Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation General

We are currently involved in certain legal proceedings and, as required, have accrued estimates of probable and estimable losses for the resolution of these claims, including legal costs.

Where we are the plaintiffs, we accrue legal fees as incurred on an on-going basis and make no provision for any potential settlement amounts until received. In Australia, the prevailing party is usually entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees, which recoveries typically work out to be approximately 60% of the amounts actually spent where first-class legal counsel is engaged at customary rates. Where we are a plaintiff, we have likewise made no provision for the liability for the defendant’s attorneys' fees in the event we are determined not to be the prevailing party.

Where we are the defendants, we accrue for probable damages that insurance may not cover as they become known and can be reasonably estimated. In our opinion, any claims and litigation in which we are currently involved are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position, or liquidity. It is possible, however, that future results of the operations for any particular quarterly or annual period could be materially affected by the ultimate outcome of the legal proceedings. From time-to-time, we are involved with claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of our business that may include contractual obligations, insurance claims, tax claims, employment matters, and anti-trust issues, among other matters.

All of these matters require significant judgments based on the facts known to us. These judgments are inherently uncertain and can change significantly when additional facts become known. We provide accruals for matters that have probable likelihood of occurrence and can be properly estimated as to their expected negative outcome. We do not record expected gains until the proceeds are received by us. However, we typically make no accruals for potential costs of defense, as such amounts are inherently uncertain and dependent upon the scope, extent and aggressiveness of the activities of the applicable plaintiff.

Environmental and Asbestos Claims on Reading Legacy Operations

Certain of our subsidiaries were historically involved in railroad operations, coal mining, and manufacturing. Also, certain of these subsidiaries appear in the chain-of-title of properties that may suffer from pollution. Accordingly, certain of these subsidiaries have, from time-to-time, been named in and may in the future be named in various actions brought under applicable environmental laws. Also, we are in the real estate development business and may encounter from time-to-time unanticipated environmental conditions at properties that we have acquired for development. These environmental conditions can increase the cost of such projects and adversely affect the value and potential for profit of such projects. We do not currently believe that our exposure under applicable environmental laws is material in amount.

From time-to-time, there are claims brought against us relating to the exposure of former employees of our railroad operations to asbestos and coal dust. These are generally covered by an insurance settlement reached in September 1990 with our insurance providers. However, this insurance settlement does not cover litigation by people who were not our employees and who may claim second-hand exposure to asbestos, coal dust and/or other chemicals or elements now recognized as potentially causing cancer in humans. Our known exposure to these types of claims, asserted or probable of being asserted, is not material.

Cotter Jr. Related Litigation Matters

The following table provides a list of legal matters and current status relating to James J. Cotter, Jr’s (“Cotter, Jr.”) employment termination, Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s subsequent derivative action brought against the Company and our Directors alleging, among other things, that such termination violated the fiduciary duties of such Directors, and Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s efforts to cause a change of control of the Company, with detailed discussions following:



Description	Plaintiff/ Claimant	Filed with	Current Status
James J. Cotter, Jr. Legal Cases
 Cotter, Jr. Derivative Litigation against all Directors on matters other than the handling by the Directors of the Patton Vision Unsolicited Indication of Interest	Cotter, Jr.	Nevada District Court	Claims against Directors Judy Codding, William Gould, Edward L. Kane, Douglas McEachern and Michael Wrotniak were dismissed on December 29, 2017; court trial for the remaining claim was postponed at Cotter, Jr.’s request. The Court put the trial on a trial stack with the trial set to begin on July 9, 2018. It is anticipated that various summary judgment motions being brought by the Company and the Defendant Directors will be heard before the case is tried.
 Cotter, Jr. Derivative Litigation against all Directors re handling by the Directors of unsolicited indication of interest by Patton Vision, LLC.	Cotter, Jr.	Nevada District Court	Dismissed as to all Directors on December 29, 2017.
 Direct Case against the Company seeking reimbursement and advancement of attorney’s fees incurred with respect to the Employment Arbitration	Cotter, Jr.	Nevada District Court	Summary judgment entered in favor of the Company on October 3, 2016.
 Employment Arbitration	RDI	American Arbitration Association	While RDI is the named claimant, the matter relates to Mr. Cotter, Jr’s claims for compensation related to his termination. In Discovery Phase: hearing anticipated in October, 2018.
 T2 Partners Derivative Complaint	T2 Partners Management	Nevada District Court	Settled on October 6, 2016, without the payment of any monetary consideration or any reimbursement of attorney’s fees.

James J. Cotter, Jr., Litigation Matters.

The James J. Cotter, Jr. Derivative Litigation: On June 12, 2015, the Board of Directors terminated James J. Cotter, Jr. as the President and Chief Executive Officer of our Company. That same day, Mr. Cotter, Jr. filed a lawsuit, styled as both an individual and a derivative action, and titled “James J. Cotter, Jr., individually and derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, et al.” Case No,: A-15-719860-V, Dept. XI, against our Company and each of our then sitting Directors (Ellen Cotter, Margaret Cotter, Guy Adams, William Gould, Edward Kane, Douglas McEachern, and Tim Storey) in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark County (the “Nevada District Court”). Since that date, our Company has been engaged in ongoing litigation with Mr. Cotter, Jr. with respect to his claims against our Directors. Mr. Cotter, Jr. has over this period of time twice amended his complaint, removing his individual claims and withdrawing his claims against Tim Storey (but reserving the right to reinstitute such claims), adding claims relating to actions taken by our Board since the filing of his original complaint, and adding as defendants two of our directors who were not on our Board at the time of his termination: Judy Codding and Michael Wrotniak. Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s lawsuit, as amended from time to time, is referred to herein as the “Cotter Jr. Derivative Action” and his complaint, as amended from time to time, is referred to herein as the “Cotter Jr. Derivative Complaint.” The defendant directors named in the Cotter Jr. Derivative Complaint, from time to time, are referred to herein as the “Defendant Directors.”

The Cotter Jr. Derivative Complaint alleges among other things, that the Defendant Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by terminating Mr. Cotter, Jr. as President and Chief Executive Officer, continuing to make use of the Executive Committee that has been in place for more than the past ten years (but which no longer includes Mr. Cotter, Jr. as a member), making allegedly potentially misleading statements in our Company’s press releases and filings with the SEC, paying certain compensation to Ellen Cotter, allowing the Cotter Estate to make use of Class A Stock to pay for the exercise of certain long outstanding stock options to acquire 100,000 shares of Class B Stock (the “Cotter Estate Stock Options”) held of record by the Cotter Estate and determined by the Nevada District Court to be assets of the Cotter Estate, and allowing Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter to vote the 100,000 shares of Class B Stock issued upon the exercise of such options, appointing Ellen Cotter as President and Chief Executive Officer, appointing Margaret Cotter as Executive Vice President-Real Estate Management and Development-NYC, and the way in which the Board handled an unsolicited indication of interest made by a third party to acquire all of the stock of our Company. In the lawsuit, Mr. Cotter, Jr. seeks reinstatement as President and Chief Executive Officer, a declaration that Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter may not vote the above referenced 100,000 shares of Class B Stock, and alleges as damages fluctuations in the price for our Company’s shares after the announcement of his termination as President and Chief Executive Officer and certain unspecified damages to our Company’s reputation.

On December 29, 2017, the Nevada District Court entered its final order memorializing its determination on December 11, 2017 that Mr. Cotter, Jr., had failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact relating to the disinterestedness and/or independence of Directors Codding, Gould, Kane, McEachern and Wrotniak (the “Dismissed Directors”), and dismissing with prejudice all claims against them. Mr. Cotter, Jr., has appealed this final order to the Nevada Supreme Court. In that same final order, the Nevada District Court also memorialized its dismissal of all claims based upon what the Defendant Directors action in regard to what Mr. Cotter, Jr., characterize as an “offer” by Patton Vision, LLC (“Patton Vision”), to purchase all of the outstanding stock of our Company. The Nevada District Court ruled that Mr. Cotter, Jr., had failed “to show damages relating to an unenforceable, unsolicited, nonbinding offer.”

Also on December 29, 2017, the Board of Directors, by votes of 5 to 1 with 3 directors abstaining, voted to ratify the decision made by the Board of Directors on June 12, 2015, to terminate Mr. Cotter, Jr., as our Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer and to ratify the decision made by the Board’s Compensation and Stock Options Committee on September 21, 2015, to permit the Estate of James J. Cotter, Sr., to use shares of Class A Common Stock to exercise the Cotter Estate Stock Options. Voting in favor of the ratification motions were all of the Dismissed Directors: Directors Codding, Gould, Kane, McEachern and Wrotniak. Voting against ratification was the Plaintiff Mr. Cotter, Jr.. Abstaining were directors Guy Adams, Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter, who are now the only remaining Defendant Directors.

The trial of the remaining issues in the case against the remaining defendants in that case, which was scheduled to begin on January 8, 2018, was continued by the Nevada District Court at the request of Mr. Cotter, Jr. Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s request for a continuance was brought before the Nevada District Court on Monday, January 8, 2018, and came as a surprise to our Company and the Defendant Directors since Plaintiff counsel had advised the Nevada District Court as late as the afternoon of Friday, January 5, 2018, that Mr. Cotter, Jr. was prepared to begin jury selection that following Monday. Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s motion request for a continuance was based on an asserted medical condition (the nature of which has not been disclosed to our Company or the Defendant Directors). A new trial date of July 9, 2018 has been set. The remaining Defendant Directors and our Company have filed motions for summary judgment on a variety of theories, including ratification, which it is anticipated will be heard before trial.

On April 13, 2018, our Board of Directors appointed a special litigation committee (the “Special Litigation Committee”) comprised of our Lead Independent Director, William Gould (who will serve as chair) and Director Judy Codding to review the Cotter Jr. Derivative Litigation and determine whether the continued prosecution of that case is in the best interests of our Company.

The James J. Cotter, Jr., Fee Reimbursement Litigation: Mr. Cotter, Jr. also brought a direct action in the Nevada District Court (James J. Cotter, Jr. v. Reading International, Inc., a Nevada corporation; Does 1-100 and Roe Entities, 1-100, inclusive, Case No. A-16-735305-B) seeking advancement of attorney’s fees incurred in the Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration. Summary judgment was entered against Mr. Cotter, Jr. with respect to that direct action on October 3, 2016.

The James J. Cotter, Jr., Employment Arbitration: In addition, our Company is in arbitration with Mr. Cotter, Jr. (Reading International, Inc. v. James J. Cotter, AAA Case No. 01-15-0004-2384, filed July 2015) (the “Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration”) seeking declaratory relief and defending claims asserted by Mr. Cotter, Jr. On January 20, 2017, Mr. Cotter Jr. filed a First Amended Counter-Complaint which includes claims of breach of contract, contractual indemnification, retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5, wrongful discharge, and violations of California Code of Procedure § 1060 based on allegations of unlawful and unfair conduct. Mr. Cotter, Jr. seeks compensatory damages estimated by his counsel at more than $1.2 million, plus unquantified special and punitive damages, penalties, interest and attorney’s fees. On April 9, 2017, the Arbitrator granted without leave to amend the Company’s motion to dismiss Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s claims for retaliation, violation of labor code §1102.5 and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration is in the discovery phase.

The T2 Derivative Litigation: For a period of approximately 12 months, between August 6, 2015 and August 4, 2016, our Company and our directors other than Mr. Cotter, Jr. were subject to a derivative lawsuit filed in the Nevada District Court captioned T2 Partners Management, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business as Kase Capital Management; T2 Accredited Fund, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business as Kase Fund; T2 Qualified Fund, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business as Kase Qualified Fund; Tilson Offshore Fund, Ltd, a Cayman Islands exempted company; T2 Partners Management I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, doing business as Kase Management; T2 Partners Management Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, doing business as Kase Group; JMG Capital Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Pacific Capital Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “T2 Plaintiffs”), derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, Ellen Cotter, Guy Adams, Edward Kane, Douglas McEachern, Timothy Storey, William Gould and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, as defendants, and, Reading International, Inc., a Nevada corporation, as Nominal Defendant. That complaint was subsequently amended (as amended the “T2 Derivative Complaint”) to add as defendants Directors Judy Codding and Michael Wrotniak (collectively with the directors initially named the “T2 Defendant Directors”) and S. Craig Tompkins, our Company’s legal counsel (collectively with the T2 Defendant Directors, the “T2 Defendants”). The T2 Derivative Action was settled pursuant to a Settlement Agreement between the parties dated August 4, 2016, which as modified was approved by the Nevada District Court on October 6, 2016. The District Court’s Order provided for the dismissal with prejudice of all claims contained in the T2 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and provide that each side would be responsible for its own attorneys’ fees.

In the joint press release issued by our Company and the T2 Plaintiffs on July 13, 2016, representatives of the T2 Plaintiffs stated as follows: "We are pleased with the conclusions reached by our investigations as Plaintiff Stockholders and now firmly believe that the Reading Board of Directors has and will continue to protect stockholder interests and will continue to work to maximize shareholder value over the long-term. We appreciate the Company's willingness to engage in open dialogue and are excited about the Company's prospects. Our questions about the termination of James Cotter, Jr., and various transactions between Reading and members of the Cotter family-or entities they control-have been definitively addressed and put to rest. We are impressed by measures the Reading Board has made over the past year to further strengthen corporate governance. We fully support the Reading Board and management team and their strategy to create stockholder value.”

The T2 Plaintiffs alleged in their T2 Derivative Complaint various violations of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste by the T2 Defendant Directors. More specifically the T2 Derivative Complaint sought the reinstatement of James J. Cotter, Jr. as President and Chief Executive Officer, an order setting aside the election results from the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, based on an allegation that Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter were not entitled to vote the shares of Class B Common Stock held by the Cotter Estate and the Cotter Trust, and certain monetary damages, as well as equitable injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs of suit. In May 2016, the T2 Plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought a preliminary injunction (i) enjoining the Inspector of Elections from counting at our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders any proxies purporting to vote either the 327,808 Class B shares held of record by the Cotter Estate or the 696,080 Class B shares held of record by the Cotter Trust, and (ii) enjoining Ellen Cotter, Margaret Cotter and James J. Cotter, Jr. from voting the above referenced shares at the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. This request for preliminary injunctive relief was denied by the Nevada District Court after a hearing on May 26, 2016.

The Cotter Trust Litigation:

Up until his death on September 13, 2014, James J. Cotter, Sr., the father of Ellen Cotter, James J. Cotter, Jr. and Margaret Cotter, was our controlling stockholder, having the sole power to vote approximately 66.9% of the outstanding voting stock of the Company. Under applicable Nevada Law, a stockholder holding more than 2/3rds of the Company’s voting stock has the power at any time, with or without cause, to remove any one or more directors (up to and including the entire board of directors) by written consent taken without a meeting of the stockholders.

Following the death of Mr. Cotter, Sr., disputes arose among Ellen Cotter, James J. Cotter, Jr. and Margaret Cotter concerning the voting control and disposition of those shares. These disputes initially resulted in an action brought by Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter on February 5, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (the “California Superior Court”), in the case captioned In re James J. Cotter Living Trust dated August 1, 2000 (Case No. BP159755) (the “Trust Case”), to determine which of two trust documents controlled the living trust created by their father (the “Cotter Living Trust”). On March 23, 2018, the California Superior Court ruled that the trust document advocated by Mr. Cotter, Jr., was invalid. Accordingly, Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter are the Co-Trustees of the Cotter Living Trust, and Margaret Cotter is the sole Trustee of the voting sub-trust to be formed under the Cotter Living Trust to eventually hold Class B Voting Stock representing approximately 66.9% of the outstanding voting stock of our Company (the “Cotter Voting Trust”).

Prior to this ruling, Mr. Cotter Jr. on or about February 8, 2017, brought an ex parte motion in the Trust Case seeking the appointment of a trustee ad litem to market and potentially sell the voting stock to be held by the Cotter Voting Trust. In light of our Board’s determination that it would be in the best interests of our Company and our stockholders generally to continue to pursue our Company’s business plan, and not to sell the Company at this time, the potential disruption to the achievement of that business plan and to the business and affairs of our Company generally if there were to be a change of control transaction at this time, the commitment of Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter to the pursuit and fulfilment of that business plan, our Company has made filings in the California Superior Court opposing such an appointment of a trustee ad litem.

As of March 31, 2018, according to the books of the Company, the Cotter Living Trust held of record 696,080 shares of our Class B Stock constituting approximately 41.4% of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock. According to the books of the Company, the Estate of James J. Cotter (the “Cotter Estate”) as of that date held of record an additional 427,808 shares of Class B Stock, constituting approximately 25.5% of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock. We are advised, based upon public filings made by one or more of Ellen Cotter, Margaret Cotter and James J. Cotter, Jr. (the “Cotter Filings”) that the Class B Stock currently held of record by the Cotter Estate will eventually pour over into the Cotter Living Trust where it will then be placed in the Cotter Voting Trust. At the present time, however, such Class B Stock is held of record by the Cotter Living Trust and the Cotter Estate, respectively. Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter are also the Co-Executors of the Cotter Estate.

On March 23, 2018, the California Superior Court ruled that it would appoint a temporary trustee ad litem (the “TTAL”) “with the narrow and specific authority to obtain offers to purchase the RDI stock in the voting trust, but not to exercise any other powers without court approval, specifically the sale of the company or any other powers possessed by the trustees.” No TTAL has been appointed to date.

On April 12, 2018, following the application for a writ by Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter as the Trustees of the Cotter Living Trust, the California Court of Appeals stayed all trial court proceedings and issued an Order to Show Cause as to why it should not vacate the California Superior Court’s Order that a trustee ad litem be appointed to market the above referenced RDI stock.

The California Superior Court, in the Trust Case, has jurisdiction over the Cotter Living Trust, which as described in more detail above, currently owns 41.4% of our Class B Stock, and, at such time as the Cotter Estate is probated, may receive up to an additional 25.5% of our Class B Stock, has jurisdiction over a potentially controlling block of our voting power. Should the California Superior Court order the sale of the Cotter Living Trust’s Class B Stock and such sale be completed, then there may be a change of control of our Company, depending on, among other things, who the ultimate purchaser(s) of such shares might be, the number of shares of Class B Stock distributed by the Cotter Estate to the Cotter Living Trust, and whether the California Superior Court orders a sale of all or only some portion to the Class B Stock held by the Cotter Living Trust.

Costs of Litigation/Arbitration: Our Company is and was legally obligated to cover the costs and expenses incurred by our Defendant Directors in defending the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action and the T2 Derivative Action. Furthermore, although in a derivative action the stockholder plaintiff seeks only damages or other relief for the benefit of our Company, and not for the stockholder plaintiff’s individual benefit and, accordingly, although our Company is, at least in theory, only a nominal defendant, as a practical matter our Company has a direct interest in defending against Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s claims and opposing the remedies he is seeking. Mr. Cotter, Jr. is, among other things, (a) seeking an order that our Board’s termination of Mr. Cotter, Jr. was ineffective and demanding, as a remedy, that he be reinstated as the President and Chief Executive Officer of our Company, (b) seeking an order limiting the use of our Board’s Executive Committee, and (c) asserting that our Company has made materially misleading statements in certain press releases and filings with the SEC. Accordingly, our Company is also incurring, on its own account, significant cost and expense defending the decision to terminate Mr. Cotter, Jr. as President and Chief Executive Officer, its board committee structure, and the adequacy of those press releases and filings, in addition to its costs incurred in responding to discovery demands and satisfying indemnity obligations to the Defendant Directors. Likewise, in connection with the T2 Derivative Action, our Company incurred substantial costs defending claims related to the defense of claims relating to the termination of Mr. Cotter, Jr., opposing his reinstatement, and defending the conduct of its annual meetings. Cost incurred in the Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration and in the defense of the Cotter Jr. Attorney’s fees case were direct costs of our Company.

The Directors and Officer’s Insurance Policy, in the amount of $10 million, being used to cover a portion of the costs of defending the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action, has been exhausted. We are now covering the defense costs of the Defendant Directors, in addition to our own costs incurred in connection with the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action. In 2017, these out-of-pocket costs totaled approximately $4.0 million. Costs of the litigation for the quarter ended were $1.4 million, compared to $645,000 for the same period in 2017.

Our Company has also incurred legal expense representing the interests of our Company in the Trust Case, opposing Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s Ex Parte Motion to seek a trustee ad litem to market stock potentially representing a controlling interest in our Company without the involvement of our Board of Directors and without any safeguards to protect the interests of non-controlling stockholders.

The Special Independent Committee. On August 7, 2017, our Board appointed a Special Independent Committee to, among other things, review, consider, deliberate, investigate, analyze, explore, evaluate, monitor and exercise general oversight of any and all activities of the Company directly or indirectly involving, responding to or relating to the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action, the Cotter Jr. Employment Arbitration, the Cotter Trust Litigation, and any other litigation or arbitration matters involving any one or more of Ellen Cotter, Margaret Cotter, James J. Cotter, Jr., the Cotter Estate and/or the Cotter Living Trust.

The STOMP Arbitration

In April 2015, Liberty Theatres, LLC (“Liberty”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, commenced an American Arbitration Association arbitration proceeding against The Stomp Company Limited Partnership (“Stomp”), the producer of the show STOMP, in response to Stomp’s purported termination of their license agreement with Liberty relating to such show. STOMP has been playing at our Orpheum Theatre in New York City for 23 years and still continues to play to date. Liberty sought specific performance, injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. Stomp counterclaimed for unspecified damages, alleging that Liberty has interfered with the Stomp’s endeavors to move the show to another Off-Broadway theater. Stomp based its purported termination of the license agreement upon the alleged deficient condition of the Orpheum Theater.

On December 18, 2015, the Arbitrator issued his Partial Final Award of Arbitration, providing for, among other things (i) the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting Stomp from “transferring or taking actions to market, promote, or otherwise facilitate any transfer of, STOMP to another theatre in New York City having fewer than 500 seats without Liberty’s prior written consent”, (ii) the Stomp’s Notice of Termination purportedly terminating the parties’ license agreement was invalid, null and void and the License Agreement remains in full force and effect, and (iii) the award to Liberty of its reasonable attorneys’ fees in an amount to be determined by the Arbitrator.

In explaining his decision to award Liberty its reasonable attorneys’ fees, the Arbitrator stated as follows: “Liberty is entitled to such an award [of attorneys’ fees] not only because it is the prevailing party in this proceeding, but because [the Producer] unfairly disparaged the Orpheum and caused Liberty to incur attorneys’ fees in order to address and resolve [the Producer’s] groundless and frivolous allegations with respect to the Orpheum’s condition, Liberty’s performance under the License Agreement, and Stomp’s reasons for seeking to transfer STOMP to a larger theatre.”

In April 2016, we received a Final Award in our arbitration with Stomp. The Final Award awards us $2.3 million in attorney’s fees and costs. In September 2016, the parties agreed on the payment terms of the Final Award (“Payment Agreement”), on a basis that is intended to allow recovery by Liberty of the entire Final Award (plus interest at 4%), while at the same time allowing the show to continue playing at our Orpheum Theater. The total of $2.3 million plus interest has now been paid in full, final payment being received on March 5, 2018. STOMP continues to play at our Orpheum Theater.