Cablevision 2011 Annual Report Download - page 206

COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
I-82
Many of the Company's franchise agreements and utility pole leases require the Company to remove its
cable wires and other equipment upon termination of the respective agreements. The Company has
concluded that the fair value of these asset retirement obligations cannot be reasonably estimated since
the range of potential settlement dates is not determinable.
Legal Matters
Cable Business Litigation
Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al.: On September 20, 2007, individual cable and satellite
subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a nationwide class of cable and satellite subscribers, filed an
antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Cablevision and
several other defendants, including other cable and satellite providers and programming content
providers. The complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act by agreeing to the sale and licensing of programming on a "bundled" basis and by offering
programming in packaged tiers rather than on an "à la carte" basis. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble
monetary damages and injunctive relief. On June 12, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
third amended complaint. On October 15, 2009, the District Court granted the defendants' motions and
dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice for failure to plead foreclosure of any non-
defendant programmers, which the Court held to be a necessary element of the alleged antitrust injury.
On April 19, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. On June 3, 2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the action. On
July 7, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit.
In an order issued on October 31, 2011, following the death of a member of the original panel, the Ninth
Circuit withdrew its decision, denied the petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc as moot, and
directed that the three-judge panel be reconstituted with a new third member. The Company intends to
defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit with certainty or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.
Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC: The Company is a
defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and
former Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO video subscribers in New Jersey,
Connecticut and New York. After three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice by
the District Court, Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the
Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale of interactive
services offered as part of iO television packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by
Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly seeking to monopolize the
distribution of Cablevision-compatible set-top boxes. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary
damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. On September 23, 2011, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On January 10, 2012, the District Court
issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization claim, but allowing the
Section 1 tying claim and related state common law claims to proceed. Cablevision's answer to the third
amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012. The Company believes that these claims are without
merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit
with certainty or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.