COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2018

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:

Litigation

We are a party to lawsuits, claims, and regulatory matters from time to time in the ordinary course of business. Actions currently pending are in various stages and no material judgments or decisions have been rendered by hearing boards or courts in connection with such actions. Except as noted below, we do not believe the outcome of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on the Company's financial statements.

On December 21, 2017, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture proposing a $13.4 million fine for alleged violations of the FCC's sponsorship identification rules by the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. Based on a review of the current facts and circumstances, management has provided for what is believed to be a reasonable estimate of the loss exposure for this matter. We have responded to dispute the Commission's findings and the proposed fine; however, we cannot predict the outcome of any potential FCC action related to this matter. We do not believe that the ultimate outcome of this matter will have a material effect on the Company's financial statements.

On November 6, 2018, the Company agreed to enter into a proposed consent decree with the Department of Justice (DOJ). This consent decree resolves the Department of Justice’s investigation into the sharing of pacing information among certain stations in some local markets. The DOJ filed the consent decree and related documents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on November 13, 2018. The consent decree is not an admission of any wrongdoing by the Company, and does not subject Sinclair to any monetary damages or penalties. The Company believes that even if the pacing information was shared as alleged, it would not have impacted any pricing of advertisements or the competitive nature of the market. The consent decree requires the Company to adopt certain antitrust compliance measures, including the appointment of an Antitrust Compliance Officer, consistent with what the Department of Justice has required in previous consent decrees in other industries. The consent decree also requires the Company stations not to exchange pacing and certain other information with other stations in their local markets, which the Company’s management has already instructed them not to do.

The Company is aware of twenty-two putative class action lawsuits filed in United States District Court against the Company. Most of these lawsuits were also brought against other broadcasters and other defendants, including, in certain cases, unidentified “John Doe” defendants. The lawsuits allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United States, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and, in one case, state consumer protection and tort laws. The lawsuits seek damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against adopting practices or plans that would restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs have alleged. The lawsuits followed published reports of a DOJ investigation last year into the exchange of pacing data within the industry. The Company believes the class action lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against all such claims.

On July 19, 2018, the FCC released a Hearing Designation Order (HDO) to commence a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with respect to the Company’s proposed acquisition of Tribune. The HDO directed the FCC's Media Bureau to hold in abeyance all other pending applications and amendments thereto related to the proposed Merger with Tribune until the issues that are the subject of the HDO have been resolved with finality. The HDO asked the ALJ to determine (i) whether Sinclair was the real party in interest to the sale of WGN-TV, KDAF(TV), and KIAH(TV), (ii) if so, whether the Company engaged in misrepresentation and/or lack of candor in its applications with the FCC and (iii) whether consummation of the overall transaction would be in the public interest and compliance with the FCC’s ownership rules. The Company maintains that the overall transaction and the proposed divestitures complied with the FCC’s rules, and strongly rejects any allegation of misrepresentation or lack of candor. The Merger Agreement was terminated by Tribune on August 9, 2018, on which date the Company subsequently filed a letter with the FCC to withdraw the merger applications and have them dismissed with prejudice and filed with the ALJ a Notice of Withdrawal of Applications and Motion to Terminate Hearing (Motion). On August 10, 2018, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau filed a responsive pleading with the ALJ stating that it did not oppose dismissal of the merger applications and concurrent termination of the hearing proceeding. Action on the Motion remains pending. We cannot predict how the ALJ will act on the Motion or the timing for completion or the outcome of the ALJ hearing. While review of the issues raised by the HDO remains pending, the Company's ability to acquire additional TV stations may be impacted.

On August 9, 2018, Tribune filed a complaint (the "Tribune Complaint") in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, which action is captioned Tribune Media Company v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc, Case No. 2018-0593-JTL. The Tribune Complaint alleges that the Company breached the Merger Agreement by, among other things, failing to use its reasonable best efforts to secure regulatory approval of the Merger, and that such breach resulted in the failure of the Merger to obtain regulatory approval and close. The Tribune Complaint seeks declaratory relief, money damages in an amount to be determined at trial (but which the Tribune Complaint suggests could be in excess $1 billion), and attorney's fees and costs. On August 29, 2018, the Company filed its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Verified Counterclaim to the Verified Complaint. In its counterclaim, the Company alleges that Tribune breached the Merger Agreement and seeks declaratory relief, money damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and attorneys ' fees and costs. Sinclair believes that the allegations in the Tribune Complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against such allegations.

On August 9, 2018, Edward Komito, a putative Company shareholder, filed a class action complaint (the “Initial Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the "District of Maryland") against the Company, Christopher Ripley and Lucy Rutishauser, which action is now captioned In re Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. Securities Ligitation, case No. 1:18-CV-02445-CCB (the "Securities Action"). The Initial Complaint in the Securities Action alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading disclosures concerning the Merger prior to the termination thereof. The Initial Complaint seeks declaratory relief, money damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and attorney’s fees and costs. On December 10, 2018, the District of Maryland appointed lead plaintiff's counsel in the Securities Action. Pursuant to a scheduling order entered by the court on December 20, 2018, as amended, lead counsel in the Securities Action will file an amended complaint on or before March 1, 2019. The Company believes that the allegations in the Komito Complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations.

In addition, beginning in late July 2018, Sinclair received letters from two putative Company shareholders requesting that the board of directors of the Company investigate whether any of the Company’s officers and directors committed nonexculpated breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with, or gross mismanagement with respect to: (i) seeking regulatory approval of the Tribune Merger and (ii) the HDO, and the allegations contained therein. A committee consisting of independent members of the board of directors has been formed to respond to these demands (the Special Litigation Committee). The members of the Special Litigation Committee are Martin R. Leader, Larry E. McCanna, and the Honorable Benson Everett Legg.

On November 29, 2018, putative Company shareholder Fire and Police Retiree Health Care Fund, San Antonio filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the District of Maryland against the members of the Company’s board of directors, Mr. Ripley, and the Company (as a nominal defendant), which action is captioned Fire and Police Retiree Health Care Fund, San Antonio v. Smith, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03670-RDB (the “San Antonio Action”). On December 26, 2018, putative Company shareholder Teamsters Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore County (the “Circuit Court”) against the members of the Company’s board of directors, Mr. Ripley, and the Company (as a nominal defendant), which action is captioned Teamsters Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan v. Friedman, et al., Case No. 03-C-18-12119 (the “Teamsters Action”). A defendant in the Teamsters Action removed the Teamsters action to the District of Maryland, and the plaintiff in that case has moved to remand the case back to the Circuit Court. That motion is fully briefed and awaiting decision. On December 21, 2018, putative Company shareholder Norfolk County Retirement System filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the District of Maryland against the members of the Company’s board of directors, Mr. Ripley, and the Company (as a nominal defendant), which action is captioned Norfolk County Retirement System v. Smith, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03952-RDB (the “Norfolk Action,” and together with the San Antonio Action and the Teamsters Action, the “Derivative Actions”). The plaintiffs in each of the Derivative Actions allege breaches of fiduciary duties by the defendants in connection with (i) seeking regulatory approval of the Tribune Merger and (ii) the HDO, and the allegations contained therein. The plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions seek declaratory relief, money damages to be awarded to the Company in an amount to be determined at trial, corporate governance reforms, equitable or injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees and costs. Additionally, the plaintiffs in the Teamsters and Norfolk Actions allege that the defendants were unjustly enriched, in the form of their compensation as directors and/or officers of the Company, in light of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and seek restitution to be awarded to the Company. These allegations are the subject matter of the review being conducted by the Special Litigation Committee, as noted above.

Operating Leases

We have entered into operating leases for certain property and equipment under terms ranging from less than one year to 25 years . The rent expense under these leases, as well as certain leases under month-to-month arrangements, for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016 was approximately $34.5 million, $28.7 million, and $26.0 million, respectively.

Future minimum payments under the leases are as follows (in thousands):



2019	$	32,108
2020	31,287
2021	29,547
2022	26,702
2023	24,325
2024 and thereafter	157,816
	$	301,785

Changes in the Rules of Television Ownership, Local Marketing Agreements, Joint Sales Agreements, Retransmission Consent Negotiations, and National Ownership Cap

Certain of our stations have entered into what have commonly been referred to as local marketing agreements or LMAs. One typical type of LMA is a programming agreement between two separately owned television stations serving the same market, whereby the licensee of one station programs substantial portions of the broadcast day and sells advertising time during such programming segments on the other licensee’s station subject to the latter licensee’s ultimate editorial and other controls. We believe these arrangements allow us to reduce our operating expenses and enhance profitability.

In 1999, the FCC established a new local television ownership rule that made certain LMAs attributable. The FCC adopted policies to grandfather LMAs that were entered into prior to November 5, 1996, and permitted the applicable stations to continue operations pursuant to the LMAs until the conclusion of the FCC’s 2004 biennial review. The FCC stated it would conduct a case-by-case review of grandfathered LMAs and assess the appropriateness of extending the grandfathering periods. The FCC did not initiate any review of grandfathered LMAs in 2004 or as part of its subsequent quadrennial reviews. We do not know when, or if, the FCC will conduct any such review of grandfathered LMAs. Currently, all LMAs are grandfathered under the local television ownership rule because they were entered into prior to November 5, 1996. If the FCC were to eliminate the grandfathering of these LMAs, we would have to terminate or modify these LMAs.

In February 2015, the FCC issued an order implementing certain statutorily required changes to its rules governing the duty to negotiate retransmission consent agreements in good faith. With these changes, a television broadcast station is prohibited from negotiating retransmission consent jointly with another television station in the same market unless the “stations are directly or indirectly under common de jure control permitted under the regulations of the Commission.” During a 2015 retransmission consent negotiation, a MVPD filed a complaint with the FCC accusing us of violating this rule. Although we reached agreement with the MVPD, the FCC initiated an investigation. In order to resolve the investigation and all other pending matters before the FCC's Media Bureau (including the grant of all outstanding renewals and dismissal or cancellation of all outstanding adversarial pleadings or forfeitures before the Media Bureau), the Company, on July 29, 2016, without any admission of liability, entered into a consent decree with the FCC pursuant to which the Company paid a settlement and agreed to be subject to ongoing compliance monitoring by the FCC for a period of 36 months.

In September 2015, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in response to a Congressional directive in STELAR to examine the “totality of the circumstances test” for good-faith negotiations of retransmission consent. The proposed rulemaking seeks comment on new factors and evidence to consider in its evaluation of claims of bad faith negotiation, including service interruptions prior to a “marquee sports or entertainment event,” restrictions on online access to broadcast programming during negotiation impasses, broadcasters’ ability to offer bundles of broadcast signals with other broadcast stations or cable networks, and broadcasters’ ability to invoke the FCC’s exclusivity rules during service interruptions. On July 14, 2016, the FCC’s Chairman at the time announced that the FCC would not, at that time, proceed to adopt additional rules governing good faith negotiations of retransmission consent. No formal action has yet been taken on this Proposed Rulemaking, and we cannot predict if the full Commission will agree to terminate the Rulemaking without action.

In August 2016, the FCC completed both its 2010 and 2014 quadrennial reviews of its media ownership rules and issued an order (Ownership Order) which left most of the existing multiple ownership rules intact, but amended the rules to provide for the attribution of JSAs where two television stations are located in the same market, and a party with an attributable interest in one station sells more than 15% of the advertising time per week of the other station. JSAs existing as of March 31, 2014, were grandfathered until October 1, 2025, at which point they would have to be terminated, amended or otherwise come into compliance with the JSA attribution rule. On November 20, 2017, the FCC released an Ownership Order on Reconsideration that, among other things, eliminated the JSA attribution rule. The rule changes adopted in the Ownership Order on Reconsideration became effective on February 7, 2018. Petitions for Review of the Ownership Order on Reconsideration, including the elimination of the JSA attribution rule, are currently pending in a consolidated proceeding before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. If we are required to terminate or modify our LMAs or JSAs, our business could be adversely affected in several ways, including loss of revenues, increased costs, losses on investments, and termination penalties.

On September 6, 2016, the FCC released the UHF Discount Order, eliminating the UHF discount. The UHF discount allowed television station owners to discount the coverage of UHF stations when calculating compliance with the FCC’s national ownership cap, which prohibits a single entity from owning television stations that reach, in total, more than 39% of all the television households in the nation. All but 34 of the stations we currently own and operate, or to which we provide programming services are UHF. On April 20, 2017, the FCC acted on a Petition for Reconsideration of the UHF Discount Order and adopted the UHF Discount Order on Reconsideration which reinstated the UHF discount, which became effective June 15, 2017 and is currently in effect. A Petition for Review of the UHF Discount Order on Reconsideration was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 12, 2017. The court dismissed the Petition for Review on July 25, 2018. On December 18, 2017, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to examine the national audience reach cap, including the UHF discount. We cannot predict the outcome of the rulemaking proceeding. With the application of the UHF discount counting all our present stations we reach approximately 25% of U.S. households. Changes to the national ownership cap could limit our ability to make television station acquisitions.

On December 13, 2018, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to initiate the 2018 Quadrennial Regulatory Review of the FCC’s broadcast ownership rules. The NPRM seeks comment on whether the Local Radio Ownership Rule, the Local Television Ownership Rule, and the Dual Network Rule continue to be necessary in the public interest or whether they should be modified or eliminated. With respect to the Local Television Ownership Rule specifically, among other things, the NPRM seeks comment on possible modifications to the rule’s operation, including the relevant product market, the numerical limit, the top-four prohibition; and the implications of multicasting, satellite stations, low power stations and the next generation standard. In addition, the NPRM examines further several diversity related proposals raised in the last quadrennial review proceeding. The public comment period will begin 60 days after publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register, which publication not yet occurred. We cannot predict the outcome of the rulemaking proceeding. Changes to these rules could impact our ability to make radio or television station acquisitions.