Commitments, Contingencies And Guarantees

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2013

Commitments, Contingencies And Guarantees [Abstract]

Commitments, Contingencies And Guarantees

NOTE 6 – COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND GUARANTEES

The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in certain legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business and, as required, have accrued an estimate of the probable costs for the resolution of those claims for which the occurrence of loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. These estimates have been developed in consultation with counsel and are based upon an analysis of potential results, assuming a combination of litigation and settlement strategies. It is possible, however, that future results of operations for any particular period could be materially affected by changes in the Company's assumptions or the effectiveness of the Company's strategies related to these proceedings. Additionally, due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, there can be no assurance that the resolution of any particular claim or proceeding would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations.

Although the Company is involved in a variety of legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business, a large portion of the Company's litigation arises in the following contexts: commercial disputes; defamation matters; employment and benefits related claims; governmental fines; intellectual property claims; and tax disputes.

Stockholder Litigation

Two derivative lawsuits were filed in March 2012 in Delaware Chancery Court by stockholders of Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. (“CCOH”), an indirect non-wholly owned subsidiary of Clear Channel, which is, in turn, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. The consolidated lawsuits are captioned In re Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 7315-CS. The complaints name as defendants certain of Clear Channel's and CCOH's current and former directors and Clear Channel, as well as Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P.  CCOH also is named as a nominal defendant.  The complaints allege, among other things, that in December 2009 Clear Channel breached fiduciary duties to CCOH and its stockholders by allegedly requiring CCOH to agree to amend the terms of a revolving promissory note payable by Clear Channel to CCOH to extend the maturity date of the note and to amend the interest rate payable on the note. According to the complaints, the terms of the amended promissory note were unfair to CCOH because, among other things, the interest rate was below market. The complaints further allege that Clear Channel was unjustly enriched as a result of that transaction.  The complaints also allege that the director defendants breached fiduciary duties to CCOH in connection with that transaction and that the transaction constituted corporate waste.  On April 4, 2012, the board of directors of CCOH formed a special litigation committee consisting of certain independent directors (the “SLC”) to review and investigate plaintiffs' claims and determine the course of action that serves the best interests of CCOH and its stockholders.  On June 20, 2012, the SLC filed a motion to stay the lawsuits for six months while it completes its review and investigation.  In response, on June 27, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for an expedited trial, asking the Court to schedule a trial on the merits in October 2012. On July 23, 2012, the Court issued an order granting the motion to stay and denying the motion for an expedited trial. On January 23, 2013, the SLC filed a motion to extend the stay for thirty days, and on January24, 2013, the Court granted that motion, extending the stay for thirty days from the date of the order.On March28, 2013, to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of further litigation, and without admitting the validity of any allegations made in the complaint, legal counsel for the defendants entered into a binding memorandum of understanding (the “MOU”) with legal counsel for the SLC and the plaintiffs to settle the litigation. The MOU obligates the parties to use their best efforts to prepare a Stipulation of Settlement reflecting the terms of the MOU and present such Stipulation of Settlement to the Delaware Chancery Court for approval. The Stipulation of Settlement has not yet been finalized and is subject to approval by the Delaware Court of Chancery. Accordingly, unless and until such approval is received, no assurance can be provided that the outstanding litigation will be resolved as contemplated by the MOU.CCOH, Clear Channel and the Company filed the MOU with the SEC as an exhibit to their respective Current Reports on Form 8-K filed on April 3, 2013. The financial statements do not reflect any impacts that may result upon the final Stipulation of Settlement being approved.

Los Angeles Litigation

In 2008, Summit Media, LLC, one of the Company's competitors, sued the City of Los Angeles, Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. and CBS Outdoor in Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BS116611) challenging the validity of a settlement agreement that had been entered into in November 2006 among the parties. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. had taken down existing billboards and converted 83existing signs from static displays to digital displays pursuant to modernization permits issued through an administrative process of the City. The Los Angeles Superior Court ruled in January 2010 that the settlement agreement constituted an ultra vires act of the City and nullified its existence, but did not invalidate the modernization permits issued to Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. and CBS. All parties appealed the ruling by the Los Angeles Superior Court to Court of Appeal for the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division 8. On December 10, 2012, the Court of Appeal issued an order upholding the Superior Court's finding that the settlement agreement was ultra vires and remanding the case to the Superior Court for the purpose of invalidating the modernization permits issued to Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. and CBS for the digital displays that were the subject of the settlement agreement.  On January 22, 2013, Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. filed a petition with the California Supreme Court requesting its review of the matter, and the Supreme Court denied that petition on February 27, 2013.  On April 12, 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court invalidated 82digital modernization permits issued to Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. and 13issued to CBS and ordered that the companies turn off the electrical power to affected digital displays by the close of business on April 15, 2013.  Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. has complied with the order.  On April16, 2013, the Court conducted further proceedings during which it held that it was not invalidating two additional digital modernization permits that Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. had secured through a special zoning plan and confirmed that its April12 order invalidated only digital modernization permits – not other types of permits the companies may have secured for the signs at issue.

Guarantees

As of March 31, 2013, Clear Channel had outstanding surety bonds and commercial standby letters of credit of $51.0million and $124.2million, respectively, of which $56.3million of letters of credit were cash secured. Letters of credit in the amount of $9.1million are collateral in support of surety bonds and these amounts would only be drawn under the letter of credit in the event the associated surety bonds were funded and Clear Channel did not honor its reimbursement obligation to the issuers. These letters of credit and surety bonds relate to various operational matters including insurance, bid, and performance bonds as well as other items.

As of March 31, 2013, Clear Channel had outstanding bank guarantees of $47.0million related to international subsidiaries, of which $4.5million were backed by cash collateral.