Print Page  |  Close Window

SEC Filings

CINEMARK HOLDINGS, INC. filed this Form 10-K on 02/23/2018
Entire Document

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The case presents putative class action claims for damages and attorney’s fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative action under the California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). We deny the claims, deny that class certification is appropriate and deny that a PAGA representative action is appropriate, and are vigorously defending against the claims. We deny any violation of law and plan to vigorously defend against all claims. The Court determined that class certification is not appropriate and determined that a PAGA representative action is not appropriate. The plaintiff has appealed these rulings. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed portions of the ruling and remanded it back to the District Court.  We are unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or the range of potential loss.

Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC d/b/a Cinemas Palme D’Or v. Century Theatres, Inc., and Cinemark USA, Inc.; Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.  Plaintiff in this case alleges that the Company violated California antitrust and unfair competition laws by engaging in “circuit dealing” with various motion picture distributors and tortuously interfered with Plaintiff’s business relationships. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, trebling of those damages under California law, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. Plaintiff also alleges that our conduct ultimately resulted in closure of its theatre in June 2016. We denied the allegations. In 2008, we moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims, arguing primarily that clearances between the theatres at issue were lawful and that Plaintiff lacked proof sufficient to support certain technical elements of its antitrust claims. The trial court granted that motion and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appealed and, in 2011, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding, among other things, that Plaintiff’s claims were not about the illegality of clearances but were focused, instead, on “circuit dealing.” Having re-framed the claims in that manner, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court’s decision to limit discovery to the market where the theatres at issue operated was an error, as “circuit dealing” necessarily involves activities in different markets. Upon return to the trial court, the parties engaged in additional, broadened discovery related to Plaintiff’s “circuit dealing” claim. Thereafter, we moved again for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims. That new motion for summary judgment was pending when, on or about April 11, 2014, the trial court granted the Company’s motion for terminating sanctions and entered a judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. Plaintiff then appealed that second dismissal, seeking to have the judgment reversed and the case remanded to the trial court. The Court of Appeal issued a ruling on May 24, 2016, reversing the granting of terminating sanctions and instead imposed a lesser evidentiary and damages preclusion sanction. The case returned to the trial court on October 6, 2016. We have denied Plaintiff’s allegations and are vigorously defending these claims. We are unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or the range of potential loss.

We received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. The CID relates to an investigation under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. We also received CIDs from the Antitrust Section of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Ohio and later from other states regarding similar inquiries under state antitrust laws. The CIDs request us to answer interrogatories, and produce documents, or both, related to the investigation of matters including film clearances, potential coordination and/or communication with other major theatre circuits and related joint ventures. We intend to fully cooperate with all federal and state government agencies. Although we do not believe that it has violated any federal or state antitrust or competition laws, we cannot predict the ultimate scope, duration or outcome of these investigations.

From time to time, we are involved in other various legal proceedings arising from the ordinary course of business operations, such as personal injury claims, employment matters, landlord-tenant disputes, patent claims and contractual disputes, some of which are covered by insurance or by indemnification from vendors. We believe our potential liability with respect to these types of proceedings currently pending is not material, individually or in the aggregate, to our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.