COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:

Sports Programming Rights

We are contractually obligated to make payments to purchase sports programming rights. The following table presents our annual non-cancellable commitments relating to our local sports segment's sports programming rights agreements as of September 30, 2020. These commitments assume that sports teams fully deliver the contractually committed games, and do not reflect the impact of rebates expected to be paid by the teams.



(in millions)
2020 (remainder)	$	515
2021	1,820
2022	1,575
2023	1,525
2024	1,457
2025 and thereafter	8,281
Total	$	15,173

Other Liabilities

In connection with the RSN Acquisition, we assumed certain fixed payment obligations which are payable through 2027. We recorded these obligations in purchase accounting at estimated fair value. As of September 30, 2020, $57 million was recorded within other current liabilities and $100 million was recorded within other long-term liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets. Interest expense of $2 million and $6 million was recorded for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, respectively and $0.5 million was recorded for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019.

In connection with the RSN Acquisition, we assumed certain variable payment obligations which are payable through 2030. These contractual obligations are based upon the excess cash flow of certain RSNs. We recorded these obligations in purchase accounting at estimated fair value. As of September 30, 2020, $20 million was recorded within other current liabilities and $44 million was recorded within other long-term liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets. These obligations are measured as the amount of cash that would be paid under the terms of the contracts if they were to settle at each reporting date. Total measurement adjustment gains of $168 million for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020 were recorded within other income, net in our consolidated statements of operations. The measurement adjustment gains were a result of a decrease in the projected excess cash flows of the related RSNs, as further discussed in Impairment of Goodwill and Definite-Lived Intangible Assets under Note 1. Nature of Operations and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies . For further information, see Note 10. Fair Value Measurements.

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.

FCC Litigation Matters

On December 21, 2017, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) proposing a $13 million fine for alleged violations of the FCC's sponsorship identification rules by the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. We filed a response disputing the Commission's findings and the proposed fine.

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 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. The ALJ granted the Motion and terminated the hearing on March 5, 2019. As part of a discussion initiated by the Company to respond to allegations raised in the HDO, the FCC’s Media Bureau sent the Company a letter of inquiry.

On May 22, 2020, the FCC released an Order and Consent Decree pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay $48 million to resolve the FCC’s investigation of the allegations raised in the HDO, the matters covered by the NAL, and a retransmission related matter. The Company submitted the $48 million payment on August 19, 2020. As part of the consent decree, the Company also agreed to implement a 4-year compliance plan. Two petitions were filed on June 8, 2020 seeking reconsideration of the Order and Consent Decree. The Company filed an opposition to the petitions on June 18, 2020, and the petitions remain pending. For the nine months ended September 30, 2020, we recorded an expense of $2.5 million for the above legal matters, which is reflected within selling, general, and administrative expenses in our consolidated statements of operations.

On September 1, 2020, one of the individuals who filed a petition for reconsideration of the Order and Consent Decree filed a petition to deny the license renewal application of WBFF(TV), Baltimore, MD, and the license renewal applications of two other Baltimore, MD stations with which the Company has a JSA or LMA, Deerfield Media station WUTB(TV) and Cunningham station WNUV(TV). The Company filed an opposition to the petition on October 1, 2020, and the petition remains pending.

On September 2, 2020, the FCC adopted a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) against the licensees of several stations with whom the Company has LMAs, JSAs, and/or SSAs in response to a complaint regarding those stations’ retransmission consent negotiations. The NAL proposed a $0.5 million penalty for each station, totaling $9 million. The licensees filed a response to the NAL on October 15, 2020, asking the Commission to dismiss the proceeding or, alternatively, to reduce the proposed forfeiture to $25,000 per station. The Company is not a party to that proceeding and cannot predict whether or how the proceeding will affect the Company’s financial statements. However, we accrued an expense for the above legal matters during the three months ended September 30, 2020, as we consolidate these stations as VIEs.

Other Litigation Matters

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 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered the consent decree on May 22, 2019. 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's 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 that were filed against the Company following published reports of the DOJ investigation into the exchange of pacing data within the industry. On October 3, 2018, these lawsuits were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. The consolidated action alleges that the Company and thirteen other broadcasters conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United States and engaged in unlawful information sharing, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The consolidated action seeks 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. Defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action, but that motion was denied. The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against all such claims.

On August 9, 2018, Edward Komito, a putative Company shareholder, filed a class action 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 Litigation, case No. 1:18-CV-02445-CCB (the "Securities Action"). On March 1, 2019, lead counsel in the Securities Action filed an amended complaint, adding David Smith and Steven Marks as defendants, and alleging that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading disclosures concerning (a) the Merger prior to the termination thereof; and (b) the DOJ investigation concerning the alleged exchange of pacing information. The Securities Action seeks declaratory relief, money damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and attorney’s fees and costs. On May 3, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was opposed by lead plaintiff. On February 4, 2020, the Court issued a decision granting the motion to dismiss in part and denying the motion to dismiss in part. On February 18, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, to certify dismissal as final and appealable. Defendants filed an opposition to this motion. On July 20, 2020, the Court issued a decision denying plaintiffs’ motion and dismissing the remaining claims (which the Court previously had not dismissed in its February 4, 2020 decision) based on lack of standing. The plaintiffs did not appeal this decision, and the Securities Action therefore has concluded.

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, with Martin Leader as its designated Chair.

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. On April 30, 2019, the Special Litigation Committee moved to dismiss and, in the alternative, to stay the San Antonio and Norfolk Actions, which motion was opposed by the plaintiffs. The Company and the remaining individual defendants joined in this motion. On October 23, 2019, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion in the Teamsters Action to remand that action back to the Circuit Court. On December 9, 2019, the court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss and, in the alternative, to stay the San Antonio and Norfolk Actions without prejudice, subject to potential renewal following limited discovery.

On July 20, 2020, the parties to the Derivative Actions executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise and Release (the “Settlement Stipulation”) reflecting the terms of the settlement of the Derivative Actions (the “Settlement”), which Settlement is subject to final approval by the District Court of Maryland. In connection with the Settlement, (a) the Company’s Board of Directors has agreed to implement a series of corporate governance measures (as described in Exhibit A to the Settlement Stipulation); (b) defendants’ insurers will pay $20.5 million into a settlement fund, which, after a deduction for an award of fees and expenses to plaintiffs’ counsel in an amount to be determined by the Court, will be paid to the Company; (c) the Board of Directors will designate an aggregate amount of $5 million of the settlement fund to be used, over a period of five years, for the implementation and operation of the corporate governance measures and certain compliance programs in connection with an FCC consent decree that was previously announced on May 6, 2020; and (d) the Company’s Executive Chairman David D. Smith will forgo, cancel, or return a grant of SARs of 638,298 shares of Sinclair Class A common stock that was awarded to him in February 2020. In exchange for the consideration described above, and subject to final court approval, the Derivative Actions will be dismissed and defendants will be released of any claims relating to the Tribune Merger or the HDO (provided that the release will not include the Securities Action). On July 23, 2020, and pursuant to the Settlement, the Teamsters Action was voluntarily dismissed. Also on July 23, 2020, the plaintiffs in the Norfolk Action and the San Antonio Action filed the settlement papers with the District of Maryland and moved for preliminary approval of the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and providing for notice to shareholders of the Settlement. On August 6, 2020, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and providing for notice of a final settlement hearing to be held on October 27, 2020. On October 27, 2020, the court held the final settlement hearing and indicated that the court would review the submissions and issue a written decision. Defendants have not admitted any liability or wrongdoing in connection with the Settlement and have entered into the Settlement to avoid the costs, risks, distraction, and uncertainties of continued litigation.