Cablevision 2014 Annual Report Download - page 150

COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(Dollars in thousands, except share and per share amounts)
F-61
Legal Matters
Cable Operations Litigation
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. Discovery is proceeding. On January 9,
2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The return date for the motion is May 15, 2015. 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 or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.
In re Cablevision Consumer Litigation: Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of certain Fox broadcast
stations and cable networks on October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming feeds to the Company,
and as a result, those stations and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On October 30, 2010,
the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and carriage was
restored. Several purported class action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers seeking recovery
for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and a consolidated complaint 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. On March 31, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and denied
without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. On May 5, 2014, the Court directed that expert discovery commence.
Expert discovery is proceeding. On May 30, 2014, the Court approved the form of class notice, and on October 7, 2014, approved
the class notice distribution plan. The class notice distribution has been completed, and the opt-out period expires on February
27, 2015. 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.
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.
Other Litigation
Friedman v. Charles Dolan, et al.: On March 7, 2014, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in Delaware Chancery Court
purportedly on behalf of the nominal defendant Cablevision against the Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), the Chairman of the
Board, and certain other members of Cablevision's Board of Directors, including the members of the Compensation Committee.
The complaint alleges that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duties to preserve corporate assets by allegedly causing
or allowing Cablevision to grant excessive compensation packages to the CEO, the Chairman of the Board, and/or other members
of the Board of Directors in the time period 2010 to 2012. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, disgorgement,
costs, and attorneys' fees. Cablevision filed a pro forma answer on April 14, 2014, and on April 21, 2014 the individual defendants
filed notices of motions to dismiss in lieu of an answer. The motions to dismiss filed by the individual defendants have been fully
briefed. Oral argument took place on January 23, 2015. A decision by the Court is pending. On February 10, 2015, the Court