iHeartMedia 2009 Annual Report Download - page 29
Download and view the complete annual report
Please find page 29 of the 2009 iHeartMedia annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.-
1 -
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
-
12
-
13
-
14
-
15
-
16
-
17
-
18
-
19 -
20 -
21 -
22 -
23 -
24 -
25 -
26 -
27 -
28 -
29 -
30 -
31 -
32 -
33 -
34 -
35 -
36 -
37 -
38 -
39 -
40
-
41
-
42
-
43
-
44
-
45
-
46
-
47
-
48
-
49
-
50
-
51
-
52
-
53
-
54
-
55
-
56
-
57
-
58
-
59
-
60
-
61
-
62
-
63
-
64
-
65
-
66
-
67
-
68
-
69
-
70
-
71
-
72
-
73
-
74
-
75
-
76
-
77
-
78
-
79
-
80
-
81
-
82
-
83
-
84
-
85
-
86
-
87
-
88
-
89
-
90
-
91
-
92
-
93
-
94
-
95
-
96
-
97
-
98
-
99
-
100
-
101
-
102
-
103
-
104
-
105
-
106
-
107
-
108
-
109
-
110
-
111
-
112
-
113
-
114
-
115
-
116
-
117
-
118
-
119
-
120
-
121
-
122
-
123
-
124
-
125
-
126
-
127
-
128
-
129
-
130
-
131
-
132
-
133
-
134
-
135
-
136
-
137
-
138
-
139
-
140
-
141
-
142
-
143
-
144
-
145
-
146
-
147
-
148
-
149
-
150
-
151
-
152
-
153
-
154
-
155
-
156
-
157
-
158
-
159
-
160
-
161
-
162
-
163
-
164
-
165
-
166
-
167
-
168
-
169
-
170
-
171
-
172
-
173
-
174
-
175
-
176
-
177
-
178
-
179
-
180
-
181
-
182
-
183
-
184
-
185
-
186
-
187
-
188
 |
 |
ITEM 3. Legal Proceedings
We are a co-defendant with Live Nation (which was spun off as an independent company in December 2005) in 22
putative class actions filed beginning in May 2006 by different named plaintiffs in various district courts throughout the country.
These actions generally allege that the defendants monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for “live rock concerts” in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs claim that they paid higher ticket prices for defendants’ “rock concerts” as a
result of defendants’ conduct. They seek damages in an undetermined amount. On April 17, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict
Litigation centralized these class action proceedings in the Central District of California. On March 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed motions
for class certification in five “template” cases involving five regional markets, Los Angeles, Boston, New York, Chicago and Denver.
Defendants opposed that motion and, on October 22, 2007, the district court issued its decision certifying the class for each regional
market. On February 20, 2008, defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Class Certification Order, which is still pending.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Approval of the Class Notice Plan on September 25, 2009, but the Court denied the Motion as premature
and ordered the entire case stayed until the 9th Circuit issues its en banc opinion in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir.
2007), a case that may change the standard for granting class certification in the 9th Circuit. In the Master Separation and Distribution
Agreement between us and Live Nation that was entered into in connection with our spin-off of Live Nation in December 2005, Live
Nation agreed, among other things, to assume responsibility for legal actions existing at the time of, or initiated after, the spin-off in
which we are a defendant if such actions relate in any material respect to the business of Live Nation. Pursuant to the Agreement,
Live Nation also agreed to indemnify us with respect to all liabilities assumed by Live Nation, including those pertaining to the claims
discussed above.
26