Basis of Presentation and Principles of Consolidation (Policies)

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Organization, Consolidation and Presentation of Financial Statements [Abstract]

Accounting Pronouncements Adopted and Not Adopted During the Current Year, Policy

Accounting Pronouncements Adopted During the Current Year

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-03, Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs (Subtopic 835-30). This ASU requires that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability, instead of as a deferred charge. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-15, Presentation and Subsequent Measurement of Debt Issuance Costs Associated with Line-of-Credit Arrangements (Subtopic 835-30). This ASU provides additional guidance to ASU 2015-03, which did not address presentation or subsequent measurement of debt issuance costs related to line-of-credit arrangements. ASU 2015-15 noted that the SEC staff would not object to an entity deferring and presenting debt issuance costs as an asset and subsequently amortizing the deferred debt issuance costs ratably over the term of the line-of-credit arrangement, regardless of whether there are any outstanding borrowings on the line-of-credit arrangement. We adopted this guidance on January 1, 2016, which resulted in the reclassification of $3.8 million of unamortized discount and deferred financing fees as of December 31, 2015, from other non-current assets to long-term debt in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. Other than this reclassification, our adoption of ASU 2015-03 and ASU 2015-15 did not have a material impact to our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures. See Note 7: Debt and Other Long-Term Liabilitiesfor more information.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-05, Intangibles-Goodwill and Other-Internal-Use Software (Subtopic 350-40): Customer’s Accounting for Fees Paid in a Cloud Computing Arrangement. This ASU provides guidance to customers about whether a cloud computing arrangement includes a software license. If a cloud computing arrangement includes a software license, then the customer should account for the software license element of the arrangement consistent with the acquisition of other software licenses. If a cloud computing arrangement does not include a software license, the customer should account for the arrangement as a service contract. The guidance will not change GAAP for a customer’s accounting for service contracts. We adopted this ASU on January 1, 2016. Our adoption of this ASU did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. This ASU describes how an entity’s management should assess whether there are conditions and events that raise substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued. Management should consider both quantitative and qualitative factors in making its assessment.

If after considering management’s plans, substantial doubt about an entity’s going concern is alleviated, an entity shall disclose information in the footnotes that enables the users of the financial statements to understand the events that raised the going concern and how management’s plan alleviated this concern.

If after considering management’s plans, substantial doubt about an entity’s going concern is not alleviated, the entity shall disclose in the footnotes indicating that a substantial doubt about the entity’s going concern exists within one year of the date of the issued financial statements. Additionally, the entity shall disclose the events that led to this going concern and management’s plans to mitigate them.

We adopted this ASU on January 1, 2016. Our adoption of this ASU did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Adopted

There have been no developments to recently issued accounting standards, including the expected dates of adoption and estimated effects on our consolidated financial statements, from those disclosed in our 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K, except for the following:

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606). ASU 2014-09 requires revenue recognition to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. ASU 2014-09 sets forth a new revenue recognition model that requires identifying the contract, identifying the performance obligations, determining the transaction price, allocating the transaction price to performance obligations and recognizing the revenue upon satisfaction of performance obligations. In July 2015, the FASB deferred the effective date for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. In May 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-12, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients. The amendments in this ASU do not change the core revenue recognition principles, but provide guidance on certain narrow areas and add practical expedients. Early adoption is permitted to the original effective date of annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016 for ASU 2014-09 and the related amendments and may be applied retrospectively to each prior period presented or retrospectively with the cumulative effect recognized as of the date of initial application. We are currently in the process of evaluating the impact of ASU 2014-09 and the related amendments.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, Compensation-Stock Compensation (Topic 718). This ASU changes how companies account for certain aspects of share-based payment awards to employees, including accounting for income taxes, forfeitures, and statutory tax withholding requirements, as well as classification in the statement of cash flows. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting this ASU and expect this standard to not have a significant impact on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures, which is effective for us in our fiscal year beginning January 1, 2017. Early adoption is permitted.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842). The ASU requires lessees, among other things, to recognize lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet for those leases classified as operating leases under previous authoritative guidance. This update also introduces new disclosure requirements for leasing arrangements. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting this ASU and expect this standard to have a significant impact on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures, which is effective for us in our fiscal year beginning January 1, 2019. Early adoption is permitted.

Earnings Per Share, Policy

The Two-Class Method is an earnings allocation formula that treats a participating security, as having rights to earnings that otherwise would have been available to common shareholders and assumes all earnings for the period are distributed. Our unvested restricted stock awards granted are participating securities as they entitle recipients to receive nonforfeitable dividends during the vesting period on a basis equivalent to the dividends paid to holders of common stock.

Segment Reporting, Policy

Management, including our chief operating decision maker, who is our CEO, evaluates the performances of our business segments primarily on segment revenue and segment operating income (loss) before depreciation, amortization and other, and share-based compensation granted to executives, non-employee directors and employees (“segment operating income (loss)”). Segment operating income (loss) contains internally allocated costs of our shared service support functions, including but not limited to, corporate executive management, business development, sales, finance, legal, human resources, information technology and risk management. We also review depreciation and amortization allocated to each segment. Share-based payments expense related to share-based compensation granted to executives, non-employee directors and employees and expense related to the rights to receive cash issued in connection with our acquisition of ecoATM are not allocated to our segments and are included in the Corporate Unallocated column in the analysis and reconciliation below; however, share-based payments expense related to our content arrangements with certain movie studios has been allocated to our Redbox segment and is included within direct operating expenses. Our performance evaluation does not include segment assets.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments, Policy

To measure fair value, we use a three-tier valuation hierarchy based upon observable and non-observable inputs:

• Level 1: Observable inputs such as quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities;

• Level 2: Inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly; these include quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets and quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active; or

• Level 3: Unobservable inputs that reflect the reporting entity’s own assumptions.

The factors or methodology used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities.