Cablevision 2013 Annual Report Download - page 180

COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
F-71
was filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees. On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss, denying the
motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining
claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
complaint, which asserts a claim only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May 2,
2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on December 13, 2012, a
motion for partial summary judgment. Both motions have been fully briefed, and a decision by the Court
is pending. Further discovery, if any, has been deferred until after the Court rules on the pending
motions. The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.
Livingston v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, et al.: On January 26, 2012, a securities lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Cablevision and certain current and
former officers, by a Cablevision shareholder, purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who
purchased Cablevision common stock between February 16, 2011, and October 28, 2011. The complaint
alleged that Cablevision and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act by allegedly issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding (i) the Company's customer
retention and advertising costs, and (ii) the Company's loss of video customers, especially in the New
York area. The complaint also alleged that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act for the same alleged conduct. Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 18, 2012. On
September 5, 2013, the Court issued a decision granting the motion to dismiss in its entirety and
dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs did not file a notice of appeal within the statutory time
frame. The Company believes this matter is now concluded.
Wandel v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, et al.: On February 24, 2012, a shareholder derivative
complaint was filed in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, purportedly on behalf of the nominal
defendant Cablevision against all members of Cablevision's Board of Directors. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the individual defendants violated the fiduciary duties they owe to Cablevision
by allegedly causing or allowing the Company to issue materially false and misleading statements
regarding (i) the Company's customer retention and advertising costs; and (ii) the Company's loss of
video customers, especially in the New York area. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages,
restitution, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. In 2012, the parties entered into a stipulation staying
discovery until the U.S. District Court in the Livingston matter (above) ruled on any motion to dismiss,
and relieving defendants of the obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until plaintiff
filed an amended complaint. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, plaintiff had 30 days from the date
of the decision in Livingston (above) to file an amended complaint. No amended complaint has been
filed.
Patent Litigation
Cablevision is named as a defendant in certain lawsuits claiming infringement of various patents relating
to various aspects of the Company's businesses. In certain of these cases other industry participants are
also defendants. In certain of these cases the Company expects that any potential liability would be the
responsibility of the Company's equipment vendors pursuant to applicable contractual indemnification
provisions. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the actions
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.