20. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

a) Programming Rights Agreements and Other Commitments

At December 31, 2016, we had total commitments of US$ 128.2 million (December 31, 2015: US$ 144.9 million) in respect of future programming, including contracts signed with license periods starting after the balance sheet date. In addition, we have digital transmission obligations, future minimum operating lease payments for non-cancellable operating leases with remaining terms in excess of one year (net of amounts to be recharged to third parties) and other commitments as follows:



	Programming purchase obligations		Other commitments		Operating leases		Capital expenditures
2017	$	43,462	$	17,545	$	3,374	$	609
2018	34,889		5,157		2,077		—
2019	32,074		10,851		923		—
2020	14,003		356		476		—
2021	1,503		322		327		—
2022 and thereafter	2,281		44		1,433		—
Total	$	128,212	$	34,275	$	8,610	$	609

For the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, we incurred aggregate rent expense on all facilities of US$ 9.4 million, US$ 7.8 million and US$ 10.0 million, respectively.

b) Factoring of Trade Receivables

CET 21 has a CZK 735.0 million (approximately US$ 28.7 million) factoring framework agreement with FCS. Under this facility up to CZK 735.0 million (approximately US$ 28.7 million) may be factored on a recourse or non-recourse basis. As at December 31, 2016, there were CZK 462.9 million (approximately US$ 18.1 million) (December 31, 2015: CZK 478.9 million, approximately US$ 18.7 million based on December 31, 2016 rates), of receivables subject to the factoring framework agreement.

In the first quarter of 2016, Pro TV entered into a RON 109.0 million (approximately US$ 25.3 million) factoring framework agreement with Global Funds IFN S.A. Under this facility up to RON 109.0 million (approximately US$ 25.3 million) may be factored on a non-recourse basis. As at December 31, 2016, there were RON 105.7 million (approximately US$ 24.6 million) of receivables subject to the factoring framework agreement.

Contingencies

a) Litigation

We are from time to time party to legal proceedings, arbitrations and regulatory proceedings arising in the normal course of our business operations, including the proceeding described below. We evaluate, on a quarterly basis, developments in such matters and provide accruals for such matters, as appropriate. In making such decisions, we consider the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome and our ability to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of a loss. An unfavorable outcome in any such proceedings, if material, could have an adverse effect on our business or consolidated financial statements.

In late November and December 2016, CME’s Slovak subsidiary MARKIZA-SLOVAKIA, spol. s.r.o. (“Markiza”) was notified of claims that were filed in June 2016 in a court of first instance in Bratislava, the Slovak Republic to collect amounts allegedly owing under four promissory notes. These four promissory notes were purportedly issued in June 2000 by Pavol Rusko in his personal capacity and were purportedly guaranteed by Markiza under the signature of Mr. Rusko, who was an executive director of Markiza at that time as well as one of its shareholders. The notes purport to be issued in favor of Marian Kocner, a controversial Slovak businessman, and to a former associate of Mr. Kocner, and were supposedly assigned several times, ultimately to Sprava a inkaso zmeniek, s.r.o., a company owned by Mr. Kocner that is the plaintiff in these proceedings. The four notes purport to be in the aggregate amount of approximately EUR 69.0 million. A court of first instance in Bratislava has suspended proceedings in respect of one of the promissory notes (in the amount of approximately EUR 26.0 million) because the plaintiff failed to pay court fees. Two of the remaining notes allegedly matured in 2015 and the third in 2016. Despite a random case assignment system at the Bratislava court, the three cases dealing with the other notes have all been assigned to the same judge. We do not believe that any of the promissory notes are authentic and are vigorously defending the claims. We are currently unable to estimate for what amount, if any, we may be liable if the plaintiff is ultimately successful in pursuing their claims.