date, the 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 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. As described above, on the Effective Date, the Company held restricted cash of $187 million which is estimated to be sufficient to satisfy such obligations. At December 31, 2017, 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 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 the Zell Entity (the Zell Entity, 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 Leveraged ESOP Transactions that was embodied in the Plan (see above for a description of the terms and conditions of the confirmed Plan). 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, the Company’s financial condition may be adversely affected.

Certain Causes of Action Arising From the Leveraged ESOP Transactions—On April 1, 2007, the Predecessor’s board of directors (the “Predecessor Board”), based on the recommendation of a special committee of the Predecessor Board comprised entirely of independent directors, approved the Leveraged ESOP Transactions with the ESOP, the Zell Entity and Samuel Zell. On December 20, 2007, the Predecessor completed the Leveraged ESOP Transactions, which culminated in the cancellation of all issued and outstanding shares of the Predecessor’s common stock as of that date, other than shares held by the Predecessor or the ESOP, and with the Predecessor becoming wholly-owned by the ESOP. The Leveraged ESOP Transactions consisted of a series of transactions that included the following:

•

On April 1, 2007, the Predecessor entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) with GreatBanc Trust Company, not in its individual or corporate capacity, but solely as trustee of the Tribune Employee Stock Ownership Trust, a separate trust which forms a part of the ESOP, Tesop Corporation, a Delaware corporation wholly-owned by the ESOP (“Merger Sub”), and the Zell Entity (solely for the limited purposes specified therein) providing for Merger Sub to be merged with and into Tribune Company, and following such merger, the Predecessor to continue as the surviving corporation wholly-owned by the ESOP (the “Merger”).

•

On April 1, 2007, the ESOP purchased 8,928,571 shares of the Predecessor’s common stock at a price of $28.00 per share. The ESOP paid for this purchase with a promissory note in the principal amount of $250 million, to be repaid by the ESOP over the 30-year life of the loan through its use of annual contributions from the Predecessor to the ESOP and/or distributions paid on the shares of common stock held by the ESOP. Upon consummation of the Merger (as described below), the 8,928,571 shares of the Predecessor’s common stock held by the ESOP were converted into 56,521,739 shares of common stock and represented the only outstanding shares of capital stock of the Predecessor after the Merger. Approximately 8,294,000 of the shares held by the ESOP were committed for release or allocated to employees at December 30, 2012. On April 25, 2007, the Predecessor commenced a tender offer to repurchase up to 126 million shares of common stock that were then outstanding at a price of $34.00 per share in cash (the “Share Repurchase”). The tender offer expired on May 24, 2007 and 126 million shares of the Predecessor’s common stock were repurchased for an aggregate purchase price of $4.289 billion on June 4, 2007 utilizing proceeds from the Credit Agreement and subsequently retired.

•

On December 20, 2007, the Predecessor completed its merger with Merger Sub, with the Predecessor surviving the Merger. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each share of common stock, par value $0.01 per share, issued and outstanding immediately prior to the Merger, other than shares held by the Predecessor, the ESOP or Merger Sub immediately prior to the Merger (in each case, other than shares held on behalf of third parties) and shares held by shareholders who validly exercised appraisal rights, was cancelled and automatically converted into the right to receive $34.00, without interest and less any applicable withholding taxes, and the Predecessor became wholly-owned by the ESOP. As a result, the Predecessor repurchased approximately 119 million shares for an aggregate purchase price of $4.032 billion.

•

In the Merger, the Zell Entity received cash for the shares of the Predecessor’s common stock it had acquired pursuant to the Zell Entity Purchase Agreement and the Predecessor repaid the exchangeable promissory note held by the Zell Entity including approximately $6 million of accrued interest. In addition, the Predecessor paid to the Zell Entity a total of $5 million in legal fee reimbursements, of which $3 million was previously paid following the Share Repurchase described above. Following the consummation of the Merger, the Zell Entity purchased, for an aggregate of $315 million, a $255 million subordinated promissory note at stated interest rate of 4.64% and a 15-year warrant (the “Predecessor Warrants”). For accounting purposes, the subordinated promissory note and 15-year warrant were recorded at fair value of $255 million based on the relative fair value method. The warrant entitled the Zell Entity to purchase 43,478,261 shares of the Predecessor’s common stock (subject to adjustment), which then represented approximately 40% of the economic equity interest in the Predecessor following the Merger (on a fully-diluted basis, including after giving effect to share equivalents granted under a new management equity incentive plan which is described in Note 16). The warrant had an initial aggregate exercise price of $500 million, increasing by $10 million per year for the first 10 years of the warrant, for a maximum aggregate exercise price of $600 million (subject to adjustment). Thereafter and prior to the Petition Date, the Zell Entity assigned minority interests in the initial subordinated promissory note and the warrant, totaling approximately $65 million of the aggregate principal amount of the subordinated promissory note and warrants to purchase 12,611,610 shares, to certain permitted assignees, including entities controlled by certain members of the Predecessor’s board of directors and certain senior employees of Equity Group Investments, LLC, an affiliate of the Zell Entity. The subordinated promissory notes, which included $10 million of payable-in-kind interest recorded in 2008, were included in liabilities subject to compromise in the Predecessor’s Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 30, 2012. On the Effective Date, in accordance with the terms of the Plan, the warrants were cancelled and the $225 million subordinated promissory notes (including accrued and unpaid interest) were terminated and extinguished.

The Leveraged ESOP Transactions and certain debt financings were the subject of extensive review by the Debtors, including substantial document review and legal and factual analyses of these transactions as a result of the prepetition debt incurred and payments made by the Company in connection therewith. Additionally, the Creditors’ Committee and certain other constituencies undertook their own reviews and due diligence concerning these transactions, with which the Debtors cooperated.

On November 1, 2010, with authorization from the Bankruptcy Court, the Creditors’ Committee initiated two adversary proceedings: Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Tribune Co.), Case No. 10-53963, (the “JPMorgan Complaint”) and Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors v. FitzSimons (In re Tribune Co.), Case No. 10-54010 (as subsequently modified, the “FitzSimons Complaint”), which assert claims and causes of action related to the Leveraged ESOP Transactions including, among other things, breach of duty, disgorgement, professional malpractice, constructive and intentional fraudulent transfer, and preferential transfer actions against certain of Tribune Company’s senior lenders and various non-lender parties, including current and former directors and officers of Tribune Company and its subsidiaries, certain advisors, certain former shareholders of Tribune Company and Samuel Zell and related entities. The Bankruptcy Court imposed a stay of proceedings with respect to the JPMorgan Complaint and the FitzSimons Complaint. With limited exceptions, the claims and causes of action set forth in the JPMorgan Complaint against JPMorgan and other senior lenders named as defendants therein were settled pursuant to the Plan. For administrative ease in effectuating the settlement embodied in the Plan, on April 2, 2012, the Creditors’ Committee initiated an additional adversary proceeding relating to the Leveraged ESOP Transactions against certain advisors to the Company, captioned Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. (In re Tribune Co.), Case No. 12-50446 (the “Committee Advisor Complaint”). The Committee Advisor Complaint re-states certain counts of the JPMorgan Complaint and seeks to avoid and recover the advisor fees paid to the defendants in connection with the Leveraged ESOP Transactions as alleged fraudulent and preferential transfers, seeks compensatory damages against the defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company’s directors and officers, and seeks damages for professional malpractice against the defendants. The claims and causes of action set forth in the FitzSimons Complaint and the Committee Advisor Complaint were preserved under the Plan and transferred to the Litigation Trust established pursuant to the Plan. Pursuant to certain agreements between the Company and the Litigation Trust, the Company is required to reasonably cooperate with the Litigation Trustee in connection with the Litigation Trustee’s pursuit of these and other Litigation Trust Preserved Causes of Action by providing reasonable access to records and information relating thereto.

On or about June 2, 2011, Deutsche Bank, Law Debenture and WTC, as indenture trustees for Tribune Company’s senior noteholders and PHONES, and, separately, certain retirees, filed approximately 50 complaints in over 20 different federal and state courts, seeking to recover amounts paid to all former shareholders of Tribune Company whose stock was purchased or cash settled in conjunction with the Leveraged ESOP Transactions under state law constructive fraudulent transfer causes of action (collectively and as subsequently amended, the “SLCFC Actions”). Those complaints named over 2,000 individuals and entities as defendants, included thousands of “doe” defendants, and also asserted defendant class actions against the balance of the approximately 38,000 individuals or entities who held stock that was purchased or redeemed via the Leveraged ESOP Transactions. The named defendants also included a Debtor subsidiary of the Company, certain then-current employees of the Company and certain of the Company’s benefit plans. The SLCFC Actions were independent of the Litigation Trust Preserved Causes of Action and were brought for the sole benefit of the senior noteholders and PHONES and/or certain retirees and not for the benefit of all of the Company’s creditors.

On August 16, 2011, the plaintiffs in the SLCFC Actions filed a motion to have all the SLCFC Actions removed to federal court during the pre-trial stages through multi-district litigation (“MDL”) proceedings before a single judge. All but one of these actions were transferred on December 19, 2011 (or by additional orders filed in early January 2012) to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “NY District Court”) under the consolidated docket numbers 1:11-md-02296 and 1:12-mc-02296 for pre-trial proceedings. The NY District Court entered a case management order on February 23, 2012 allowing all pending motions to amend the complaints in the SLCFC Actions and directing the defendants to form an executive committee representing defendants with aligned common interests. The NY District Court imposed a stay of proceedings with respect to the SLCFC Actions for all other purposes. The one SLCFC Action that was not transferred to the NY District Court is pending before a state court. However, no current or former employees, directors, officers or subsidiaries of the Company are named defendants in that action.

In related actions, on December 19, 2011, the Zell Entity and related entities filed two lawsuits in Illinois state court alleging constructive fraudulent transfer against former shareholders of Tribune Company. These suits proposed to protect the Zell Entity’s right to share in any recovery from fraudulent conveyance actions against former shareholders. These actions were independent of the Litigation Trust Preserved Causes of Action. By order dated June 11, 2012, the MDL panel transferred one of the lawsuits to the NY District Court to be heard with the consolidated SLCFC Actions in the MDL proceedings, while the other was subsequently voluntarily dismissed.

On March 15, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order, effective June 1, 2012, lifting the stay in each of the SLCFC Actions and the FitzSimons Complaint. On March 20, 2012, the MDL panel entered an order transferring the FitzSimons Complaint to the NY District Court to be heard with the consolidated SLCFC Actions in the MDL proceedings. By order dated August 3, 2012, the MDL panel transferred the Committee Advisor Complaint to the NY District Court to be heard with the FitzSimons Complaint and the consolidated SLCFC Actions in the MDL proceedings. By order dated May 21, 2013, the MDL panel transferred 18 Preference Actions (as defined and described below) seeking to recover certain payments made by Tribune Company to certain of its current and former executives in connection with the Leveraged ESOP Transactions from the Bankruptcy Court to the NY District Court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the other MDL proceedings.

The NY District Court presiding over the MDL proceedings held a case management conference on July 10, 2012 for the purpose of establishing the organizational structure of the cases, a schedule for motions to dismiss and discovery and other issues related to the administration of such proceedings, but otherwise stayed all other activity. On September 7, 2012, the NY District Court issued a case management order (“Master Case Order No. 3”) designating liaison counsel for the plaintiffs and various defendant groups and approved the formation of the executive committee for plaintiffs’ counsel and defendants’ counsel. In accordance with Master Case Order No. 3, counsel for the defendants filed motions to dismiss the SLCFC Actions based on certain statutory and jurisdictional defenses (the “Phase One Motions to Dismiss”). The plaintiffs filed their responses to the Phase One Motions to Dismiss on December 21, 2012. The NY District Court heard oral arguments on the Phase One Motions to Dismiss on May 23, 2013 and on May 29, 2013 issued an order denying certain of those motions in their entirety and reserving a decision on certain defenses raised by the defendants. On September 23, 2013, the NY District Court entered an order dismissing the SLCFC Actions (except for the one action, pending in California state court, which had not been transferred to the MDL) and the related action filed by the Zell Entity that was consolidated with the SLCFC Actions. The plaintiffs in the SLCFC Actions filed a notice of appeal of that order on September 30, 2013. The defendants’ liaison counsel filed a joint notice of cross-appeal of that order on behalf of all represented defendants on October 28, 2013. No appeal of the order was lodged by the Zell Entity. 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 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. That petition is pending.

On June 4, 2013, the Litigation Trustee sought leave from the NY District Court to amend the FitzSimons Complaint and the Committee Advisor Complaint. The NY District Court granted that request on July 22, 2013, and the FitzSimons Complaint was amended on August 2, 2013 and the Committee Advisor Complaint was amended on August 13, 2013. On November 20, 2013, the NY District Court issued a case management order (“Master Case Order No. 4”), which authorized the Litigation Trustee to continue the FitzSimons Complaint in accordance with a court-ordered protocol. Thereafter, pursuant to Master Case Order No. 4, the Litigation Trustee voluntarily dismissed the FitzSimons Complaint against certain former shareholder defendants who received less than $50,000 on account of their Tribune Company common stock in connection with the Leveraged ESOP Transactions. On February 28, 2014, the NY District Court entered an order establishing a second protocol pursuant to Master Case Order No. 4 (the “Joint Dismissal Protocol”) providing for the potential voluntary dismissal of certain defendants from the FitzSimons Complaint if the amounts such defendants received on account of their Tribune Company common stock in connection with the Leveraged ESOP Transactions were below certain thresholds. Pursuant to the Joint Dismissal Protocol, the Litigation Trustee voluntarily dismissed the FitzSimons Complaint against certain additional former shareholder defendants. On April 24, 2014, the NY District Court entered an order establishing a third protocol pursuant to Master Case Order No. 4 (the “Conduit Protocol”) providing for the potential voluntary dismissal of certain defendants from the FitzSimons Complaint if such defendants were “mere conduits” and not transferees of transfers to holders of Tribune Company common stock in connection with the Leveraged ESOP Transactions. Pursuant to the Conduit Protocol, the Litigation Trustee voluntarily dismissed the FitzSimons Complaint against certain defendants and eliminated certain transfer amounts listed in the FitzSimons Complaint for which the corresponding defendants were mere conduits. Also on April 24, 2014, the NY District Court entered an order establishing a schedule and procedures for defendants and the Litigation Trustee to brief additional motions to dismiss the FitzSimons Complaint and the Committee Advisor Complaint (the “Phase Two Motions to Dismiss”). Twelve Phase Two Motions to Dismiss were subsequently filed with the NY District Court. On January 6, 2017, the NY District Court granted one of the pending Phase Two Motions to Dismiss, which resulted in the dismissal of Count I of the FitzSimons Complaint against all former shareholder defendants. The other Phase Two Motions to Dismiss remain pending. By order dated April 5, 2017, the NY District Court adopted a “Preliminary Discovery Plan” relating to certain enumerated counts in the FitzSimons Complaint. Pursuant to that plan, the Litigation Trustee has issued subpoenas seeking the production of documents from a number of third parties, including Tribune Media Company.

Preference Actions—The Debtors and the Creditors’ Committee commenced numerous avoidance actions seeking to avoid and recover certain transfers that had been made to or for the benefit of various creditors within the 90 days prior to the Petition Date (or one year prior to the Petition Date, in the case of transfers to or for the benefit of current or former alleged “insiders,” as defined in the Bankruptcy Code, of the Debtors), which are commonly known as preference actions (the “Preference Actions”), shortly before the statute of limitation for bringing such actions expired on December 8, 2010. The Preference Actions for which the Debtors or Creditors’ Committee filed complaints were stayed by order of the Bankruptcy Court upon their filing.

Certain of the Preference Actions brought or tolled by the Creditors’ Committee were preserved and transferred to the Litigation Trust on or after the Effective Date. Certain of those Preference Actions were dismissed by the Litigation Trustee and, as noted above, 18 of those Preference Actions were transferred to the NY District Court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the other MDL proceedings. The Preference Actions that were transferred to the Litigation Trust, if successful, will inure to the benefit of the Debtors’ creditors that received interests in the Litigation Trust pursuant to the terms of the Plan. Certain other Preference Actions brought or tolled by the Creditors’ Committee were transferred to the Reorganized Debtors on or after the Effective Date. Those Preference Actions, along with the Preference Actions that were originally commenced by the Debtors and retained by the Reorganized Debtors pursuant to the Plan, have all been dismissed by the Reorganized Debtors, and the tolling agreements involving the Preference Actions that were transferred to or retained by the Reorganized Debtors have also been terminated or allowed to expire.

As part of the Chapter 11 claims process, a number of the Company’s former directors and officers who have been named in the FitzSimons Complaint and/or the Preference Actions that were transferred to the Litigation Trust have filed indemnity and other related claims against the Company for claims brought against them in these lawsuits. 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.

Resolution of Outstanding Prepetition Claims—Under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, the filing of a bankruptcy petition automatically stays most actions against a debtor, including most actions to collect prepetition indebtedness or to exercise control over the property of the debtor’s estate. Substantially all prepetition liabilities are subject to compromise under a plan of reorganization approved by the Bankruptcy Court. Shortly after commencing their Chapter 11 proceedings, the Debtors notified all known current or potential creditors of the Chapter 11 filings.

On March 23, 2009, the Debtors filed initial schedules with the Bankruptcy Court setting forth the assets and liabilities of the Debtors as of the Petition Date and Tribune CNLBC filed its initial schedules of assets and liabilities in October 2009 (as subsequently amended, the “Schedules of Assets and Liabilities”). The Schedules of Assets and Liabilities contain information identifying the Debtors’ executory contracts and unexpired leases, the creditors that may hold claims against the Debtors and the nature of such claims. On March 25, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court set June 12, 2009 as the general bar date, which was the final date by which most entities that wished to assert a prepetition claim against the Debtors were required to file a proof of claim in writing. On June 7, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court set July 26, 2010 as the general bar date for filing certain proofs of claim against Tribune CNLBC.

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.

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. The filed proofs of claim asserted liabilities in excess of the amounts reflected in liabilities subject to compromise in the Predecessor’s Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 30, 2012 plus certain additional unliquidated and/or contingent amounts. During the Debtors’ Chapter 11 proceedings, the Debtors investigated the differences between the claim amounts recorded by the Debtors and claims filed by creditors. As of December 31, 2017, approximately 3,297 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 3,757 proofs of claim had been settled or otherwise satisfied pursuant to the terms of the Plan.

As of December 31, 2017, all but 403 proofs of claim against the Debtors had been withdrawn, expunged, settled or otherwise satisfied. Adjustments 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 resolutions of the remaining proofs of claim, including indemnity claims, will continue to be subject to uncertainty for a period of time after the Effective Date. If the aggregate allowed amount of the remaining claims exceeds the restricted cash for satisfying such claims, the Company would be required to satisfy the allowed claims from its cash on hand from operations.

Pursuant to the terms of the Plan and subject to certain specified exceptions, on the Effective Date, all executory contracts or unexpired leases of the Debtors that were not previously assumed or rejected pursuant to Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code or rejected pursuant to the Plan were deemed assumed in accordance with, and subject to, the provisions and requirements of Sections 365 and 1123 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Reorganization Items, Net—As provided by the Bankruptcy Code, the Office of the United States Trustee for Region 3 (the “U.S. Trustee”) appointed an official committee of unsecured creditors (the “Creditors’ Committee”) on December 18, 2008. Prior to the Effective Date, the Creditors’ Committee was entitled to be heard on most matters that came before the Bankruptcy Court with respect to the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases. Among other things, the Creditors’ Committee consulted with the Debtors regarding the administration of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases, investigated matters relevant to the Chapter 11 cases, including the formulation of the Plan, advised unsecured creditors regarding the Chapter 11 cases, and generally performed any other services as were in the interests of the Debtors’ unsecured creditors. The Debtors were required to bear certain of the Creditors’ Committee’s costs and expenses, including those of their counsel and other professional advisors. Such costs are included in the Company’s professional advisory fees. The appointment of the Creditors’ Committee terminated on the Effective Date, except with respect to the preparation and prosecution of the Creditors’ Committee’s requests for the payment of professional advisory fees and reimbursement of expenses, the evaluation of fee and expense requests of other parties, and the transfer of certain documents, information and privileges from the Creditors’ Committee to the Litigation Trust.

ASC Topic 852 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 Consolidated Statements of Operations primarily include professional advisory fees and other costs related to the resolution of unresolved claims and totaled $2 million, $1 million and $2 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015. Operating net cash outflows resulting from reorganization costs for each of 2017 and 2016 totaled $2 million and for 2015 totaled $3 million, and were principally for the payment of professional advisory fees and other fees in each year. All other items included in reorganization costs in 2017, 2016 and 2015 are primarily non-cash adjustments.

The Company expects to continue to incur certain expenses pertaining to the Chapter 11 proceedings throughout 2018 and potentially in future periods. These expenses will include primarily professional advisory fees and other costs related to the resolution of unresolved claims.