Basis of Presentation (Policies)	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Basis of Presentation and Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations Supplemental Information [Abstract]
Variable interest entities	The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company, except for subsidiaries which the Company has identified as variable interest entities (“VIEs”) where the Company is not the primary beneficiary. The nature of the Company’s business is such that the results of operations for the interim periods presented are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for the fiscal year. In the opinion of management, the information contained herein reflects all adjustments necessary to make the results of operations for the interim periods a fair statement of such operations. The Company has evaluated its various variable interests to determine whether they are VIEs as required by the Consolidation Topic of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC” or “Codification”). The Company has 8 film production companies that are VIEs. For two of the Company’s film production companies, the Company has determined that it is the primary beneficiary of these entities as the Company has the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the respective VIE’s economic performance and has the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits from the respective VIE that could potentially be significant to the respective VIE. The Company continues to consolidate these entities, with no material impact on the operating results or financial condition of the Company, as these production companies have total assets of $nil (December 31, 2010 — $nil) and total liabilities of $nil as at June 30, 2011 (December 31, 2010 — $nil). For the other 6 film production companies which are VIEs, the Company did not consolidate these film entities since it does not have the power to direct activities and does not absorb the majority of the expected losses or expected residual returns. The Company equity accounts for these entities. As at June 30, 2011, these 6 VIEs have total assets of $12.7 million (December 31, 2010 — $11.1 million) and total liabilities of $12.7 million (December 31, 2010 — $11.1 million). Earnings of the investees included in the Company’s condensed consolidated statement of operations amounted to $nil and $nil for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, respectively (2010 — $nil and $nil, respectively). The carrying value of these investments in VIEs that are not consolidated is $nil at June 30, 2011 (December 31, 2010 — $nil). A loss in value of an investment other than a temporary decline is recognized as a charge to the condensed consolidated statement of operations.
ASC 323	The Company accounts for investments in new business ventures using the guidance of the FASB ASC 323 Investments — Equity Method and Joint Ventures (“ASC 323”) and the FASB ASC 320 - Investments in Debt and Equity Securities (“ASC 320”), as appropriate. At June 30, 2011, the equity method of accounting is being utilized for an investment with a carrying value of $3.3 million (December 31, 2010 — $1.6 million). The Company has determined it is not the primary beneficiary of this VIE, and therefore it has not been consolidated. In addition, during 2010, the Company made an investment in preferred stock of another business venture of $1.5 million which meets the criteria for classification as a debt security under ASC 320 and is recorded at its fair value of $1.0 million at June 30, 2011 (December 31, 2010 — $1.5 million). This investment is classified as an available-for-sale investment. The total carrying value of investments in new business ventures at June 30, 2011 is $4.3 million (December 31, 2010 — $3.1 million) and is recorded in Other Assets.
ASC 320	The Company accounts for investments in new business ventures using the guidance of the FASB ASC 323 Investments — Equity Method and Joint Ventures (“ASC 323”) and the FASB ASC 320 - Investments in Debt and Equity Securities (“ASC 320”), as appropriate. At June 30, 2011, the equity method of accounting is being utilized for an investment with a carrying value of $3.3 million (December 31, 2010 — $1.6 million). The Company has determined it is not the primary beneficiary of this VIE, and therefore it has not been consolidated. In addition, during 2010, the Company made an investment in preferred stock of another business venture of $1.5 million which meets the criteria for classification as a debt security under ASC 320 and is recorded at its fair value of $1.0 million at June 30, 2011 (December 31, 2010 — $1.5 million). This investment is classified as an available-for-sale investment. The total carrying value of investments in new business ventures at June 30, 2011 is $4.3 million (December 31, 2010 — $3.1 million) and is recorded in Other Assets.
ASU 2010-06	In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-06, “Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements,” (“ASU 2010-06”) to amend topic ASC 820 “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures,” by improving disclosure requirements in order to increase transparency in financial reporting. ASU 2010-06 requires that an entity disclose separately the amounts of significant transfers in and out of Levels 1 and 2 fair value measurements and describe the reasons for the transfers. Furthermore, an entity should present information about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements for Level 3 fair value measurements. ASU 2010-06 also clarifies existing disclosures for the level of disaggregation and disclosures about input and valuation techniques. The new disclosures and clarifications of existing disclosures are effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2009, except for the disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements for the activity in Level 3 fair value measurements. Those disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2010, and for interim periods within those fiscal years. On January 1, 2010, the Company adopted the disclosure amendments in ASU 2010-06, except for the amendments to Level 3 fair value measurements as described above, and has expanded disclosures as presented in Note 17. On January 1, 2011, the Company adopted the disclosure amendments in ASU 2010-06 pertaining to Level 3 fair value measurements and has expanded disclosures as presented in note 17(b).
ASU 2010-20	In July 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-20, “Receivables (Topic 310): Disclosures about the Credit Quality of Financing Receivables and the Allowance for Credit Losses” (“ASU 2010-20”). The objective of ASU 2010-20 is to provide financial statement users with greater transparency about an entity’s allowance for credit losses and the credit quality of its financing receivables. Under ASU 2010-20, an entity is required to provide disclosures so that financial statement users can evaluate the nature of the credit risk inherent in the entity’s portfolio of financing receivables, how that risk is analyzed and assessed to arrive at the allowance for credit losses, and the changes and reasons for those changes in the allowance for credit losses. ASU 2010-20 is applicable to all entities with financing receivables, excluding short-term trade accounts receivable or receivables measured at fair value or lower of cost or fair value. It is effective for interim and annual reporting periods ending on or after December 15, 2010. Comparative disclosures are required to be disclosed for those reporting periods ending after initial adoption. On December 31, 2010, the Company adopted the disclosure requirements in ASU 2010-20 and has expanded disclosures as presented in note 17(c). In April 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-02, “Receivables (ASC Topic 310): A Creditor’s Determination of Whether a Restructuring is a Troubled Debt Restructuring in Update No 2010-20” (“ASU 2011-02”). ASU 2011-02 clarifies which loan modifications constitute troubled debt restructurings and is intended to assist creditors in determining whether a modification of the terms of a receivable meets the criteria to be considered a troubled debt restructuring, both for purposes of recording an impairment loss and for disclosure of troubled debt restructurings. In evaluating whether a restructuring constitutes a troubled debt restructuring, a creditor must separately conclude, under the guidance clarified by ASU 2011-02, that both of the following exist: (a) the restructuring constitutes a concession; and (b) the debtor is experiencing financial difficulties. For public entities, the amendments in ASU 2011-02 are effective for the first interim or annual period beginning on or after June 15, 2011, with retrospective application to the beginning of the annual period of adoption. Early application by public entities is not permitted. The amendments in ASU 2011-02 do not have an impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.
ASU No. 2011-01	In January 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-01, “Receivables (ASC Topic 310): Deferral of the Effective Date of Disclosures about Troubled Debt Restructuring in Update No. 2010-20 (“ASU 2011-01”) which delays the effective date of disclosure requirements for troubled debt restructurings in ASU 2010-20 for public entities. This guidance is effective immediately. The adoption of ASU 2011-01 did not have a material impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.
ASU No. 2011-04	In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, “Fair Value Measurement (ASC Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs” (“ASU 2011-04”). The standards set forth in ASU 2011-04 supersede most of the accounting guidance currently found in Topic 820 of the FASB’s ASC. The amendments will improve comparability of fair value measurements presented and disclosed in financial statements prepared with GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). The amendments also clarify the application of existing fair value measurement requirements. These amendments include (1) the application of the highest and best use and valuation premise concepts, (2) measuring the fair value of an instrument classified in a reporting entity’s shareholders’ equity and (3) disclosing quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used within the Level 3 hierarchy. For public entities, the amendments are effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011 on a prospective basis. Early application by public entities is not permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the potential impact of ASU 2011-04 on its condensed consolidated financial statements.
ASU 2009-13	In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU No. 2009-13, “Revenue Recognition (Topic 605): Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements (a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force)” (“ASU 2009-13”) which amends ASC 605-25, “Revenue Recognition: Multiple-Element Arrangements.” ASU 2009-13 addresses how to determine whether an arrangement involving multiple deliverables contains more than one unit of accounting and how to allocate consideration to each unit of accounting in the arrangement. This ASU removes the fair value criteria for determining separate units of accounting and replaces all references to fair value as the measurement criteria with the term selling price and establishes a hierarchy for determining the selling price of a deliverable. Consideration in a multiple-element arrangement is allocated at the inception of the arrangement to all deliverables on the basis of the relative selling price. When applying the relative selling price method, the selling price for each deliverable is determined using vendor-specific objective evidence (“VSOE”) of the selling price, or third-party evidence (“TPE”) of the selling price. If neither VSOE nor TPE of the selling price exists for a deliverable, the Company will use its best estimate of the selling price (“BESP”) for that deliverable. ASU No. 2009-13 also eliminates the use of the residual value method for determining the allocation of arrangement consideration. Additionally, ASU 2009-13 requires expanded disclosures and is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010. On January 1, 2011, the Company adopted the accounting requirements in ASU 2009-13 prospectively for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified after the date of adoption. As described below, the adoption of these updates did not have, nor are they expected to have, a material effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. The amended standard with respect to multiple-element arrangements is not expected to materially change the allocation of arrangement consideration to the Company’s units of accounting. The pattern and timing of revenue recognition for those arrangements entered into or materially modified after the date of adoption may be affected as a result of the adoption of the amended ASC 605-25 requirements. The Company will be required to develop a selling price for each deliverable using VSOE, TPE or BESP and allocate consideration amongst deliverables and to recognize revenue using that allocated consideration for the delivered units of accounting in the current period. For arrangements entered into or modified prior to the adoption date, the Company defers all consideration received and receivable under arrangements for which the selling price of an undelivered item has not yet been established.
ASU 2009-14	In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU No. 2009-14, “Software (Topic 985): Certain Revenue Arrangements That Include Software Elements (a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force)” (“ASU 2009-14”). ASU 2009-14 amends ASC 985-605, “Software: Revenue Recognition,” such that tangible products, containing both software and non-software components that function together to deliver the tangible product’s essential functionality, are no longer within the scope of ASC 985-605. It also amends the determination of how arrangement consideration should be allocated to deliverables in a multiple-deliverable revenue arrangement. The amendments in this update are effective, on a prospective basis, for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010. On January 1, 2011, the Company adopted the accounting requirements in ASU 2009-14. The application of this amended standard does not have an impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.
ASU No. 2010-28	In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-28, “Intangibles — Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts” (“ASU 2010-28”). The objective of ASU 2010-28 is to address questions about entities with reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts. The amendments in ASU 2010-28 modify Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test for reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts. For those reporting units, an entity is required to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test if it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists by considering whether there are any adverse qualitative factors indicating that an impairment may exist. ASU 2010-28 is applicable to all entities that have recognized goodwill and have one or more reporting units whose carrying amount for purposes of performing Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test is zero or negative. For public entities, the amendments are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2010. On January 1, 2011, the Company adopted the accounting requirements in ASU 2010-28. This amended standard does not have an impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements at this time as the Company does not have any reporting units with zero or negative amounts for goodwill impairment testing purposes.
ASU No. 2011-05	In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income” (“ASU 2011-05”). The amendments contained within this update require that all nonowner changes in shareholders’ equity be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements, eliminating the option to present the components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in shareholders’ equity. The objective of this amendment is to improve the comparability, consistency, and transparency of financial reporting and to increase the prominence of items reported in other comprehensive income. For public entities, the amendments are effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011, on a retrospective basis. Early application by public entities is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the potential impact of ASU 2011-05 on its condensed consolidated financial statements.
Condition for Company's policy to review and assess collectability on theater's past due accounts	The Company’s net investment in leases and its net financed sale receivables are subject to the disclosure requirements of the FASB ASC 310 “Receivables”. Due to differing risk profiles of its net investment in leases and its financed sales receivables, the Company views its net investment in leases and its financed sale receivables as separate classes of financing receivables. The Company does not aggregate financing receivables to assess impairment. The Company monitors the credit quality of each customer on a frequent basis through collections and aging analyses. The Company also holds meetings monthly in order to identify credit concerns and whether a change in credit quality classification is required for the customer. A customer may improve in their credit quality classification once a substantial payment is made on overdue balances or the customer has agreed to a payment plan with the Company and payments have commenced in accordance to the payment plan. The change in credit quality indicator is dependant upon management approval. The Company classifies its customers into three categories to indicate their credit quality internally: Good standing — Theater continues to be in good standing with the Company as the client’s payments and reporting are up-to-date. Pre-approved transactions only — Theater operator has begun to demonstrate a delay in payments with little or no communication with the Company. All service or shipments to the theater must be reviewed and approved by management. These financing receivables are considered to be in better condition than those receivables related to theaters in the “All transactions suspended” category, but not in as good of condition as those receivables in “Good standing”. Depending on the individual facts and circumstances of each customer, finance income recognition may be suspended if management believes the receivable to be impaired. All transactions suspended — Theater is severely delinquent, non-responsive or not negotiating in good faith with the Company. Once a theater is classified as “All transactions suspended”, the theater is placed on nonaccrual status and all revenue recognitions related to the theater are stopped.

Basis of Presentation (Policies)

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Basis of Presentation and Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations Supplemental Information [Abstract]

The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company, except for subsidiaries which the Company has identified as variable interest entities (“VIEs”) where the Company is not the primary beneficiary. The nature of the Company’s business is such that the results of operations for the interim periods presented are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for the fiscal year. In the opinion of management, the information contained herein reflects all adjustments necessary to make the results of operations for the interim periods a fair statement of such operations.

The Company has evaluated its various variable interests to determine whether they are VIEs as required by the Consolidation Topic of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC” or “Codification”). The Company has 8 film production companies that are VIEs. For two of the Company’s film production companies, the Company has determined that it is the primary beneficiary of these entities as the Company has the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the respective VIE’s economic performance and has the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits from the respective VIE that could potentially be significant to the respective VIE. The Company continues to consolidate these entities, with no material impact on the operating results or financial condition of the Company, as these production companies have total assets of $nil (December 31, 2010 — $nil) and total liabilities of $nil as at June 30, 2011 (December 31, 2010 — $nil). For the other 6 film production companies which are VIEs, the Company did not consolidate these film entities since it does not have the power to direct activities and does not absorb the majority of the expected losses or expected residual returns. The Company equity accounts for these entities. As at June 30, 2011, these 6 VIEs have total assets of $12.7 million (December 31, 2010 — $11.1 million) and total liabilities of $12.7 million (December 31, 2010 — $11.1 million). Earnings of the investees included in the Company’s condensed consolidated statement of operations amounted to $nil and $nil for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, respectively (2010 — $nil and $nil, respectively). The carrying value of these investments in VIEs that are not consolidated is $nil at June 30, 2011 (December 31, 2010 — $nil). A loss in value of an investment other than a temporary decline is recognized as a charge to the condensed consolidated statement of operations.

ASC 323

The Company accounts for investments in new business ventures using the guidance of the FASB ASC 323 Investments — Equity Method and Joint Ventures (“ASC 323”) and the FASB ASC 320 - Investments in Debt and Equity Securities (“ASC 320”), as appropriate. At June 30, 2011, the equity method of accounting is being utilized for an investment with a carrying value of $3.3 million (December 31, 2010 — $1.6 million). The Company has determined it is not the primary beneficiary of this VIE, and therefore it has not been consolidated. In addition, during 2010, the Company made an investment in preferred stock of another business venture of $1.5 million which meets the criteria for classification as a debt security under ASC 320 and is recorded at its fair value of $1.0 million at June 30, 2011 (December 31, 2010 — $1.5 million). This investment is classified as an available-for-sale investment. The total carrying value of investments in new business ventures at June 30, 2011 is $4.3 million (December 31, 2010 — $3.1 million) and is recorded in Other Assets.

ASC 320

ASU 2010-06

In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-06, “Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements,” (“ASU 2010-06”) to amend topic ASC 820 “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures,” by improving disclosure requirements in order to increase transparency in financial reporting. ASU 2010-06 requires that an entity disclose separately the amounts of significant transfers in and out of Levels 1 and 2 fair value measurements and describe the reasons for the transfers. Furthermore, an entity should present information about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements for Level 3 fair value measurements. ASU 2010-06 also clarifies existing disclosures for the level of disaggregation and disclosures about input and valuation techniques. The new disclosures and clarifications of existing disclosures are effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2009, except for the disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements for the activity in Level 3 fair value measurements. Those disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2010, and for interim periods within those fiscal years. On January 1, 2010, the Company adopted the disclosure amendments in ASU 2010-06, except for the amendments to Level 3 fair value measurements as described above, and has expanded disclosures as presented in Note 17. On January 1, 2011, the Company adopted the disclosure amendments in ASU 2010-06 pertaining to Level 3 fair value measurements and has expanded disclosures as presented in note 17(b).

ASU 2010-20

In July 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-20, “Receivables (Topic 310): Disclosures about the Credit Quality of Financing Receivables and the Allowance for Credit Losses” (“ASU 2010-20”). The objective of ASU 2010-20 is to provide financial statement users with greater transparency about an entity’s allowance for credit losses and the credit quality of its financing receivables. Under ASU 2010-20, an entity is required to provide disclosures so that financial statement users can evaluate the nature of the credit risk inherent in the entity’s portfolio of financing receivables, how that risk is analyzed and assessed to arrive at the allowance for credit losses, and the changes and reasons for those changes in the allowance for credit losses. ASU 2010-20 is applicable to all entities with financing receivables, excluding short-term trade accounts receivable or receivables measured at fair value or lower of cost or fair value. It is effective for interim and annual reporting periods ending on or after December 15, 2010. Comparative disclosures are required to be disclosed for those reporting periods ending after initial adoption. On December 31, 2010, the Company adopted the disclosure requirements in ASU 2010-20 and has expanded disclosures as presented in note 17(c).

In April 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-02, “Receivables (ASC Topic 310): A Creditor’s Determination of Whether a Restructuring is a Troubled Debt Restructuring in Update No 2010-20” (“ASU 2011-02”). ASU 2011-02 clarifies which loan modifications constitute troubled debt restructurings and is intended to assist creditors in determining whether a modification of the terms of a receivable meets the criteria to be considered a troubled debt restructuring, both for purposes of recording an impairment loss and for disclosure of troubled debt restructurings. In evaluating whether a restructuring constitutes a troubled debt restructuring, a creditor must separately conclude, under the guidance clarified by ASU 2011-02, that both of the following exist: (a) the restructuring constitutes a concession; and (b) the debtor is experiencing financial difficulties. For public entities, the amendments in ASU 2011-02 are effective for the first interim or annual period beginning on or after June 15, 2011, with retrospective application to the beginning of the annual period of adoption. Early application by public entities is not permitted. The amendments in ASU 2011-02 do not have an impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

ASU No. 2011-01

In January 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-01, “Receivables (ASC Topic 310): Deferral of the Effective Date of Disclosures about Troubled Debt Restructuring in Update No. 2010-20 (“ASU 2011-01”) which delays the effective date of disclosure requirements for troubled debt restructurings in ASU 2010-20 for public entities. This guidance is effective immediately. The adoption of ASU 2011-01 did not have a material impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

ASU No. 2011-04

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, “Fair Value Measurement (ASC Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs” (“ASU 2011-04”). The standards set forth in ASU 2011-04 supersede most of the accounting guidance currently found in Topic 820 of the FASB’s ASC. The amendments will improve comparability of fair value measurements presented and disclosed in financial statements prepared with GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). The amendments also clarify the application of existing fair value measurement requirements. These amendments include (1) the application of the highest and best use and valuation premise concepts, (2) measuring the fair value of an instrument classified in a reporting entity’s shareholders’ equity and (3) disclosing quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used within the Level 3 hierarchy. For public entities, the amendments are effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011 on a prospective basis. Early application by public entities is not permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the potential impact of ASU 2011-04 on its condensed consolidated financial statements.

ASU 2009-13

In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU No. 2009-13, “Revenue Recognition (Topic 605): Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements (a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force)” (“ASU 2009-13”) which amends ASC 605-25, “Revenue Recognition: Multiple-Element Arrangements.” ASU 2009-13 addresses how to determine whether an arrangement involving multiple deliverables contains more than one unit of accounting and how to allocate consideration to each unit of accounting in the arrangement. This ASU removes the fair value criteria for determining separate units of accounting and replaces all references to fair value as the measurement criteria with the term selling price and establishes a hierarchy for determining the selling price of a deliverable. Consideration in a multiple-element arrangement is allocated at the inception of the arrangement to all deliverables on the basis of the relative selling price. When applying the relative selling price method, the selling price for each deliverable is determined using vendor-specific objective evidence (“VSOE”) of the selling price, or third-party evidence (“TPE”) of the selling price. If neither VSOE nor TPE of the selling price exists for a deliverable, the Company will use its best estimate of the selling price (“BESP”) for that deliverable. ASU No. 2009-13 also eliminates the use of the residual value method for determining the allocation of arrangement consideration. Additionally, ASU 2009-13 requires expanded disclosures and is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010. On January 1, 2011, the Company adopted the accounting requirements in ASU 2009-13 prospectively for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified after the date of adoption. As described below, the adoption of these updates did not have, nor are they expected to have, a material effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

The amended standard with respect to multiple-element arrangements is not expected to materially change the allocation of arrangement consideration to the Company’s units of accounting. The pattern and timing of revenue recognition for those arrangements entered into or materially modified after the date of adoption may be affected as a result of the adoption of the amended ASC 605-25 requirements. The Company will be required to develop a selling price for each deliverable using VSOE, TPE or BESP and allocate consideration amongst deliverables and to recognize revenue using that allocated consideration for the delivered units of accounting in the current period. For arrangements entered into or modified prior to the adoption date, the Company defers all consideration received and receivable under arrangements for which the selling price of an undelivered item has not yet been established.

ASU 2009-14

In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU No. 2009-14, “Software (Topic 985): Certain Revenue Arrangements That Include Software Elements (a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force)” (“ASU 2009-14”). ASU 2009-14 amends ASC 985-605, “Software: Revenue Recognition,” such that tangible products, containing both software and non-software components that function together to deliver the tangible product’s essential functionality, are no longer within the scope of ASC 985-605. It also amends the determination of how arrangement consideration should be allocated to deliverables in a multiple-deliverable revenue arrangement. The amendments in this update are effective, on a prospective basis, for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010. On January 1, 2011, the Company adopted the accounting requirements in ASU 2009-14. The application of this amended standard does not have an impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

ASU No. 2010-28

In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-28, “Intangibles — Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts” (“ASU 2010-28”). The objective of ASU 2010-28 is to address questions about entities with reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts. The amendments in ASU 2010-28 modify Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test for reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts. For those reporting units, an entity is required to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test if it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists by considering whether there are any adverse qualitative factors indicating that an impairment may exist. ASU 2010-28 is applicable to all entities that have recognized goodwill and have one or more reporting units whose carrying amount for purposes of performing Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test is zero or negative. For public entities, the amendments are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2010. On January 1, 2011, the Company adopted the accounting requirements in ASU 2010-28. This amended standard does not have an impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements at this time as the Company does not have any reporting units with zero or negative amounts for goodwill impairment testing purposes.

ASU No. 2011-05

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income” (“ASU 2011-05”). The amendments contained within this update require that all nonowner changes in shareholders’ equity be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements, eliminating the option to present the components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in shareholders’ equity. The objective of this amendment is to improve the comparability, consistency, and transparency of financial reporting and to increase the prominence of items reported in other comprehensive income. For public entities, the amendments are effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011, on a retrospective basis. Early application by public entities is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the potential impact of ASU 2011-05 on its condensed consolidated financial statements.

Condition for Company's policy to review and assess collectability on theater's past due accounts

The Company’s net investment in leases and its net financed sale receivables are subject to the disclosure requirements of the FASB ASC 310 “Receivables”. Due to differing risk profiles of its net investment in leases and its financed sales receivables, the Company views its net investment in leases and its financed sale receivables as separate classes of financing receivables. The Company does not aggregate financing receivables to assess impairment.

The Company monitors the credit quality of each customer on a frequent basis through collections and aging analyses. The Company also holds meetings monthly in order to identify credit concerns and whether a change in credit quality classification is required for the customer. A customer may improve in their credit quality classification once a substantial payment is made on overdue balances or the customer has agreed to a payment plan with the Company and payments have commenced in accordance to the payment plan. The change in credit quality indicator is dependant upon management approval.

The Company classifies its customers into three categories to indicate their credit quality internally:

Good standing — Theater continues to be in good standing with the Company as the client’s payments and reporting are up-to-date.

Pre-approved transactions only — Theater operator has begun to demonstrate a delay in payments with little or no communication with the Company. All service or shipments to the theater must be reviewed and approved by management. These financing receivables are considered to be in better condition than those receivables related to theaters in the “All transactions suspended” category, but not in as good of condition as those receivables in “Good standing”. Depending on the individual facts and circumstances of each customer, finance income recognition may be suspended if management believes the receivable to be impaired.

All transactions suspended — Theater is severely delinquent, non-responsive or not negotiating in good faith with the Company. Once a theater is classified as “All transactions suspended”, the theater is placed on nonaccrual status and all revenue recognitions related to the theater are stopped.