Commitments And Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	NOTE 14 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 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 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 During the period June 2015 through October 2020, the directors of the Company were subject to certain derivative claims brought by James J. Cotter, Jr. in the Nevada District Court in a case captioned James J. Cotter, Jr., individually and derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, et al.” Case No: A-15-719860-V. The case was resolved by the Court in favor of the directors and the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice. Costs in the amount of $809,000 were assessed against the plaintiff. 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. 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 final settlement agreement has been executed and delivered by the parties, and initially approved by the Court (the “Settlement Agreement”). A hearing on final approval of the Settlement Agreement is scheduled for April 18, 2023. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, 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. However, Plaintiffs’ counsel has approved a request by the Company to modify that payment schedule to provide for payments as follows: (i) $1,270,000 within 30 days of final court approval, (ii) $1,270,000 within nine months of final court approval, and (iii) $1,460,000 on December 2, 2024. This modification of the payment schedule is subject to Court approval. We accrued the Settlement Amount in 2021 as a cinema segment administrative expense. General Distributors Limited v. Reading Wellington Properties Arbitration On June 18, 2021, General Distributors 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. Effective August 26, 2022, this matter was resolved by the parties’ written settlement agreement to the effect that the ATL has terminated and is at an end and that any and all rights or claims arising under or in respect of the ATL have lapsed or are, by such settlement, waived and abandoned, including any and all right or claims against any of our Company’s properties in Wellington, New Zealand. No amounts in settlement were paid by either party, and each party bore its own legal costs and expenses. The costs of the arbitrator were shared equally by the parties. The matter is now at an end.

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 significant to our Company.

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

During the period June 2015 through October 2020, the directors of the Company were subject to certain derivative claims brought by James J. Cotter, Jr. in the Nevada District Court in a case captioned James J. Cotter, Jr., individually and derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, et al.” Case No: A-15-719860-V. The case was resolved by the Court in favor of the directors and the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice. Costs in the amount of $809,000 were assessed against the plaintiff.

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.

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 final settlement agreement has been executed and delivered by the parties, and initially approved by the Court (the “Settlement Agreement”). A hearing on final approval of the Settlement Agreement is scheduled for April 18, 2023. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, 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. However, Plaintiffs’ counsel has approved a request by the Company to modify that payment schedule to provide for payments as follows: (i) $1,270,000 within 30 days of final court approval, (ii) $1,270,000 within nine months of final court approval, and (iii) $1,460,000 on December 2, 2024. This modification of the payment schedule is subject to Court approval. We accrued the Settlement Amount in 2021 as a cinema segment administrative expense.

General Distributors Limited v. Reading Wellington Properties Arbitration

On June 18, 2021, General Distributors 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. Effective August 26, 2022, this matter was resolved by the parties’ written settlement agreement to the effect that the ATL has terminated and is at an end and that any and all rights or claims arising under or in respect of the ATL have

lapsed or are, by such settlement, waived and abandoned, including any and all right or claims against any of our Company’s properties in Wellington, New Zealand. No amounts in settlement were paid by either party, and each party bore its own legal costs and expenses. The costs of the arbitrator were shared equally by the parties. The matter is now at an end.