Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies Litigation General Insofar as our Company is aware, there are no claims, arbitration proceedings, or litigation proceedings that constitute material contingent liabilities of our Company. Such 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. Discussed below are certain litigation matters which, however, have been or may be significant to our Company. Litigation Matters 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, as permitted under ASC 450-20 Loss Contingencies. 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. 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 environmental conditions at properties that we have acquired for development and which will need to be addressed in the future as part of the development process. 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 to asbestos and/or 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 employees of our historic railroad operations and who may claim direct or 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. Derivative Litigation This action was originally brought by James J. Cotter, Jr. (“Cotter Jr.”) in June 2015 in the Nevada District Court against all of the Directors of our Company and against our Company as a nominal defendant: James J. Cotter, Jr., individually and derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, et al.” Case No: A-15-719860-V. On October 1, 2020, the Nevada Supreme Court determined that the District Court had erred when it denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case for lack of standing on the part of Cotter, Jr., to bring such an action, vacated the District Court’s orders denying the motions to dismiss and remanded for entry of judgment. The Supreme Court sustained the District Court’s award to our Company of costs in the amount of $809,000. Final judgment was entered on October 1, 2020 and the costs award has been paid. This matter is now at an end. California Employment Litigation Our Company is currently a defendant in certain California employment matters which include substantially overlapping wage and hour claims relating to our California cinema operations as described below. Taylor Brown, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Reading Cinemas et al. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern, Case No. BCV-19-1000390 (“Brown v. RC,” and the “Brown Class Action Complaint”) was initially filed in December 2018, as an individual action and refiled as a putative class action in February 2019, but not served until June 24, 2019. Peter M. Wagner, Jr., an individual, vs. Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, Case NO. 37-2019-00030695-CU-WT-CTL (“Wagner v. CEI,” and the “Wagner Individual Complaint”) was filed as a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in June 2019. The following month, in July 2019, a notice was served on us by separate counsel for Mr. Wagner under the California Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (Cal. Labor Code Section 2698, et seq) (the “Wagner PAGA Claim”) purportedly asserting in a representational capacity claims under the PAGA statute, overlapping, in substantial part, the allegations set forth in the Brown Class Action Complaint. On March 6, 2020, Wagner filed a purported class action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, again covering basically the same allegations as set forth in the Brown Class Action Complaint, and titled Peter M. Wagner, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. Reading International, Inc., Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. and Does 1 through 25, Case No. 37-2020-000127-CU-OE-CTL (the “Wagner Class Action” and the “Wagner Class Action Complaint”). Following mediation, the Wagner Individual Complaint was settled, and final judgment entered on February 10, 2021, at what we believe to have been its nuisance value. The remaining lawsuits seek damages, and attorneys’ fees, relating to alleged violations of California labor laws relating to meal periods, rest periods, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, timely pay upon termination and wage statements violations. On July 13, 2021, following a mediation, the parties agreed to settle the claims set forth in the remaining lawsuits (specifically, the Brown Class Action Complaint, the Wagner PAGA Claim and the Wagner Class Action Complaint) for the Company’s payment of $4.0 million (the “Settlement Amount”). The settlement is contingent upon the execution and delivery of a final settlement agreement (which is currently being negotiated) and final court approval. The Settlement Amount is to be paid in two installments, one-half within 30 days of final court approval and the balance nine-months thereafter. A court hearing on the settlement is not expected until the first quarter of 2022. We have accrued the Settlement Amount as a second quarter cinema segment administrative expense. General Diversified Limited v. Reading Wellington Properties Arbitration On June 18, 2021, General Diversified Limited (“GDL”), an owner and operator of supermarkets in New Zealand, filed an arbitration statement of claim (the “Statement of Claim”) in Auckland, New Zealand, against our wholly owned subsidiary, Reading Wellington Properties, Limited (“RWPL”), relating to the enforceability of an Agreement to Lease (the “ATL”) entered into between the parties in February 2013, contemplating the construction by RWPL and the lease by GDL of a supermarket in Wellington, New Zealand on property owned by RWPL. The ATL contemplated that GDL would also obtain certain rights to use parking spaces in an adjacent 9 story parking structure owned by another of our wholly owned subsidiaries, Courtenay Carpark Limited (the “Parking Garage”). However, as a result of the Kaikōura earthquake on November 14, 2016, it was necessary to demolish the Parking Garage. It has not been rebuilt and there is currently no plan to rebuild it and neither RWPL nor Courtenay Carpark Limited have any legal right to rebuild it under presently existing laws controlling land use in Wellington. Accordingly, we believe that it became impossible to deliver the specific parking rights contemplated by the ATL and, given the materiality of these parking rights to the transaction contemplated by the ATL, that the ATL has been frustrated and is of no ongoing force and effect. GDL asserts a different view and is seeking a declaration that the ATL remains binding upon the parties and for specific performance by RWPL of the ATL. RWPL has filed a response contesting GDL’s claims, and raising various affirmative defenses, including frustration and a failure of the parties to reach any specifically enforceable agreement as to certain fundament construction and construction cost issues. No damages are being sought by GDL, other than costs, and no reserves for this matter have been established. RWPL is a limited liability company, its only asset being the parcel of unimproved land on which the supermarket was to be built. In the interim, the parties have been having, and are continuing to have, “without prejudice” discussions as to possible alternatives pursuant to which a grocery store of the type contemplated by the parties could be developed and leased to GDL.

Commitments And Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]

Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies Litigation General Insofar as our Company is aware, there are no claims, arbitration proceedings, or litigation proceedings that constitute material contingent liabilities of our Company. Such 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. Discussed below are certain litigation matters which, however, have been or may be significant to our Company. Litigation Matters 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, as permitted under ASC 450-20 Loss Contingencies. 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. 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 environmental conditions at properties that we have acquired for development and which will need to be addressed in the future as part of the development process. 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 to asbestos and/or 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 employees of our historic railroad operations and who may claim direct or 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. Derivative Litigation This action was originally brought by James J. Cotter, Jr. (“Cotter Jr.”) in June 2015 in the Nevada District Court against all of the Directors of our Company and against our Company as a nominal defendant: James J. Cotter, Jr., individually and derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, et al.” Case No: A-15-719860-V. On October 1, 2020, the Nevada Supreme Court determined that the District Court had erred when it denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case for lack of standing on the part of Cotter, Jr., to bring such an action, vacated the District Court’s orders denying the motions to dismiss and remanded for entry of judgment. The Supreme Court sustained the District Court’s award to our Company of costs in the amount of $809,000. Final judgment was entered on October 1, 2020 and the costs award has been paid. This matter is now at an end. California Employment Litigation Our Company is currently a defendant in certain California employment matters which include substantially overlapping wage and hour claims relating to our California cinema operations as described below. Taylor Brown, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Reading Cinemas et al. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern, Case No. BCV-19-1000390 (“Brown v. RC,” and the “Brown Class Action Complaint”) was initially filed in December 2018, as an individual action and refiled as a putative class action in February 2019, but not served until June 24, 2019. Peter M. Wagner, Jr., an individual, vs. Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, Case NO. 37-2019-00030695-CU-WT-CTL (“Wagner v. CEI,” and the “Wagner Individual Complaint”) was filed as a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in June 2019. The following month, in July 2019, a notice was served on us by separate counsel for Mr. Wagner under the California Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (Cal. Labor Code Section 2698, et seq) (the “Wagner PAGA Claim”) purportedly asserting in a representational capacity claims under the PAGA statute, overlapping, in substantial part, the allegations set forth in the Brown Class Action Complaint. On March 6, 2020, Wagner filed a purported class action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, again covering basically the same allegations as set forth in the Brown Class Action Complaint, and titled Peter M. Wagner, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. Reading International, Inc., Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. and Does 1 through 25, Case No. 37-2020-000127-CU-OE-CTL (the “Wagner Class Action” and the “Wagner Class Action Complaint”). Following mediation, the Wagner Individual Complaint was settled, and final judgment entered on February 10, 2021, at what we believe to have been its nuisance value. The remaining lawsuits seek damages, and attorneys’ fees, relating to alleged violations of California labor laws relating to meal periods, rest periods, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, timely pay upon termination and wage statements violations. On July 13, 2021, following a mediation, the parties agreed to settle the claims set forth in the remaining lawsuits (specifically, the Brown Class Action Complaint, the Wagner PAGA Claim and the Wagner Class Action Complaint) for the Company’s payment of $4.0 million (the “Settlement Amount”). The settlement is contingent upon the execution and delivery of a final settlement agreement (which is currently being negotiated) and final court approval. The Settlement Amount is to be paid in two installments, one-half within 30 days of final court approval and the balance nine-months thereafter. A court hearing on the settlement is not expected until the first quarter of 2022. We have accrued the Settlement Amount as a second quarter cinema segment administrative expense. General Diversified Limited v. Reading Wellington Properties Arbitration On June 18, 2021, General Diversified Limited (“GDL”), an owner and operator of supermarkets in New Zealand, filed an arbitration statement of claim (the “Statement of Claim”) in Auckland, New Zealand, against our wholly owned subsidiary, Reading Wellington Properties, Limited (“RWPL”), relating to the enforceability of an Agreement to Lease (the “ATL”) entered into between the parties in February 2013, contemplating the construction by RWPL and the lease by GDL of a supermarket in Wellington, New Zealand on property owned by RWPL. The ATL contemplated that GDL would also obtain certain rights to use parking spaces in an adjacent 9 story parking structure owned by another of our wholly owned subsidiaries, Courtenay Carpark Limited (the “Parking Garage”). However, as a result of the Kaikōura earthquake on November 14, 2016, it was necessary to demolish the Parking Garage. It has not been rebuilt and there is currently no plan to rebuild it and neither RWPL nor Courtenay Carpark Limited have any legal right to rebuild it under presently existing laws controlling land use in Wellington. Accordingly, we believe that it became impossible to deliver the specific parking rights contemplated by the ATL and, given the materiality of these parking rights to the transaction contemplated by the ATL, that the ATL has been frustrated and is of no ongoing force and effect. GDL asserts a different view and is seeking a declaration that the ATL remains binding upon the parties and for specific performance by RWPL of the ATL. RWPL has filed a response contesting GDL’s claims, and raising various affirmative defenses, including frustration and a failure of the parties to reach any specifically enforceable agreement as to certain fundament construction and construction cost issues. No damages are being sought by GDL, other than costs, and no reserves for this matter have been established. RWPL is a limited liability company, its only asset being the parcel of unimproved land on which the supermarket was to be built. In the interim, the parties have been having, and are continuing to have, “without prejudice” discussions as to possible alternatives pursuant to which a grocery store of the type contemplated by the parties could be developed and leased to GDL.