21. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

a) Programming Rights Agreements and Other Commitments

At December 31, 2018, we had total commitments of US$ 62.8 million (December 31, 2017: US$ 108.8 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 any sublease income) and other commitments as follows:



	Programming purchase obligations		Other commitments ⁽¹⁾		Operating leases		Capital expenditures
2019	$	23,574	$	12,614	$	2,732	$	503
2020	18,647		8,316		2,532		—
2021	13,157		2,678		1,970		—
2022	5,313		2,758		1,305		—
2023	403		3,086		1,188		—
2024 and thereafter	1,680		—		2,751		—
Total	$	62,774	$	29,452	$	12,478	$	503


⁽¹⁾	Other commitments are primarily comprised of digital transmission commitments.

For the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, we incurred aggregate rent expense on all facilities of US$ 9.3 million, US$ 9.0 million and US$ 7.8 million, respectively.

Contingencies

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 the fourth quarter of 2016, our 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 that have a collective face value of approximately EUR 69.0 million. 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. Two of the notes purport to be issued in favor of Marian Kocner, a controversial Slovak businessman, and the other two to a long-time 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.

Two of the notes, each of which purportedly has a face value of approximately EUR 8.3 million, allegedly matured in 2015; and the other two, each of which purportedly has a face value of approximately EUR 26.2 million, allegedly matured in 2016. The four notes accrue interest from their purported maturity dates. Although Mr. Rusko has asserted, both in written responses to active claims filed in respect of three of the promissory notes as well as in subsequent oral testimony, that he signed the notes in June 2000, we do not believe that the notes were signed in June 2000 or that any of the notes are authentic.

Despite a random case assignment system in the Slovak Republic, claims in respect of three of the notes were initially assigned to the same judge. One of those claims, concerning one of the promissory notes having a face value of approximately EUR 8.3 million (the “First PN Case”), was subsequently reassigned. Proceedings on the claim in respect of the fourth promissory note (in the amount of approximately EUR 26.2 million) were terminated in January 2017 by the presiding judge because the plaintiff failed to pay court fees and were terminated a second time by a different presiding judge in September 2017 after the plaintiff refiled but failed to pay court fees a second time.

During the first quarter of 2018, the court of first instance began to schedule hearings in respect of the First PN Case as well as the claims relating to the second promissory note having a face value of approximately EUR 8.3 million (the “Second PN Case”) and one of the promissory notes having a face value of approximately EUR 26.2 million (the “Third PN Case”).

On April 26, 2018, the judge in the First PN Case ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Markiza appealed that decision.

On May 14, 2018, Markiza filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Special Prosecutor Office of the Slovak Republic (the “Special Prosecutor’s Office”) alleging that Mr. Kocner and Mr. Rusko committed the offenses of (1) counterfeiting, falsification, and illegal production of money and securities and (2) obstruction or perversion of justice. The Special Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal proceedings in the matter at that time.

On June 20, 2018, the Special Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision to formally charge Mr. Kocner and Mr. Rusko with counterfeiting, falsification, and illegal production of money and securities and with obstruction or perversion of justice. Following this decision, Mr. Kocner has been taken into pre-trial custody by the Slovak authorities. Subsequently, the Special Prosecutor’s Office has charged Mr. Kocner’s long-time associate, who signed two of the alleged promissory notes as the original beneficial owner and purported to endorse those notes to a company controlled by Mr. Kocner, with counterfeiting, falsification, and illegal production of money and securities.

On October 12, 2018, the court of first instance terminated proceedings in respect of the Second PN Case because the plaintiff failed to pursue the claim, which the plaintiff appealed.

On December 14, 2018, the appellate court suspended proceedings in respect of the First PN Case until a final and enforceable decision has been rendered in the criminal proceedings.

On December 21, 2018, the appellate court reversed the decision of the court of first instance to terminate the Second PN Case and directed the case be tried on its merits. No hearings have been held or scheduled in respect of this claim subsequent to that decision.

There have been no hearings held in respect of the Third PN Case since the initiation of the criminal proceedings.

Markiza is seeking to have the civil proceedings in respect of this claim either suspended until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings or dismissed. In the event any of the civil proceedings are not suspended or dismissed, Markiza will continue to vigorously defend the claims.

Based on the facts and circumstances of these cases, we have not accrued any amounts in respect of these claims.