Note 12: Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Station Venture

NBCUniversal previously held an equity interest in Station Venture Holdings, LLC (“Station Venture”), a nonconsolidated variable interest entity, and the remaining equity interests in Station Venture were held by LIN TV, Corp. Station Venture was the obligor on an $816 million senior secured note (the “Station Venture note”) that was due in 2023 to General Electric Capital Corporation (“GECC”) as servicer. The Station Venture note, among other things, was collateralized by substantially all of the assets of Station Venture and Station Venture Operations, LP (“Station LP”). Station LP was a less than wholly owned consolidated subsidiary of NBCUniversal. In connection with the acquisition of our controlling interest in NBCUniversal Holdings on January 28, 2011, a liability of $482 million was recorded to noncurrent liabilities in our allocation of purchase price, which represented the fair value of the net assets of Station LP. In February 2013, we closed our agreement with GE, GECC and LIN TV under which, among other things, NBCUniversal purchased the Station Venture note from GECC for $602 million, representing the agreed upon fair value of the assets of Station LP. As of the closing date of the transaction, the $482 million recorded liability was effectively settled and Station Venture and Station LP became wholly owned subsidiaries of NBCUniversal. We now consolidate Station Venture, and the Station Venture note is eliminated in consolidation. Due to the related party nature of this transaction, the excess of the purchase price of the Station Venture note over the recorded amount of the liability was recorded to additional paid-in capital.

Contingencies

Antitrust Cases

We are defendants in two purported class actions originally filed in December 2003 in the United States District Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The potential class in the Massachusetts case, which has been transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is our customer base in the “Boston Cluster” area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case is our customer base in the “Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters,” as those terms are defined in the complaints. In each case, the plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages under antitrust statutes, including treble damages.

Classes of Chicago Cluster and Philadelphia Cluster customers were certified in October 2007 and January 2010, respectively. We appealed the class certification in the Philadelphia Cluster case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the class certification in August 2011 and denied our petition for a rehearing en banc in September 2011. In March 2010, we moved for summary judgment dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims in the Philadelphia Cluster. In April 2012, the District Court issued a decision dismissing some of the plaintiffs' claims, but allowing two claims to proceed to trial. The plaintiffs' claims concerning the other two clusters are stayed pending determination of the Philadelphia Cluster claims. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted our petition to review the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and in September 2012, the trial court stayed all proceedings pending resolution of the Supreme Court appeal. In March 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the class had been improperly certified and reversed the judgment of the Third Circuit.

In addition, we are the defendant in 22 purported class actions filed in federal district courts throughout the country. All of these actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings. In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009 on behalf of all plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation, the plaintiffs allege that we improperly “tie” the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California, Illinois and Alabama. The plaintiffs also allege a claim for unjust enrichment and seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class of our premium cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington. In January 2010, we moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama. In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging violations of additional state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts on behalf of new subclasses in Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico and West Virginia. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs omitted their unjust enrichment claim, as well as their state law claims on behalf of the Alabama, Illinois and Pennsylvania subclasses. In June 2011, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint alleging only violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, antitrust law in Washington and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California and Washington. The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class of our premium cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from California and Washington. In July 2011, we moved to compel arbitration of most of the plaintiffs' claims and to stay the remaining claims pending arbitration.

The West Virginia Attorney General also filed a complaint in West Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that we improperly “tie” the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of digital cable services in violation of the West Virginia Antitrust Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The Attorney General also alleges a claim for unjust enrichment/restitution. We removed the case to the United States District Court for West Virginia, and it was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated with the multidistrict litigation described above. In March 2010, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the Attorney General's motion to remand the case back to West Virginia state court. In June 2010, the Attorney General moved to sever and remand the portion of the claims seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief back to West Virginia state court. We filed a brief in opposition to the motion in July 2010.

We believe the claims in each of the pending actions described above in this item are without merit and intend to defend the actions vigorously. We cannot predict the outcome of any of the actions described above, including a range of possible loss, or how the final resolution of any such actions would impact our results of operations or cash flows for any one period or our consolidated financial position. In addition, as any action nears a trial, there is an increased possibility that the action may be settled by the parties. Nevertheless, the final disposition of any of the above actions is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, but could possibly be material to our consolidated results of operations or cash flows for any one period.

Other

We are a defendant in several unrelated lawsuits claiming infringement of various patents relating to various aspects of our businesses. In certain of these cases other industry participants are also defendants, and also in certain of these cases we expect that any potential liability would be in part or in whole the responsibility of our equipment and technology vendors under applicable contractual indemnification provisions. We are also subject to other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of our business. While the amount of ultimate liability with respect to such actions is not expected to materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, any litigation resulting from any such legal proceedings or claims could be time consuming, costly and injure our reputation.