Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

10) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

The Company has indemnification obligations with respect to letters of credit and surety bonds primarily used as security against non-performance in the normal course of business. At March 31, 2012, the outstanding letters of credit and surety bonds approximated $395 million and were not recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

In the course of its business, the Company both provides and receives indemnities which are intended to allocate certain risks associated with business transactions. Similarly, the Company may remain contingently liable for various obligations of a business that has been divested in the event that a third party does not live up to its obligations under an indemnification obligation. The Company records a liability for its indemnification obligations and other contingent liabilities when probable under GAAP.

Legal Matters

Securities Action.    On December 12, 2008, the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System filed a self-styled class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Treasurer, alleging violations of federal securities law. The complaint, which was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between February 26, 2008 and October 10, 2008 (the "Class Period"), alleges that, among other things, the Company's failure to timely write down the value of certain assets caused the Company's reported operating results during the Class Period to be materially inflated. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages. On February 11, 2009, a motion was filed in the case on behalf of The City of Omaha, Nebraska Civilian Employees' Retirement System, and The City of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System (collectively, the "Omaha Funds") seeking to appoint the Omaha Funds as the lead plaintiffs in this case; on March 5, 2009, the court granted that motion. On May 4, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which removes the Treasurer as a defendant and adds the Executive Chairman. On July 13, 2009, all defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action. On March 16, 2010, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed this action as to the Company and all defendants. On April 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. On September 23, 2010, the court issued an order granting leave to amend. On October 8, 2010, the Company was served with an Amended Complaint, which redefines the Class Period to be April 29, 2008 to October 10, 2008 and alleges that the impairment charge should have been taken during the first quarter of 2008. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this Amended Complaint on November 19, 2010. On May 24, 2011, the court granted the motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of defendants on May 25, 2011. On June 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and, on March 14, 2012, the Second Circuit heard oral argument on plaintiffs'appeal.

E-books Matters.   A number of lawsuits described below are pending against the following parties relating to the sale of e-books: Apple Inc., Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers, LLC, Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC d/b/a Macmillan, Penguin Group (USA) Inc. and the Company's subsidiary, Simon & Schuster, Inc. (collectively, the “Publishing parties”). 

On April 10, 2012, for purposes of settlement and without any admission of liability, Simon & Schuster and two of the other Publishing parties entered into a settlement stipulation and proposed final judgment (the “Stipulation”) with the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) in connection with the DOJ's investigations of agency distribution of e-books. In furtherance of this settlement, on April 11, 2012, the DOJ filed an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Publishing parties and concurrently filed the Stipulation with the court.  The Stipulation, which is subject to final approval by the court, does not involve any monetary payments by Simon & Schuster, but will require the adoption of certain business practices for a 24 month period and certain compliance practices for a five year period. 

On December 9, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “MDL”) issued an order consolidating in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York various purported class action suits that private litigants had filed in federal courts in California and New York.  On January 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint with the court against the Publishing parties. These private litigant plaintiffs, who are e-book purchasers, allege that, among other things, the defendants are in violation of federal and/or state antitrust laws in connection with the sale of e-books pursuant to agency distribution arrangements between each of the publishers and e-book retailers. The consolidated amended class action complaint generally seeks multiple forms of damages for the purchase of e-books and injunctive and other relief.  On March 2, 2012, the Publishing parties filed a motion to dismiss this action.

Commencing on February 24, 2012, similar antitrust suits have been filed against the Publishing parties by private litigants in Canada, purportedly as class actions. OnApril 11, 2012, a number of states and the Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico filed an antitrust action against several of the Publishing parties in Texas federal court, which was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“States”) on April 30, 2012.  Simon & Schuster intends to vigorously defend itself in the MDL, Canadian and States litigations.

In addition, the competition authority in the European Community is conducting a competition investigation of agency distribution arrangements of e-books in this industry and Simon & Schuster is cooperating with this investigation.

Indecency Regulation.    In March 2006, the FCC released certain decisions relating to indecency complaints against certain of the Company's owned television stations and affiliated stations. The FCC ordered the Company to pay a forfeiture of $550,000 in the proceeding relating to the broadcast of a Super Bowl half-time show by the Company's television stations (the "Super Bowl Proceeding"). In May 2006, the FCC denied the Company's petition for reconsideration. In July 2006, the Company filed a Petition for Review of the forfeiture with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and paid the $550,000 forfeiture in order to facilitate the Company's ability to bring the appeal. Oral argument was heard in September 2007. In July 2008, the Third Circuit vacated the FCC's order to have the Company pay the forfeiture and remanded the case to the FCC. On November 18, 2008, the FCC filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the Third Circuit's decision. The petition requested that the United States Supreme Court not act on the petition until it ruled in the "fleeting expletives case" mentioned below. On January 8, 2009, the Company filed its opposition to the FCC's petition for certiorari.

In another case involving broadcasts on another network, in June 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the FCC's November 2006 finding that the broadcast of fleeting and isolated expletives was indecent and remanded the case to the FCC (the "fleeting expletives case"). On March 17, 2008, the United States Supreme Court granted the FCC's petition to review the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's decision. On November 4, 2008, the United States Supreme Court heard argument in this case. On April 28, 2009, the United States Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision reversing the Second Circuit's judgment on administrative grounds in favor of the FCC and remanding the fleeting expletives case to the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit requested additional briefing and argument was heard on January 13, 2010. On July 13, 2010, the Second Circuit struck down an FCC policy on indecency and found that the FCC's indecency policies and decisions regarding the use of "fleeting expletives" on radio and television violated the First Amendment. On August 25, 2010, the FCC filed a petition for rehearing en banc and, on August 31, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an order directing all parties and intervenors to file briefs in response to the FCC's petition on September 21, 2010, which were filed. On November 22, 2010, the Second Circuit denied the FCC's petition for rehearing. On April 21, 2011, the FCC filed a combined petition for certiorari seeking review of the Second Circuit's decision in this case and also in an indecency case involving a broadcast on another television network. On June 27, 2011, the United States Supreme Court granted the FCC's petition for certiorari. On January 10, 2012, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in these cases.

Following the April 28, 2009 decision in the fleeting expletives case, on May 4, 2009, the United States Supreme Court remanded the Super Bowl Proceeding to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and requested supplemental briefing from the Company and the FCC, in light of the United States Supreme Court's fleeting expletives decision. Argument was heard by the Third Circuit in the Super Bowl Proceeding on February 23, 2010. On May 18, 2010 and on December 22, 2010, at the Third Circuit's request, the Company and the FCC each submitted supplemental briefs. On November 2, 2011, the Third Circuit upheld its earlier decision to vacate the FCC's order to have the Company pay the $550,000 forfeiture. On April 17, 2012, the FCC filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit decision.

In March 2006, the FCC also notified the Company and certain affiliates of the CBS Television Network of apparent liability for forfeitures relating to a broadcast of the program Without a Trace. The FCC proposed to assess a forfeiture of $32,500 against each of these stations, totaling $260,000 for the Company's owned stations. The Company is contesting the FCC decision and the proposed forfeitures.

Additionally, the Company, from time to time, has received and may receive in the future letters of inquiry from the FCC prompted by complaints alleging that certain programming on the Company's broadcasting stations included indecent material.

Claims Related to Former Businesses: Asbestos.    The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial ships.

Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. As of March 31, 2012, the Company had pending approximately 48,650 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 50,090 as of December 31, 2011 and 52,230 as of March 31, 2011. During the first quarter of 2012, the Company received approximately 1,090 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 2,530 claims. The Company reports claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claim, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. The Company's total costs for the years 2011 and 2010 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were approximately $33 million and $14 million, respectively. The Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year as insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses.

The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended down in recent years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may occur including, among others, the number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities.

Other.    The Company from time to time receives claims from federal and state environmental regulatory agencies and other entities asserting that it is or may be liable for environmental cleanup costs and related damages principally relating to historical and predecessor operations of the Company. In addition, the Company from time to time receives personal injury claims including toxic tort and product liability claims (other than asbestos) arising from historical operations of the Company and its predecessors.

General.    On an ongoing basis, the Company vigorously defends itself in numerous lawsuits and proceedings and responds to various investigations and inquiries from federal, state and local authorities (collectively, "litigation"). Litigation may be brought against the Company without merit, is inherently uncertain and always difficult to predict. However, based on its understanding and evaluation of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company believes that the above-described legal matters and other litigation to which it is a party are not likely, in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Under the Separation Agreement between the Company and Viacom Inc., the Company and Viacom Inc. have agreed to defend and indemnify the other in certain litigation in which the Company and/or Viacom Inc. is named.