COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 25, 2017
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno Bee in the Superior Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned Becerra v. The McClatchy Company (“Fresno case”) alleging that the carriers were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking mileage reimbursement. In February 2009, a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company, involving similar allegations was filed by carriers of The Sacramento Bee (“Sacramento case”) in the Superior Court of the State of California in Sacramento County. The class consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers in the Fresno case. The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified restitution for mileage reimbursement. With respect to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code. In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code. The court in the Sacramento case trifurcated the trial into three separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status, the second phase will address liability, if any, and the third phase will address restitution, if any. On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as independent contractors. We objected to the tentative decision but the court ultimately adopted it as final. There have been no additional decisions issued by the court as to the second or third phase. In June 2016, The McClatchy Company was dismissed from the lawsuit, leaving The Sacramento Bee as the sole defendant. The court in the Fresno case bifurcated the trial into two separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the second phase was designated to address restitution, if any. The first phase of the Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of 2014 and concluded in late March 2015. On April 14, 2016, the court in the Fresno case issued a statement of final decision in favor of us and The Fresno Bee. Accordingly, there will be no second phase. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on November 10, 2016. In January 2016, Ponderay Newsprint Company (“PNC”), a general partnership that owns and operates a newsprint mill in the state of Washington, and of which three of our wholly-owned subsidiaries own a combined 27% interest, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of Washington seeking declaratory judgment and alleging breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing against Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County (“PUD”) relating to the industrial power supply contracts (“Supply Contracts”) between PNC and the PUD. This complaint followed the PUD’s assertion that PNC had effected a termination of the Supply Contracts by the submission of its most recent power schedule, which called for an uncertain, and probably declining, need for power between 2017-2019. Based on PNC’s fervent belief that its power schedule was fully compliant with the Supply Contracts, the aforementioned complaint was filed. In March 2016, the PUD filed a counterclaim against PNC and a third-party complaint against the individual partners of PNC, alleging breach of contract. We continue to defend these actions vigorously and expect that we will ultimately prevail. As a result, we have not established a reserve in connection with the cases. While we believe that a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows from these claims is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a possibility exists that future adverse rulings or unfavorable developments could result in future charges that could have a material impact. We have and will continue to periodically reexamine our estimates of probable liabilities and any associated expenses and make appropriate adjustments to such estimates based on experience and developments in litigation. Other than the cases described above, we are subject to a variety of legal proceedings (including libel, employment, wage and hour, independent contractor and other legal actions) and governmental proceedings (including environmental matters) that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. We are unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible losses for these matters. However, we currently believe, after reviewing such actions with counsel, that the expected outcome of pending actions will not have a material effect on our condensed consolidated financial statements. No material amounts for any losses from litigation that may ultimately occur have been recorded in the condensed consolidated financial statements as we believe that any such losses are not probable. We have certain indemnification obligations related to the sale of assets including but not limited to insurance claims and multi-employer pension plans of disposed newspaper operations. We believe the remaining obligations related to disposed assets will not be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. As of June 25, 2017, we had $28.7 million of standby letters of credit secured under the LC Agreement.

6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno Bee in the Superior Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned Becerra v. The McClatchy Company (“Fresno case”) alleging that the carriers were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking mileage reimbursement. In February 2009, a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company, involving similar allegations was filed by carriers of The Sacramento Bee (“Sacramento case”) in the Superior Court of the State of California in Sacramento County. The class consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers in the Fresno case. The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified restitution for mileage reimbursement. With respect to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code. In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code.

The court in the Sacramento case trifurcated the trial into three separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status, the second phase will address liability, if any, and the third phase will address restitution, if any. On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as independent contractors. We objected to the tentative decision but the court ultimately adopted it as final. There have been no additional decisions issued by the court as to the second or third phase. In June 2016, The McClatchy Company was dismissed from the lawsuit, leaving The Sacramento Bee as the sole defendant.

The court in the Fresno case bifurcated the trial into two separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the second phase was designated to address restitution, if any. The first phase of the Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of 2014 and concluded in late March 2015. On April 14, 2016, the court in the Fresno case issued a statement of final decision in favor of us and The Fresno Bee. Accordingly, there will be no second phase. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on November 10, 2016.

In January 2016, Ponderay Newsprint Company (“PNC”), a general partnership that owns and operates a newsprint mill in the state of Washington, and of which three of our wholly-owned subsidiaries own a combined 27% interest, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of Washington seeking declaratory judgment and alleging breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing against Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County (“PUD”) relating to the industrial power supply contracts (“Supply Contracts”) between PNC and the PUD. This complaint followed the PUD’s assertion that PNC had effected a termination of the Supply Contracts by the submission of its most recent power schedule, which called for an uncertain, and probably declining, need for power between 2017-2019. Based on PNC’s fervent belief that its power schedule was fully compliant with the Supply Contracts, the aforementioned complaint was filed. In March 2016, the PUD filed a counterclaim against PNC and a third-party complaint against the individual partners of PNC, alleging breach of contract.

We continue to defend these actions vigorously and expect that we will ultimately prevail. As a result, we have not established a reserve in connection with the cases. While we believe that a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows from these claims is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a possibility exists that future adverse rulings or unfavorable developments could result in future charges that could have a material impact. We have and will continue to periodically reexamine our estimates of probable liabilities and any associated expenses and make appropriate adjustments to such estimates based on experience and developments in litigation.

Other than the cases described above, we are subject to a variety of legal proceedings (including libel, employment, wage and hour, independent contractor and other legal actions) and governmental proceedings (including environmental matters) that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. We are unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible losses for these matters. However, we currently believe, after reviewing such actions with counsel, that the expected outcome of pending actions will not have a material effect on our condensed consolidated financial statements. No material amounts for any losses from litigation that may ultimately occur have been recorded in the condensed consolidated financial statements as we believe that any such losses are not probable.

We have certain indemnification obligations related to the sale of assets including but not limited to insurance claims and multi-employer pension plans of disposed newspaper operations. We believe the remaining obligations related to disposed assets will not be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

As of June 25, 2017, we had $28.7 million of standby letters of credit secured under the LC Agreement.