COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 14—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company, in the normal course of business, is a party to various ordinary course claims from vendors (including food and beverage suppliers and film distributors), landlords, competitors, and other legal proceedings. If management believes that a loss arising from these actions is probable and can reasonably be estimated, the Company records the amount of the loss, or the minimum estimated liability when the loss is estimated using a range and no point is more probable than another. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these actions is assessed and the estimates are revised, if necessary. Management believes that the ultimate outcome of such matters, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or overall trends in results of operations. However, litigation and claims are subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable outcomes can occur. An unfavorable outcome might include monetary damages. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the results of operations in the period in which the outcome occurs or in future periods. On January 12, 2018 and January 19, 2018, two putative federal securities class actions, captioned Hawaii Structural Iron workers Pension Trust Fund v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00299-AJN (the “Hawaii Action”), and Nichols v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00510-AJN (the “Nichols Action,” and together with the Hawaii Action, the “Actions”), respectively, were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Actions, which name certain of the Company’s officers and directors and, in the case of the Hawaii Action, the underwriters of the Company’s February 8, 2017 secondary public offering, as defendants, asserted claims under some or all of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to alleged material misstatements and omissions in the registration statement for the secondary public offering and in certain other public disclosures. On May 30, 2018, the court consolidated the Actions and appointed the International Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware as lead plaintiff. On August 13, 2018, lead plaintiff and additional named plaintiff Hawaii Structural Iron Workers Pension Trust Fund filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On October 12, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On October 24, 2018, the court granted lead plaintiff’s and Hawaii Structural Iron Workers Pension Trust Fund’s request that they be permitted to file an amended complaint on or before November 21, 2018. On May 21, 2018, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned Gantulga v. Aron, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02262-JAR-TJJ (the “Gantulga Action”), was filed against certain of the Company’s officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The Gantulga Action, which was filed on behalf of the Company, asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based on allegations substantially similar to the Actions. On August 27, 2018, defendants and the Company as nominal defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 17, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On October 12, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which the court granted on October 15, 2018. On June 25, 2018, the Company received a letter from a purported stockholder demanding to inspect certain of the Company’s books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220 in order to investigate allegations substantially similar to those alleged in the Actions (the “Demand”). On July 2, 2018, the Company rejected the Demand. The Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted. On May 28, 2015, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice in connection with an investigation under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Beginning in May 2015, the Company also received CIDs from the Attorneys General for the States of Ohio, Texas, Washington, Florida, New York, Kansas, and from the District of Columbia, regarding similar inquiries under those states’ antitrust laws. The CIDs requested the production of documents and answers to interrogatories concerning potentially anticompetitive conduct, including film clearances and participation in certain joint ventures. On September 17, 2018, the Attorney General for the State of Texas closed its investigation without taking action. The Company does not believe it has violated federal or state antitrust laws and is cooperating with the relevant governmental authorities. However, the Company cannot predict the ultimate scope, duration or outcome of these investigations.

NOTE 14—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company, in the normal course of business, is a party to various ordinary course claims from vendors (including food and beverage suppliers and film distributors), landlords, competitors, and other legal proceedings. If management believes that a loss arising from these actions is probable and can reasonably be estimated, the Company records the amount of the loss, or the minimum estimated liability when the loss is estimated using a range and no point is more probable than another. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these actions is assessed and the estimates are revised, if necessary. Management believes that the ultimate outcome of such matters, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or overall trends in results of operations. However, litigation and claims are subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable outcomes can occur. An unfavorable outcome might include monetary damages. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the results of operations in the period in which the outcome occurs or in future periods.

On January 12, 2018 and January 19, 2018, two putative federal securities class actions, captioned Hawaii Structural Iron workers Pension Trust Fund v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00299-AJN (the “Hawaii Action”), and Nichols v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00510-AJN (the “Nichols Action,” and together with the Hawaii Action, the “Actions”), respectively, were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Actions, which name certain of the Company’s officers and directors and, in the case of the Hawaii Action, the underwriters of the Company’s February 8, 2017 secondary public offering, as defendants, asserted claims under some or all of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to alleged material misstatements and omissions in the registration statement for the secondary public offering and in certain other public disclosures. On May 30, 2018, the court consolidated the Actions and appointed the International Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware as lead plaintiff. On August 13, 2018, lead plaintiff and additional named plaintiff Hawaii Structural Iron Workers Pension Trust Fund filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On October 12, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On October 24, 2018, the court granted lead plaintiff’s and Hawaii Structural Iron Workers Pension Trust Fund’s request that they be permitted to file an amended complaint on or before November 21, 2018.

On May 21, 2018, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned Gantulga v. Aron, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02262-JAR-TJJ (the “Gantulga Action”), was filed against certain of the Company’s officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The Gantulga Action, which was filed on behalf of the Company, asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based on allegations substantially similar to the Actions. On August 27, 2018, defendants and the Company as nominal defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 17, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On October 12, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which the court granted on October 15, 2018.

On June 25, 2018, the Company received a letter from a purported stockholder demanding to inspect certain of the Company’s books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220 in order to investigate allegations substantially similar to those alleged in the Actions (the “Demand”). On July 2, 2018, the Company rejected the Demand.

The Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted.

On May 28, 2015, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice in connection with an investigation under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Beginning in May 2015, the Company also received CIDs from the Attorneys General for the States of Ohio, Texas, Washington, Florida, New York, Kansas, and from the District of Columbia, regarding similar inquiries under those states’ antitrust laws. The CIDs requested the production of documents and answers to interrogatories concerning potentially anticompetitive conduct, including film clearances and participation in certain joint ventures. On September 17, 2018, the Attorney General for the State of Texas closed its investigation without taking action. The Company does not believe it has violated federal or state antitrust laws and is cooperating with the relevant governmental authorities. However, the Company cannot predict the ultimate scope, duration or outcome of these investigations.