14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

At December 31, 2015, the Company has commitments under long-term operating leases requiring annual minimum lease payments as follows:

Years Ending December 31,
2016	$	16,185
2017		16,132
2018		15,752
2019		14,643
2020		11,819
Thereafter		288,128
Total	$	362,659

Rental expense was $20,233, $21,643 and $24,338 for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

The SeaWorld theme park in San Diego, California, leases the land for the theme park from the City of San Diego. The lease term is for 50 years ending on July 1, 2048. Lease payments are based upon gross revenue from the San Diego theme park subject to certain minimums. On January 1, 2014, the minimum annual rent payment was recalculated in accordance with the lease agreement as approximately $10,400 and is included in the table above for all periods presented. This annual rent will remain in effect until January 1, 2017, at which time the next recalculation will be completed in accordance with the lease agreement.

Pursuant to license agreements with Sesame Workshop, the Company pays a specified annual license fee, as well as a specified royalty based on revenues earned in connection with sales of licensed products, all food and beverage items utilizing the licensed elements and any events utilizing such elements if a separate fee is paid for such event.

ABI has granted the Company a perpetual, exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to use the Busch Gardens trademark and certain related domain names in connection with the operation, marketing, promotion and advertising of certain of the Company’s theme parks, as well as in connection with the production, use, distribution and sale of merchandise sold in connection with such theme parks. Under the license, the Company is required to indemnify ABI against losses related to the use of the marks.

The Company has commenced construction of certain new theme park attractions and other projects under contracts with various third parties. At December 31, 2015, additional capital payments of approximately $80,000 are necessary to complete these projects. The majority of these projects are expected to be completed in 2016.

Securities Class Action Lawsuit

On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone. On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, Pensionskassen For Børne- Og Ungdomspædagoger and Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs, Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors, certain of its executive officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial public offering and secondary public offerings. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld’s business at the time of each public statement. On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 31, 2015. The Company and the other defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on September 18, 2015. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.

Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

On December 8, 2014, a putative derivative lawsuit captioned Kistenmacher v. Atchison, et al., Civil Action No. 10437, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against, among others, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, certain of the Company’s executive officers, directors and shareholders, and Blackstone. The Company is a “Nominal Defendant” in the lawsuit. On March 30, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the same set of defendants. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties, violated Florida Blue Sky laws and were unjustly enriched by (i) including materially false and misleading information in the prospectus and registration statements; and (ii) causing the Company to repurchase certain shares of its common stock from certain shareholders at an alleged artificially inflated price. The Company does not maintain any direct exposure to loss in connection with this shareholder derivative lawsuit as the lawsuit does not assert any claims against the Company. The Company’s status as a “Nominal Defendant” in the action reflects the fact that the lawsuit is maintained by the named plaintiff on behalf of the Company and that the plaintiff seeks damages on the Company’s behalf. On May 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to stay the lawsuit pending resolution of the Company’s securities class action lawsuit. On September 21, 2015, the Court granted the motion and ordered that the derivative action to be stayed in favor of the securities class action captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC).

Consumer Class Action Lawsuits

On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the “Hall Matter”). The complaint identifies three putative classes consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint, purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld “experience” that includes an “orca experience” from the SeaWorld amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San Antonio, Texas respectively. The complaint alleges causes of action under California Unfair Competition Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), California False Advertising Law, California Deceit statute, Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its killer whales, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its killer whales with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The complaint further alleges that the specific misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall in purchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances surrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer. The complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all).

In addition, four other purported class actions were filed against the Company and its affiliates. The first three actions were filed on April 9, 2015, April 16, 2015 and April 17, 2015, respectively, in the following federal courts: (i) the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned Joyce Kuhl v. SeaWorld LLC et al., 6:15-cv-00574-ACC-GJK (the “Kuhl Matter”), (ii) the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Jessica Gaab, et. al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-842-CAB-RBB (the “Gaab Matter”), and (iii) the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, captioned Elaine Salazar Browne v. SeaWorld of Texas LLC et al., 5:15-cv-00301-XR (the “Browne Matter”). On May 1, 2015, the Kuhl Matter and Browne Matter were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the respective plaintiffs. On May 7, 2015, plaintiffs Kuhl and Browne re-filed their claims, along with a new plaintiff, Valerie Simo, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in an action captioned Valerie Simo et al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-1022-CAB-RBB (the “Simo Matter”). All four of these cases, in essence, reiterate the claims made and relief sought in the Hall Matter.

On August 7, 2015, the Gaab Matter and Simo Matter were consolidated with the Hall Matter, and the plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on August 21, 2015. The FAC pursues the same seven causes of action as the original Hall complaint, and adds a request for punitive damages pursuant to the California CLRA.

The Company moved to dismiss the FAC in its entirety, and its motion was granted on December 24, 2015. The Court granted dismissal with prejudice as to the California CLRA claim, the portion of California Unfair Competition Law claim premised on the CLRA claim, all claims for injunctive relief, and on all California claims premised solely on alleged omissions by the Company. The Court granted leave to amend as to the remainder of the complaint. On January 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The SAC pursues the same causes of action as the FAC, except for the California CLRA, which, as noted above, was dismissed with prejudice. The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the SAC.

On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292 (the “Anderson Matter”). The putative class consists of all consumers within California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego. On May 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint alleges causes of action under the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its killer whales, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its killer whales with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The Amended Complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. Based on plaintiffs’ definition of the class, the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 15:cv-2172-SC.

On May 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On September 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety. The motion is fully briefed. On September 24, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand. On October 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this order, and contemporaneously filed a petition for permission to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which the Company opposed. On October 14, 2015, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was fully briefed. On January 12, 2016 the court granted in part and denied in part the motion for reconsideration, and refused to remand the case. In that order, the district court noted that it will defer ruling on the Company’s motion to dismiss until the Ninth Circuit rules on plaintiffs’ petition for permission to appeal. On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the January 12, 2016 order to the Ninth Circuit, which the Company intends to oppose. Both of plaintiffs’ petitions for permission to appeal remain pending.

The Company believes that these consumer class action lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits.

In addition, the Company is a party to other various claims and legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. From time to time, third-party groups may also bring lawsuits against the Company. Matters where an unfavorable outcome to the Company is probable and which can be reasonably estimated are accrued. Such accruals, which are not material for any period presented, are based on information known about the matters, the Company’s estimate of the outcomes of such matters, and the Company’s experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar matters. Matters that are considered reasonably possible to result in a material loss are not accrued for, but an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss is disclosed, if such amount or range can be determined. At this time, management does not expect any known claims or legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.