FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS [Abstract]

Fair Value Disclosures

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

ASC 820, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosure”, establishes a hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to those valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (level 3 measurements). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are:

Basis of Fair Value Measurement

Level 1 Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical, unrestricted instruments.

Level 2 Quoted prices in markets that are not considered to be active or financial instruments for which all significant inputs are observable, either directly or indirectly.

Level 3 Prices or valuations that require inputs that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable.

A financial instrument’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of any input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

We evaluate the position of each financial instrument measured at fair value in the hierarchy individually based on the valuation methodology we apply. The carrying value of financial instruments, including cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, and accounts payable and accrued liabilities, approximate their fair value due to the short-term nature of these items.  The fair value of our Senior Debt (as defined therein) is included in Note 4, “Long-Term Debt and Other Financing Arrangements”.

At June 30, 2012, we had the following option and interest rate swap agreements carried at fair value using significant level 2 inputs. The previously outstanding currency swap agreement (see "Currency Risk" section below) was recorded at fair value using significant level 2 inputs and the call option issued in connection with the restructuring of our Bulgarian operations in 2010 (see “Other” section below), was carried at fair value using significant level 3 inputs.

The change in fair value of derivatives comprised the following for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011:

	For the Three Months Ended June 30,						For the Six Months Ended June 30,
	2012			2011			2012		2011
Share Subscription Agreement	$	22,836		$	—		$	22,836	$	—
Company option	24,467			—			24,467		—
Interest rate swap	121			(60		)	357		301
Currency swap	(26		)	1,221			665		640
Call option	—			—			—		180
Change in fair value of derivatives	$	47,398		$	1,161		$	48,325	$	1,121

Share Subscription Agreement

On April 30, 2012, in addition to and in contemplation of the TW Credit Agreement described in Note 4, "Long-Term Debt and Other Financing Arrangements", we entered into a Subscription and Equity Commitment Agreement (the “Equity Commitment Agreement”) with TW Investor whereby we agreed to issue to TW Investor at a price of $7.51 per share (the “Purchase Price”), the number of shares of Class A common stock such that TW Investor would own a number of shares of Class A common stock equal to a 40% interest in the Company on a diluted basis (and at least 9.5 million shares) (the “TW Subscription Shares”). The Purchase Price was equal to the Company's volume-weighted average closing share price on the Nasdaq Global Select Market for the 20 trading days immediately preceding the signing of the Equity Commitment Agreement.

This forward sale of the TW Subscription Shares was considered to be a derivative instrument due to the variability in the number of shares to be issued under the terms of the agreement. As a result, a derivative liability of approximately US$ 3.8 million was recorded on April 30, 2012, representing the intrinsic value of this forward sale on that date. The Equity Commitment Agreement was considered to be linked to, although separable from, the TW Credit Agreement. Therefore, the charge arising from recognition of the derivative liability was amortized over the remaining life of the TW Credit Agreement as a debt issuance cost within interest expense in the condensed consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income. The TW Credit Agreement was effectively terminated upon the June 27, 2012 exercise of the option discussed further below, so the remaining unamortized charge arising from the initial recognition of the derivative was recognized during the three months ended June 30, 2012.

The 9.9 million TW Subscription Shares were issued on June 15, 2012, and as a result, the derivative instrument was settled as of that date. The change in the fair value of the derivative instrument, as measured immediately prior to issuance, resulted in a net gain of US$ 22.8 million, which was recorded in the condensed consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income and in the condensed consolidated balance sheet in other current assets. This instrument was allocated to level 2 within the fair value hierarchy because the critical input in its valuation was readily observable.

Under a separate agreement, RSL Capital LLC subscribed to 2 million shares of Class A Common Stock of the Company at a fixed price per share of US$ 7.51, resulting in aggregate proceeds of US$ 15.0 million. As the subscription amount was fixed and no variability existed, this amount was recorded as equity upon the transfer of funds on June 15, 2012.

In addition, under the Equity Commitment Agreement, TW Investor granted to the Company an option (the "Company Option") to cause TW Investor to purchase, and the Company granted to TW Investor an option to purchase, at the Purchase Price, the number of shares of Class A common stock (the “Option Shares”) that would generate proceeds to repay the then outstanding principal amount under the TW Loans, subject to certain limitations, including restrictions that TW Investor and its affiliates may not acquire any shares that could result in their beneficial ownership in effect exceeding 49.9% of the total outstanding voting securities of the Company on the date of exercise.

The instrument for the Option Shares met the definition of a derivative due to the variability in the number of shares that would be issued under the terms of the option and was considered embedded within the TW Credit Agreement. The initial recognition of this derivative at a fair value of approximately US$ 5.0 million on the date of the first drawing resulted in a corresponding premium on the TW Loan balance, and was amortized within interest expense in the condensed consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income over the remaining life of the TW Loan.

Subsequent changes in the fair value of this derivative were recorded in the condensed consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income and in the condensed consolidated balance sheet in other current assets. The fair value of this derivative was estimated using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The main inputs used in the valuation model included the price of a share of our Class A common stock, the option strike price, the current risk-free interest rate and the known contractual terms of the instrument. Volatility was also used as an input into the model and was determined using management's estimates and equity volatilities of comparable companies. This financial instrument was allocated to level 2 of the fair value hierarchy because the critical inputs into its valuation were readily observable.

The fair value of the derivative instrument on June 30, 2012, was an asset amounting to US$ 29.5 million (see Note 7, "Other Assets"). This net change of US$ 24.5 million from the initial fair value was recognized as a derivative gain in the condensed consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income.

We exercised the Company Option on June 27, 2012, and the transaction settled on July 3, 2012 (see Note 20, "Subsequent Events"). Due to the exercise, the US$ 5.0 million premium arising from the initial recognition of the derivative was recognized during the three months ended June 30, 2012. The fair value of the option on July 3, 2012, was US$ 30.0 million. The difference of US$ 0.5 million from the fair value at June 30, 2012 to the settlement date on July 3, 2012, will be recognized as a derivative gain in the condensed consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income for the period ended September 30, 2012. There will be no impact on earnings from this instrument subsequent to July 3, 2012.

Interest Rate Risk

On February 9, 2010, we entered into an interest rate swap agreement with UniCredit Bank Czech Republic, a.s. (“UniCredit”) and CSAS, expiring in April 2013, to reduce the impact of changing interest rates on our floating rate debt that is denominated in CZK.  The interest rate swap is a financial instrument that is used to minimize interest rate risk and is considered an economic hedge. The interest rate swap has not been designated as a hedging instrument so changes in the fair value of the derivative are recorded in the condensed consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income and in the condensed consolidated balance sheet in other non-current liabilities.

We value the interest rate swap agreement using a valuation model which calculates the fair value on the basis of the net present value of the estimated future cash flows. The most significant input used in the valuation model is the expected PRIBOR-based yield curve. This instrument is allocated to level 2 of the fair value hierarchy because the critical inputs to this model, including current interest rates, relevant yield curves and the known contractual terms of the instrument, are readily observable.

The fair value of the interest rate swap as at June 30, 2012, was a US$ 0.3 million liability, which represented a net decrease of US$ 0.4 million from the US$ 0.7 million liability as at December 31, 2011, and was recognized as a derivative gain in the condensed consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income amounting to US$ 0.4 million.

Currency Risk

On April 27, 2006, we entered into currency swap agreements with two counterparties whereby we swapped a fixed annual coupon interest rate (of 9.0%) on notional principal of CZK 10.7 billion (approximately US$ 525.5 million), payable on each July 15, October 15, January 15, and April 15, for a fixed annual coupon interest rate (of 9.0%) on notional principal of EUR 375.9 million (approximately US$ 473.3 million) receivable on each July 15, October 15, January 15, and April 15 up to the termination date of April 15, 2012.

These currency swap agreements reduced our exposure to movements in foreign exchange rates on part of the CZK-denominated cash flows generated by our Czech Republic operations, which corresponded to a significant proportion of the Euro-denominated interest payments on our Senior Notes (see Note 4, “Long-Term Debt and Other Financing Arrangements”). These financial instruments were used to minimize currency risk and were considered an economic hedge of foreign exchange rates.  These instruments were not designated as hedging instruments, and so changes in their fair value were recorded in the condensed consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income and in the condensed consolidated balance sheet in other current liabilities.

We valued these currency swap agreements using an industry-standard currency swap pricing model which calculated the fair value on the basis of the net present value of the estimated future cash flows receivable or payable. These instruments were allocated to level 2 of the fair value hierarchy because the critical inputs to this model, including the relevant yield curves and the known contractual terms of the instrument, were readily observable.

The fair value of the liability on April 15, 2012, immediately prior to the final payments being made and received was US$ 1.7 million,which represented a net decrease of US$ 0.7 million from the US$ 2.4 million liability as at December 31, 2011. This change was recognized as a derivative gain in the condensed consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income amounting to US$ 0.7 million. There will be no impact on earnings from this instrument subsequent to April 15, 2012.

Other

We issued a call option to Top Tone Holdings in 2010 in connection with the restructuring of our Bulgarian Broadcast operations. We used a binomial option pricing model to value the call option liability at US$ 3.0 million as at April 19, 2010, the date we acquired the bTV group. The option was allocated to level 3 of the fair value hierarchy due to the significance of the unobservable inputs used in the valuation model.

The fair value of the call option as at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 was US$ nil because the option strike price is the fair value of the equity in CME Bulgaria. There will be no further changes in the carrying value of the option liability.

Top Tone Holdings exercised the call option earlier this year, which will increase its noncontrolling interest in CME Bulgaria. The closing of this transaction has not yet occurred.