Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	6. Commitments and Contingencies We are subject to certain legal proceedings and claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been fully adjudicated. In our opinion, we do not have a potential liability related to any current legal proceedings and claims that would individually or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or operating results. However, the results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. Should we fail to prevail in any of these legal matters or should all of these legal matters be resolved against us in the same reporting period, the operating results of a particular reporting period could be materially adversely affected. Litigation- Brevan Howard and Others Complaint On December 27, 2013, River Birch Master Fund, L.P., P River Birch Ltd. (together, “River Birch”) and Visium Catalyst Credit Master Fund, Ltd. (collectively with River Birch, “Initial Plaintiffs”) brought a claim against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”) seeking a declaratory judgment that a “Voting Rights Triggering Event” had occurred (as of April 15, 2010) under our certificate of designations for the Series B preferred stock (the “Certificate of Designations”) as a result of our non-payment of dividends. The claim alleges that as a result of such Voting Rights Triggering Event, the incurrence of indebtedness for the purpose of purchasing our Houston television station and the issuance of our 12.5% Senior Secured Notes due 2017 (the “Notes”) under the Indenture governing the Notes, among other things, were prohibited incurrences of indebtedness under the Certificate of Designations. The Initial Plaintiffs further claim that we violated the Certificate of Designations by failing to take any actions or explore any options that would have given us legally available funds with which to repurchase the outstanding Series B preferred stock on October 15, 2013. In connection with their claims, Initial Plaintiffs also seek an injunction requiring us to repurchase the Series B preferred stock and an award of contract damages. On January 17, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 3, 2014, the complaint was amended to remove River Birch and add Brevan Howard Credit Catalyst Master Fund Ltd., Brevan Howard Master Fund, ALJ Capital I, LP, ALJ Capital II, LP, LJR Capital, LP, and Cedarview Opportunities Master Fund, LP (collectively with Visium Catalyst Credit Master Fund, Ltd., “Plaintiffs”) as additional plaintiffs. We filed an Opening Brief in support of our Motion to Dismiss on March 31, 2014. Plaintiffs filed an answering brief to our Motion to Dismiss on April 30, 2014. Our reply brief was filed on May 16, 2014, and a hearing was held on our Motion to Dismiss on June 10, 2014. Following the hearing, the parties agreed to stay all proceedings relating to Count I (which seeks a declaration that a Voting Rights Triggering Event was in effect at all times after April 15, 2010), Count II (which alleges that SBS breached the Certificate of Designations by incurring indebtedness in 2011 and 2012) and Count IV (which alleges that SBS breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by deferring certain dividends) of the amended complaint. The stay has since been lifted. On June 27, 2014, the Court denied our motion to dismiss Count III (which alleges that SBS breached the Certificate of Designations by failing to redeem all of the Series B Preferred Stock on October 15, 2013) of the amended complaint. A hearing on our motion to dismiss Counts I, II and IV of the amended complaint was held on February 10, 2015. On May 19, 2015, the Court of Chancery granted our motion to dismiss Counts I, II and IV of the amended complaint. An order dismissing those Counts with prejudice was entered on May 22, 2015. At present, Count III of the amended complaint remains outstanding. Court of Chancery Rule 41 (e) permits any party (or the Court sua sponte) to move for a dismissal for failure to prosecute in any case wherein no action has been taken for a period of one year. Given that the last action in this case was taken on May 22, 2015, such a motion may be filed on or after May 22, 2016. We note, however, that such a motion could be denied if “good reason for the inaction is given”, as provided by Court of Chancery Rule 41 (e). In addition, on April 21, 2016, the Court requested a status update from the parties regarding proceedings on Count III of the amended complaint. We deny the allegations contained in the amended complaint and, to the contrary, assert that we have been and continue to be in full and complete compliance with all of our obligations under the Certificate of Designations, as fully disclosed in our public filings dating back to 2009. Accordingly, we believe that the complaint’s allegations are frivolous and wholly without merit and intend to contest such allegations vigorously.

6. Commitments and Contingencies

We are subject to certain legal proceedings and claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been fully adjudicated. In our opinion, we do not have a potential liability related to any current legal proceedings and claims that would individually or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or operating results. However, the results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. Should we fail to prevail in any of these legal matters or should all of these legal matters be resolved against us in the same reporting period, the operating results of a particular reporting period could be materially adversely affected.

Litigation- Brevan Howard and Others Complaint

On December 27, 2013, River Birch Master Fund, L.P., P River Birch Ltd. (together, “River Birch”) and Visium Catalyst Credit Master Fund, Ltd. (collectively with River Birch, “Initial Plaintiffs”) brought a claim against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”) seeking a declaratory judgment that a “Voting Rights Triggering Event” had occurred (as of April 15, 2010) under our certificate of designations for the Series B preferred stock (the “Certificate of Designations”) as a result of our non-payment of dividends. The claim alleges that as a result of such Voting Rights Triggering Event, the incurrence of indebtedness for the purpose of purchasing our Houston television station and the issuance of our 12.5% Senior Secured Notes due 2017 (the “Notes”) under the Indenture governing the Notes, among other things, were prohibited incurrences of indebtedness under the Certificate of Designations.

The Initial Plaintiffs further claim that we violated the Certificate of Designations by failing to take any actions or explore any options that would have given us legally available funds with which to repurchase the outstanding Series B preferred stock on October 15, 2013. In connection with their claims, Initial Plaintiffs also seek an injunction requiring us to repurchase the Series B preferred stock and an award of contract damages.

On January 17, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 3, 2014, the complaint was amended to remove River Birch and add Brevan Howard Credit Catalyst Master Fund Ltd., Brevan Howard Master Fund, ALJ Capital I, LP, ALJ Capital II, LP, LJR Capital, LP, and Cedarview Opportunities Master Fund, LP (collectively with Visium Catalyst Credit Master Fund, Ltd., “Plaintiffs”) as additional plaintiffs. We filed an Opening Brief in support of our Motion to Dismiss on March 31, 2014. Plaintiffs filed an answering brief to our Motion to Dismiss on April 30, 2014. Our reply brief was filed on May 16, 2014, and a hearing was held on our Motion to Dismiss on June 10, 2014. Following the hearing, the parties agreed to stay all proceedings relating to Count I (which seeks a declaration that a Voting Rights Triggering Event was in effect at all times after April 15, 2010), Count II (which alleges that SBS breached the Certificate of Designations by incurring indebtedness in 2011 and 2012) and Count IV (which alleges that SBS breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by deferring certain dividends) of the amended complaint. The stay has since been lifted. On June 27, 2014, the Court denied our motion to dismiss Count III (which alleges that SBS breached the Certificate of Designations by failing to redeem all of the Series B Preferred Stock on October 15, 2013) of the amended complaint. A hearing on our motion to dismiss Counts I, II and IV of the amended complaint was held on February 10, 2015. On May 19, 2015, the Court of Chancery granted our motion to dismiss Counts I, II and IV of the amended complaint. An order dismissing those Counts with prejudice was entered on May 22, 2015.

At present, Count III of the amended complaint remains outstanding. Court of Chancery Rule 41 (e) permits any party (or the Court sua sponte) to move for a dismissal for failure to prosecute in any case wherein no action has been taken for a period of one year. Given that the last action in this case was taken on May 22, 2015, such a motion may be filed on or after May 22, 2016. We note, however, that such a motion could be denied if “good reason for the inaction is given”, as provided by Court of Chancery Rule 41 (e). In addition, on April 21, 2016, the Court requested a status update from the parties regarding proceedings on Count III of the amended complaint.

We deny the allegations contained in the amended complaint and, to the contrary, assert that we have been and continue to be in full and complete compliance with all of our obligations under the Certificate of Designations, as fully disclosed in our public filings dating back to 2009. Accordingly, we believe that the complaint’s allegations are frivolous and wholly without merit and intend to contest such allegations vigorously.