COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

a) Programming Rights Agreements

At December 31, 2011, we had total commitments of US$ 361.8 million (December 31, 2010: US$ 420.1 million) in respect of our broadcast operations for future programming, including contracts signed with license periods starting after the balance sheet date. The amounts are payable as follows:



	Total		Less than 1 year		1-3 years		3-5 years		More than 5 years
Programming purchase obligations	$	361,772	$	147,310	$	176,663	$	37,799	$	—

b) Operating Lease Commitments

For the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, we incurred aggregate rent expense on all facilities of US$ 11.7 million, US$ 11.7 million and US$ 8.4 million, respectively. Future minimum operating lease payments at December 31, 2011 for non-cancellable operating leases with remaining terms in excess of one year (net of amounts to be recharged to third parties) are payable as follows:



	December 31, 2011
2012	$	5,849
2013	3,525
2014	3,139
2015	2,102
2016	1,468
2017 and thereafter	9,356
Total	$	25,439

c) Factoring of Trade Receivables

CET 21 has a working capital credit facility of CZK 300 million (approximately US$ 15.0 million) with FCS. This facility is secured by a pledge of receivables under a factoring agreement with FCS. As at December 31, 2011 and 2010, there were no drawings under this facility (see also Note 5, “Long-term Debt and Other Financing Arrangements” and Note 7, “Accounts Receivable”).

The transfer of the receivables is accounted for as a secured borrowing, with the proceeds received recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability and included in current credit facilities and obligations under capital leases. The corresponding receivables are a part of accounts receivable, as we retain the risks of ownership.

Contingencies

a) Litigation

While we are, from time to time, a party to litigation or arbitration proceedings arising in the normal course of our business operations, we are not presently a party to any such litigation or arbitration which could reasonably be expected to have a material effect on our business or consolidated financial statements, including proceedings described here and in (b) below.

Video International Termination

On March 18, 2009, Video International Company Group, CGSC (“VI”), a Russian legal entity, filed a claim in the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) against our wholly-owned subsidiary CME BV, which was, at the time the claim was filed, the principal holding company of our former Ukrainian operations. The claim relates to the termination of an agreement between VI and CME BV dated November 30, 2006 (the “parent agreement”). The parent agreement was one of four related contracts by which VI subsidiaries, including LLC Video International-Prioritet (“Prioritet”), supplied advertising and marketing services to Studio 1+1 LLC (“Studio 1+1”) in Ukraine and International Media Services Ltd., an offshore affiliate of Studio 1+1 (“IMS”). Among these four contracts were the advertising services agreement and the marketing services agreements both between Prioritet and Studio 1+1. On December 24, 2008, each of CME BV, Studio 1+1 and IMS provided notices of termination to their respective contract counterparties, following which each of the four contracts terminated on March 24, 2009. In connection with these terminations, Studio 1+1 was required under the advertising and marketing services agreements to pay a termination penalty equal to (i) 12% of the average monthly advertising revenues, and (ii) 6% of the average monthly sponsorship revenues, in each case for advertising and sponsorship sold by Prioritet for the six months prior to the termination date, multiplied by six. On June 1, 2009, Studio 1+1 paid UAH 13.5 million (approximately US$ 1.7 million) to Prioritet and set off UAH 7.4 million (approximately US$ 0.9 million) against amounts owing to Studio 1+1 under the advertising and marketing services agreements. In its LCIA claim, VI sought payment of a separate indemnity from CME BV under the parent agreement equal to the aggregate amount of Studio 1+1’s advertising revenues for the six months ended December 31, 2008. The total amount of relief sought was US$ 58.5 million. On September 30, 2010, a partial award was issued in the arbitration proceedings, pursuant to which VI’s claim for relief in the amount of US$ 58.5 million was dismissed and CME BV was awarded reimbursement of its legal fees and other costs in respect of the arbitration proceedings, which were received on October 27, 2010. The partial award does permit VI to bring a subsequent claim against CME BV as parent guarantor in the event that VI establishes that it is entitled to certain additional compensation under the advertising and marketing services agreements with Studio 1+1 and that such compensation is not satisfied by Studio 1+1. On July 13, 2011, Prioritet filed claims against Studio 1+1 in the Commercial Court of Kiev. The claims relate to alleged violations of the advertising services agreement and marketing services agreement and the total amount of relief sought is approximately UAH 201.0 million (approximately US$ 25.4 million). On September 23, 2011, the Commercial Court of Kiev dismissed Prioritet's claims. On November 7, 2011, the Commercial Court of Appeal of Kiev dismissed an appeal of the lower court's decision. On December 13, 2011, the Superior Commercial Court of Ukraine dismissed an appeal of Prioritet following the decision of the appellate court. Prioritet has indicated it intends to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Ukraine. We do not believe that it is likely that we will be required to make any further payment.

b) Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Claim

On March 4, 2008, we purchased for cash consideration of US$ 22.2 million, capped call options from Lehman OTC (see Note 5, “Long-Term Debt and Other Financing Arrangements”) over 1,583,333 shares of our Class A common stock which entitled us to receive, at our election following a conversion under the 2013 Convertible Notes, cash or shares of Class A common stock with a value equal to the difference between the trading price of our shares at the time the option is exercised and US$ 105.00, up to a maximum trading price of US$ 151.20.

On September 15, 2008, Lehman Holdings, the guarantor of the obligations of Lehman OTC under the capped call agreement, filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy filing of Lehman Holdings, as guarantor, was an event of default and gave us the right to terminate the capped call agreement with Lehman OTC and claim for losses. We exercised this right on September 16, 2008 and claimed an amount of US$ 19.9 million, which bears interest at a rate equal to CME’s estimate of its cost of funding plus 1.0% per annum.

On October 3, 2008, Lehman OTC also filed for protection under Chapter 11. We filed claims in the bankruptcy proceedings of both Lehman Holdings and Lehman OTC. Our claim was a general unsecured claim and ranked together with similar claims.

On March 3, 2009 we assigned our claim in the bankruptcy proceedings of Lehman Holdings and Lehman OTC to an unrelated third party for cash consideration of US$ 3.4 million, or 17.0% of the claim value. Under the terms of the agreement, in certain circumstances, including if our claim is subsequently disallowed or adjusted by the bankruptcy court, the counterparty would be able to recoup the corresponding portion of the purchase price from us. Likewise, if the amount of recovery exceeds the amount of our claim, we may receive a portion of that recovery from the claim purchaser.

On March 14, 2011, Lehman Brothers filed an objection to our bankruptcy claim, contending that our claim is worth US 14.7 million. On April 12, 2011, a response was filed with the bankruptcy court reasserting our claim of US$ 19.9 million.

c) Restrictions on dividends from Consolidated Subsidiaries and Unconsolidated Affiliates

Corporate law in the Central and Eastern European countries in which we have operations stipulates generally that dividends may be declared by shareholders, out of yearly profits, subject to the maintenance of registered capital and required reserves after the recovery of accumulated losses. The reserve requirement restriction generally provides that before dividends may be distributed, a portion of annual net profits (typically 5.0%) be allocated to a reserve, which reserve is capped at a proportion of the registered capital of a company (ranging from 5.0% to 25.0%). The restricted net assets of our consolidated subsidiaries and equity in earnings of investments accounted for under the equity method together are less than 25.0% of consolidated net assets.