Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 29, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Chapter 11 Reorganization— On December 8, 2008 (the “Petition Date”), Tribune Company and 110 of its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions for relief (collectively, the “Chapter 11 Petitions”) under chapter 11 (“Chapter 11”) of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”). On October 12, 2009, Tribune CNLBC, LLC (formerly known as Chicago National League Ball Club, LLC), which held the majority of the assets and liabilities related to the businesses of the Chicago Cubs Major League Baseball franchise, also filed a Chapter 11 Petition and thereafter became a Debtor. As further described in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, a plan of reorganization for the Debtors became effective and the Debtors emerged from Chapter 11 on December 31, 2012 (the “Effective Date”). From the Petition Date and until the Effective Date, the Debtors operated their businesses as “debtors-in-possession” under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and applicable orders of the Bankruptcy Court. See Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014 for additional information regarding the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases. Where appropriate, the Company and its business operations as conducted on or prior to December 30, 2012 are also herein referred to collectively as the “Predecessor.” The Company and its business operations as conducted on or subsequent to the Effective Date are also herein referred to collectively as the “Successor,” “Reorganized Debtors” or “Reorganized Tribune Company.” On April 12, 2012, the Debtors, the official committee of unsecured creditors appointed in the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases, and creditors under certain of the Predecessor’s prepetition debt facilities, filed the Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization for Tribune Company and its Subsidiaries with the Bankruptcy Court (as subsequently modified, the “Plan”). On July 23, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order confirming the Plan (the “Confirmation Order”). The Plan constitutes a separate plan of reorganization for each of the Debtors and sets forth the terms and conditions of the Debtors’ reorganization. See the “Terms of the Plan” section in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014 for a description of the terms and conditions of the confirmed Plan. On March 16, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered a final decree closing 88 of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases. The remaining Debtors’ Chapter 11 proceedings continue to be jointly administered under the caption In re Tribune Media Company, et al., Case No. 08-13141. Since the Effective Date, Reorganized Tribune Company has substantially consummated the various transactions contemplated under the Plan. In particular, the Company has made all distributions of cash, Common Stock and Warrants (each as defined and described in Note 11) that were required to be made under the terms of the Plan to creditors holding allowed claims as of December 31, 2012. Claims of general unsecured creditors that become allowed claims on or after the Effective Date have been or will be paid on the next quarterly distribution date after such allowance. Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Company is also obligated to make certain additional payments to certain creditors, including certain distributions that may become due and owing subsequent to the Effective Date and certain payments to holders of administrative expense priority claims and fees earned by professional advisors during the Chapter 11 proceedings. On the Effective Date, Reorganized Tribune Company held restricted cash of $187 million which was estimated to be sufficient to satisfy such obligations. At March 29, 2015, restricted cash held by the Company to satisfy the remaining claim obligations was $18 million and is estimated to be sufficient to satisfy such obligations. If the aggregate allowed amount of the remaining claims exceeds the restricted cash held for satisfying such claims, the Company would be required to satisfy the allowed claims from its cash on hand from operations. Confirmation Order Appeals—Notices of appeal of the Confirmation Order were filed on July 23, 2012 by (i) Aurelius Capital Management, LP (“Aurelius”), on behalf of its managed entities that were holders of the Predecessor’s senior notes and Exchangeable Subordinated Debentures due 2029 (“PHONES”) and (ii) Law Debenture Trust Company of New York (“Law Debenture”), successor trustee under the indenture for the Predecessor’s prepetition 6.61% debentures due 2027 and the 7.25% debentures due 2096, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“Deutsche Bank”), successor trustee under the indentures for the Predecessor’s prepetition medium-term notes due 2008, 4.875% notes due 2010, 5.25% notes due 2015, 7.25% debentures due 2013 and 7.5% debentures due 2023. Additional notices of appeal were filed on August 2, 2012 by Wilmington Trust Company (“WTC”), as successor indenture trustee for the PHONES, and on August 3, 2012 by EGI-TRB, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company wholly-owned by Sam Investment Trust (a trust established for the benefit of Samuel Zell and his family) (the “Zell Entity,” and, together with Aurelius, Law Debenture, Deutsche Bank and WTC, the “Appellants”). The confirmation appeals were transmitted to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”) and were consolidated, together with two previously-filed appeals by WTC of the Bankruptcy Court’s orders relating to certain provisions in the Plan, under the caption Wilmington Trust Co. v. Tribune Co. (In re Tribune Co.), Case Nos. 12-cv-128, 12-mc-108, 12-cv-1072, 12-cv-1073, 12-cv-1100 and 12-cv-1106. Case No. 12-mc-108 was closed without disposition on January 14, 2014. The Appellants seek, among other relief, to overturn the Confirmation Order and certain prior orders of the Bankruptcy Court embodied in the Plan, including the settlement of certain claims and causes of action related to the series of transactions (collectively, the “Leveraged ESOP Transactions”) consummated by the Predecessor, the Tribune Company employee stock ownership plan, the Zell Entity and Samuel Zell in 2007. See “Terms of the Plan” in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014 for a description of the terms and conditions of the confirmed Plan and “Certain Causes of Action Arising From the Leveraged ESOP Transactions” in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014 for a description of the Leveraged ESOP Transactions. WTC and the Zell Entity also sought to overturn determinations made by the Bankruptcy Court concerning the priority in right of payment of the PHONES and the subordinated promissory notes held by the Zell Entity and its permitted assignees, respectively. There is currently no stay of the Confirmation Order in place pending resolution of the confirmation-related appeals. In January 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the appeals as equitably moot, based on the substantial consummation of the Plan. On June 18, 2014, the Delaware District Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. The effect of the order was to dismiss all of the appeals, with the exception of the relief requested by the Zell Entity concerning the priority in right of payment of the subordinated promissory notes held by the Zell Entity and its permitted assignees with respect to any state law fraudulent transfer claim recoveries from a creditor trust that was proposed to be formed under a prior version of the Plan, but was not formed under the Plan as confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court. The Delaware District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling to the extent it opined on that issue. On July 16, 2014, Aurelius, Law Debenture and Deutsche Bank timely appealed the Delaware District Court’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Briefing before the Third Circuit was completed on February 2, 2015, and oral arguments were heard on April 16, 2015. If the Appellants are successful in overturning the Confirmation Order and certain prior orders of the Bankruptcy Court, our financial condition may be adversely affected. Resolution of Outstanding Prepetition Claims—As of the Effective Date, approximately 7,400 proofs of claim had been filed against the Debtors. Additional claims were filed after the Effective Date, including to amend or supplement previously filed claims. Additional claims were also included in the Debtors’ respective schedules of assets and liabilities which were filed with the Bankruptcy Court. Amounts and payment terms for these claims, if applicable, were established in the Plan. As of April 30, 2015, approximately 3,260 proofs of claim had been withdrawn, expunged or satisfied as a result of the Debtors’ evaluation of the filed proofs of claim and their efforts to reduce and/or eliminate invalid, duplicative and/or over-stated claims. In addition, approximately 3,750 proofs of claim had been settled or otherwise satisfied pursuant to the terms of the Plan. However, as of April 30, 2015, approximately 440 proofs of claim remain subject to further evaluation and adjustments, of which approximately 20 proofs of claim relate to Tribune Publishing Debtor cases that were assumed by Tribune Publishing in connection with the Publishing Spin-off. The majority of the remaining proofs of claim were filed by certain of the Company’s former directors and officers, asserting indemnity and other related claims against the Company for claims brought against them in lawsuits that were transferred to a litigation trust formed, pursuant to the Plan, to pursue certain causes of action arising from the Leveraged ESOP Transactions for the benefit of certain creditors that received interests in the litigation trust as part of their distributions under the Plan (the “Litigation Trust”). Those lawsuits are pending in multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “NY District Court”) in proceedings captioned In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, under the consolidated docket numbers 1:11-md-02296 and 1:12-mc-02296. See “Certain Causes of Action Arising From the Leveraged ESOP Transactions” in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014 for a description of the MDL proceedings in the NY District Court. Under the Plan, such indemnity-type claims against the Company must be set off against any recovery by the Litigation Trust against any of the directors and officers, and the Litigation Trust is authorized to object to the allowance of any such indemnity-type claims. Adjustments to prepetition claims may result from, among other things, negotiations with creditors, further orders of the Bankruptcy Court and, in certain instances, litigation. The ultimate amounts to be paid in settlement of each of these claims, including indemnity claims, will continue to be subject to uncertainty for a period of time after the Effective Date. Reorganization Items, Net—ASC Topic 852, “Reorganizations,” requires that the financial statements for periods subsequent to the filing of the Chapter 11 Petitions distinguish transactions and events that are directly associated with the reorganization from the operations of the business. Accordingly, revenues, expenses (including professional fees), realized gains and losses, and provisions for losses directly associated with the reorganization and restructuring of the business are reported in reorganization items, net in the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations included herein. Reorganization costs include provisions and adjustments to reflect the carrying value of certain prepetition liabilities at their estimated allowable claim amounts as well as professional advisory fees and other costs directly associated with the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases. Reorganization items, net included in the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three months ended March 29, 2015 and March 30, 2014 totaled $1 million and $2 million, respectively. Operating net cash outflows resulting from reorganization costs for the three months ended March 29, 2015 and March 30, 2014 totaled $1 million and $2 million, respectively. The Company expects to continue to incur certain expenses pertaining to the Chapter 11 proceedings throughout 2015 and in future periods. These expenses will include primarily professional advisory fees and other costs related to the implementation of the Plan and the resolution of unresolved claims. FCC Regulation—Various aspects of the Company’s operations are subject to regulation by governmental authorities in the United States. The Company’s television and radio broadcasting operations are subject to FCC jurisdiction under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. FCC rules, among other things, govern the term, renewal and transfer of radio and television broadcasting licenses, and limit the number of media interests in a local market that a single entity can own. Federal law also regulates the rates charged for political advertising and the quantity of advertising within children’s programs. Television and radio broadcast station licenses are granted for terms of up to eight years and are subject to renewal by the FCC in the ordinary course, at which time they may be subject to petitions to deny the license renewal applications. As of May 8, 2015, the Company had FCC authorization to operate 39 television stations and one AM radio station. Timely filed renewal applications for 12 of those stations are currently pending. The Company is subject, among other regulations, to the FCC’s “Local Television Multiple Ownership Rule” (the “Duopoly Rule”) and “Newspaper Broadcast Cross Ownership Rule” (the “NBCO Rule”). See Note 12 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014 for the description of the rules and their applicability to the Company’s operations. The Company’s television/newspaper interests are subject to a temporary waiver of the NBCO Rule which was granted by the FCC in conjunction with its approval of the Plan (the “Exit Order”). On November 12, 2013, the Company filed with the FCC a request for extension of the temporary NBCO Rule waivers granted in the Exit Order. That request is pending. Meanwhile, in its pending 2014 Quadrennial Review of the ownership rules, the FCC is considering a proposal that would modify the NBCO Rule by establishing a favorable presumption with respect to certain daily newspaper/broadcast combinations in the 20 largest markets and a rebuttable negative presumption with respect to such combinations in all other markets. The proceeding is pending. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding or whether the FCC will allow the Company’s existing temporary (New York) waiver to remain in effect pending the conclusion of the proceeding. The FCC’s “National Television Multiple Ownership Rule” prohibits the Company from owning television stations that, in the aggregate, reach more than 39% of total U.S. television households, subject to a 50% discount of the number of television households attributable to UHF stations (the “UHF Discount”). The Company’s current national reach would exceed the 39% cap on an undiscounted basis. In a pending rulemaking proceeding the FCC has proposed to repeal the UHF Discount but to grandfather existing combinations that exceed the 39% cap. Under the FCC’s proposal, absent a waiver, a grandfathered station group would have to come into compliance with the modified cap upon a sale or transfer of control. If adopted as proposed, the elimination of the UHF Discount would affect the Company’s ability to acquire additional television stations (including the Dreamcatcher stations that are the subject of certain option rights held by the Company, see Note 1 for further information). Under FCC policy and precedent a television station or newspaper publisher may provide certain operational support and other services to a separately-owned television station in the same market pursuant to a “shared services agreement” (“SSA”) where the Duopoly Rule or NBCO Rule would not permit common ownership of the properties. The FCC authorized the Company to provide services (not including advertising sales) under SSAs to the Dreamcatcher stations in conjunction with its approval of the Company’s Local TV Acquisition (“Local TV Transfer Order”). In its pending 2014 Quadrennial Review proceeding, the FCC is seeking comment on proposals to adopt reporting requirements for SSAs. The Company cannot predict the outcome of that proceeding or its effect on the Company’s business or operations. Meanwhile, in a public notice released on March 12, 2014, the FCC announced that pending and future transactions involving SSAs will be subject to a higher level of scrutiny if they include a combination of certain operational and economic features. Although the Company currently has no transactions pending before the FCC that would be subject to such higher scrutiny, this policy could limit the Company’s future ability to enter into SSAs or similar arrangements. In a Report and Order issued on April 15, 2014, the FCC amended its rules to treat any “joint sales agreement” (“JSA”) pursuant to which a television station sells more than 15% of the weekly advertising time of another television station in the same market as an attributable ownership interest subject to the Duopoly Rule. A similar rule already was in effect for radio JSAs. Pursuant to that order and related legislation, existing JSAs that create impermissible duopolies must be unwound or revised to come into compliance by December 19, 2016. The Company is not a party to any JSAs. An appeal of the FCC’s April 15, 2014 Report and Order is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued on March 31, 2014, the FCC is seeking comment on whether to eliminate or modify its “network non-duplication” and “syndicated exclusivity” rules, pursuant to which local television stations may enforce their contractual exclusivity rights with respect to network and syndicated programming. In addition, the FCC adopted a rule prohibiting two or more separately owned top-4 stations in a market from negotiating jointly for retransmission consent. However, in STELAR, Congress directed the FCC to adopt (within nine months) regulations that will prohibit a television station from coordinating retransmission consent negotiations or negotiating retransmission consent on a joint basis with a separately owned television station in the same market, irrespective of ratings. The Company does not currently engage in retransmission consent negotiations jointly with any other stations in its markets. The Company cannot predict the impact of the new rule or the FCC’s further proposals on our business. From time to time, the FCC revises existing regulations and policies in ways that could affect the Company’s broadcasting operations. In addition, Congress from time to time considers and adopts substantive amendments to the governing communications legislation. For example, legislation was enacted in February 2012 that, among other things, authorizes the FCC to conduct voluntary “incentive auctions” in order to reallocate certain spectrum currently occupied by television broadcast stations to mobile wireless broadband services, to “repack” television stations into a smaller portion of the existing television spectrum band and to require television stations that do not participate in the auction to modify their transmission facilities, subject to reimbursement for reasonable relocation costs up to an industry-wide total of $1.75 billion. If some or all of the Company’s television stations are required to change frequencies or otherwise modify their operations, the stations could incur substantial conversion costs, reduction or loss of over-the-air signal coverage or an inability to provide high definition programming and additional program streams. In a Report and Order released on June 2, 2014, the FCC adopted rules to implement the incentive auction and repacking and identified additional proceedings it intends to conduct related to the incentive auction. Petitions for reconsideration of certain aspects of these rules remain pending, and the Report and Order is also subject to a petition for judicial review. The FCC has continued to release additional orders related to the repacking and incentive auctions. The Company cannot predict the likelihood, timing or outcome of any FCC regulatory action in this regard or its effect upon the Company’s business. The Company completed the Local TV Acquisition on December 27, 2013 pursuant to FCC staff approval granted on December 20, 2013 in the Local TV Transfer Order, as further described in Note 5 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014. On January 22, 2014, Free Press filed an Application for Review seeking review by the full Commission of the Local TV Transfer Order. The Company filed an Opposition to the Application for Review on February 21, 2014. Free Press filed a reply on March 6, 2014. The matter is pending. Other Contingencies—The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants from time to time in actions for matters arising out of their business operations. In addition, the Company and its subsidiaries are involved from time to time as parties in various regulatory, environmental and other proceedings with governmental authorities and administrative agencies. See Note 9 for a discussion of potential income tax liabilities. The Company does not believe that any other matters or proceedings presently pending will have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Chapter 11 Reorganization— On December 8, 2008 (the “Petition Date”), Tribune Company and 110 of its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions for relief (collectively, the “Chapter 11 Petitions”) under chapter 11 (“Chapter 11”) of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”). On October 12, 2009, Tribune CNLBC, LLC (formerly known as Chicago National League Ball Club, LLC), which held the majority of the assets and liabilities related to the businesses of the Chicago Cubs Major League Baseball franchise, also filed a Chapter 11 Petition and thereafter became a Debtor. As further described in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, a plan of reorganization for the Debtors became effective and the Debtors emerged from Chapter 11 on December 31, 2012 (the “Effective Date”). From the Petition Date and until the Effective Date, the Debtors operated their businesses as “debtors-in-possession” under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and applicable orders of the Bankruptcy Court. See Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014 for additional information regarding the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases.

Where appropriate, the Company and its business operations as conducted on or prior to December 30, 2012 are also herein referred to collectively as the “Predecessor.” The Company and its business operations as conducted on or subsequent to the Effective Date are also herein referred to collectively as the “Successor,” “Reorganized Debtors” or “Reorganized Tribune Company.”

On April 12, 2012, the Debtors, the official committee of unsecured creditors appointed in the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases, and creditors under certain of the Predecessor’s prepetition debt facilities, filed the Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization for Tribune Company and its Subsidiaries with the Bankruptcy Court (as subsequently modified, the “Plan”). On July 23, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order confirming the Plan (the “Confirmation Order”). The Plan constitutes a separate plan of reorganization for each of the Debtors and sets forth the terms and conditions of the Debtors’ reorganization. See the “Terms of the Plan” section in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014 for a description of the terms and conditions of the confirmed Plan. On March 16, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered a final decree closing 88 of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases. The remaining Debtors’ Chapter 11 proceedings continue to be jointly administered under the caption In re Tribune Media Company, et al., Case No. 08-13141.

Since the Effective Date, Reorganized Tribune Company has substantially consummated the various transactions contemplated under the Plan. In particular, the Company has made all distributions of cash, Common Stock and Warrants (each as defined and described in Note 11) that were required to be made under the terms of the Plan to creditors holding allowed claims as of December 31, 2012. Claims of general unsecured creditors that become allowed claims on or after the Effective Date have been or will be paid on the next quarterly distribution date after such allowance.

Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Company is also obligated to make certain additional payments to certain creditors, including certain distributions that may become due and owing subsequent to the Effective Date and certain payments to holders of administrative expense priority claims and fees earned by professional advisors during the Chapter 11 proceedings. On the Effective Date, Reorganized Tribune Company held restricted cash of $187 million which was estimated to be sufficient to satisfy such obligations. At March 29, 2015, restricted cash held by the Company to satisfy the remaining claim obligations was $18 million and is estimated to be sufficient to satisfy such obligations. If the aggregate allowed amount of the remaining claims exceeds the restricted cash held for satisfying such claims, the Company would be required to satisfy the allowed claims from its cash on hand from operations.

Confirmation Order Appeals—Notices of appeal of the Confirmation Order were filed on July 23, 2012 by (i) Aurelius Capital Management, LP (“Aurelius”), on behalf of its managed entities that were holders of the Predecessor’s senior notes and Exchangeable Subordinated Debentures due 2029 (“PHONES”) and (ii) Law Debenture Trust Company of New York (“Law Debenture”), successor trustee under the indenture for the Predecessor’s prepetition 6.61% debentures due 2027 and the 7.25% debentures due 2096, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“Deutsche Bank”), successor trustee under the indentures for the Predecessor’s prepetition medium-term notes due 2008, 4.875% notes due 2010, 5.25% notes due 2015, 7.25% debentures due 2013 and 7.5% debentures due 2023. Additional notices of appeal were filed on August 2, 2012 by Wilmington Trust Company (“WTC”), as successor indenture trustee for the PHONES, and on August 3, 2012 by EGI-TRB, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company wholly-owned by Sam Investment Trust (a trust established for the benefit of Samuel Zell and his family) (the “Zell Entity,” and, together with Aurelius, Law Debenture, Deutsche Bank and WTC, the “Appellants”). The confirmation appeals were transmitted to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”) and were consolidated, together with two previously-filed appeals by WTC of the Bankruptcy Court’s orders relating to certain provisions in the Plan, under the caption Wilmington Trust Co. v. Tribune Co. (In re Tribune Co.), Case Nos. 12-cv-128, 12-mc-108, 12-cv-1072, 12-cv-1073, 12-cv-1100 and 12-cv-1106. Case No. 12-mc-108 was closed without disposition on January 14, 2014.

The Appellants seek, among other relief, to overturn the Confirmation Order and certain prior orders of the Bankruptcy Court embodied in the Plan, including the settlement of certain claims and causes of action related to the series of transactions (collectively, the “Leveraged ESOP Transactions”) consummated by the Predecessor, the Tribune Company employee stock ownership plan, the Zell Entity and Samuel Zell in 2007. See “Terms of the Plan” in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014 for a description of the terms and conditions of the confirmed Plan and “Certain Causes of Action Arising From the Leveraged ESOP Transactions” in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014 for a description of the Leveraged ESOP Transactions. WTC and the Zell Entity also sought to overturn determinations made by the Bankruptcy Court concerning the priority in right of payment of the PHONES and the subordinated promissory notes held by the Zell Entity and its permitted assignees, respectively. There is currently no stay of the Confirmation Order in place pending resolution of the confirmation-related appeals. In January 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the appeals as equitably moot, based on the substantial consummation of the Plan. On June 18, 2014, the Delaware District Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. The effect of the order was to dismiss all of the appeals, with the exception of the relief requested by the Zell Entity concerning the priority in right of payment of the subordinated promissory notes held by the Zell Entity and its permitted assignees with respect to any state law fraudulent transfer claim recoveries from a creditor trust that was proposed to be formed under a prior version of the Plan, but was not formed under the Plan as confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court. The Delaware District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling to the extent it opined on that issue. On July 16, 2014, Aurelius, Law Debenture and Deutsche Bank timely appealed the Delaware District Court’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Briefing before the Third Circuit was completed on February 2, 2015, and oral arguments were heard on April 16, 2015. If the Appellants are successful in overturning the Confirmation Order and certain prior orders of the Bankruptcy Court, our financial condition may be adversely affected.

Resolution of Outstanding Prepetition Claims—As of the Effective Date, approximately 7,400 proofs of claim had been filed against the Debtors. Additional claims were filed after the Effective Date, including to amend or supplement previously filed claims. Additional claims were also included in the Debtors’ respective schedules of assets and liabilities which were filed with the Bankruptcy Court. Amounts and payment terms for these claims, if applicable, were established in the Plan. As of April 30, 2015, approximately 3,260 proofs of claim had been withdrawn, expunged or satisfied as a result of the Debtors’ evaluation of the filed proofs of claim and their efforts to reduce and/or eliminate invalid, duplicative and/or over-stated claims. In addition, approximately 3,750 proofs of claim had been settled or otherwise satisfied pursuant to the terms of the Plan.

However, as of April 30, 2015, approximately 440 proofs of claim remain subject to further evaluation and adjustments, of which approximately 20 proofs of claim relate to Tribune Publishing Debtor cases that were assumed by Tribune Publishing in connection with the Publishing Spin-off. The majority of the remaining proofs of claim were filed by certain of the Company’s former directors and officers, asserting indemnity and other related claims against the Company for claims brought against them in lawsuits that were transferred to a litigation trust formed, pursuant to the Plan, to pursue certain causes of action arising from the Leveraged ESOP Transactions for the benefit of certain creditors that received interests in the litigation trust as part of their distributions under the Plan (the “Litigation Trust”). Those lawsuits are pending in multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “NY District Court”) in proceedings captioned In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, under the consolidated docket numbers 1:11-md-02296 and 1:12-mc-02296. See “Certain Causes of Action Arising From the Leveraged ESOP Transactions” in Note 3 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014 for a description of the MDL proceedings in the NY District Court. Under the Plan, such indemnity-type claims against the Company must be set off against any recovery by the Litigation Trust against any of the directors and officers, and the Litigation Trust is authorized to object to the allowance of any such indemnity-type claims.

Adjustments to prepetition claims may result from, among other things, negotiations with creditors, further orders of the Bankruptcy Court and, in certain instances, litigation. The ultimate amounts to be paid in settlement of each of these claims, including indemnity claims, will continue to be subject to uncertainty for a period of time after the Effective Date.

Reorganization Items, Net—ASC Topic 852, “Reorganizations,” requires that the financial statements for periods subsequent to the filing of the Chapter 11 Petitions distinguish transactions and events that are directly associated with the reorganization from the operations of the business. Accordingly, revenues, expenses (including professional fees), realized gains and losses, and provisions for losses directly associated with the reorganization and restructuring of the business are reported in reorganization items, net in the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations included herein. Reorganization costs include provisions and adjustments to reflect the carrying value of certain prepetition liabilities at their estimated allowable claim amounts as well as professional advisory fees and other costs directly associated with the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases.

Reorganization items, net included in the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three months ended March 29, 2015 and March 30, 2014 totaled $1 million and $2 million, respectively.

Operating net cash outflows resulting from reorganization costs for the three months ended March 29, 2015 and March 30, 2014 totaled $1 million and $2 million, respectively.

The Company expects to continue to incur certain expenses pertaining to the Chapter 11 proceedings throughout 2015 and in future periods. These expenses will include primarily professional advisory fees and other costs related to the implementation of the Plan and the resolution of unresolved claims.

FCC Regulation—Various aspects of the Company’s operations are subject to regulation by governmental authorities in the United States. The Company’s television and radio broadcasting operations are subject to FCC jurisdiction under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. FCC rules, among other things, govern the term, renewal and transfer of radio and television broadcasting licenses, and limit the number of media interests in a local market that a single entity can own. Federal law also regulates the rates charged for political advertising and the quantity of advertising within children’s programs.

Television and radio broadcast station licenses are granted for terms of up to eight years and are subject to renewal by the FCC in the ordinary course, at which time they may be subject to petitions to deny the license renewal applications. As of May 8, 2015, the Company had FCC authorization to operate 39 television stations and one AM radio station. Timely filed renewal applications for 12 of those stations are currently pending.

The Company is subject, among other regulations, to the FCC’s “Local Television Multiple Ownership Rule” (the “Duopoly Rule”) and “Newspaper Broadcast Cross Ownership Rule” (the “NBCO Rule”). See Note 12 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014 for the description of the rules and their applicability to the Company’s operations.

The Company’s television/newspaper interests are subject to a temporary waiver of the NBCO Rule which was granted by the FCC in conjunction with its approval of the Plan (the “Exit Order”). On November 12, 2013, the Company filed with the FCC a request for extension of the temporary NBCO Rule waivers granted in the Exit Order. That request is pending. Meanwhile, in its pending 2014 Quadrennial Review of the ownership rules, the FCC is considering a proposal that would modify the NBCO Rule by establishing a favorable presumption with respect to certain daily newspaper/broadcast combinations in the 20 largest markets and a rebuttable negative presumption with respect to such combinations in all other markets. The proceeding is pending. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding or whether the FCC will allow the Company’s existing temporary (New York) waiver to remain in effect pending the conclusion of the proceeding.

The FCC’s “National Television Multiple Ownership Rule” prohibits the Company from owning television stations that, in the aggregate, reach more than 39% of total U.S. television households, subject to a 50% discount of the number of television households attributable to UHF stations (the “UHF Discount”). The Company’s current national reach would exceed the 39% cap on an undiscounted basis. In a pending rulemaking proceeding the FCC has proposed to repeal the UHF Discount but to grandfather existing combinations that exceed the 39% cap. Under the FCC’s proposal, absent a waiver, a grandfathered station group would have to come into compliance with the modified cap upon a sale or transfer of control. If adopted as proposed, the elimination of the UHF Discount would affect the Company’s ability to acquire additional television stations (including the Dreamcatcher stations that are the subject of certain option rights held by the Company, see Note 1 for further information).

Under FCC policy and precedent a television station or newspaper publisher may provide certain operational support and other services to a separately-owned television station in the same market pursuant to a “shared services agreement” (“SSA”) where the Duopoly Rule or NBCO Rule would not permit common ownership of the properties. The FCC authorized the Company to provide services (not including advertising sales) under SSAs to the Dreamcatcher stations in conjunction with its approval of the Company’s Local TV Acquisition (“Local TV Transfer Order”). In its pending 2014 Quadrennial Review proceeding, the FCC is seeking comment on proposals to adopt reporting requirements for SSAs. The Company cannot predict the outcome of that proceeding or its effect on the Company’s business or operations. Meanwhile, in a public notice released on March 12, 2014, the FCC announced that pending and future transactions involving SSAs will be subject to a higher level of scrutiny if they include a combination of certain operational and economic features. Although the Company currently has no transactions pending before the FCC that would be subject to such higher scrutiny, this policy could limit the Company’s future ability to enter into SSAs or similar arrangements. In a Report and Order issued on April 15, 2014, the FCC amended its rules to treat any “joint sales agreement” (“JSA”) pursuant to which a television station sells more than 15% of the weekly advertising time of another television station in the same market as an attributable ownership interest subject to the Duopoly Rule. A similar rule already was in effect for radio JSAs. Pursuant to that order and related legislation, existing JSAs that create impermissible duopolies must be unwound or revised to come into compliance by December 19, 2016. The Company is not a party to any JSAs. An appeal of the FCC’s April 15, 2014 Report and Order is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued on March 31, 2014, the FCC is seeking comment on whether to eliminate or modify its “network non-duplication” and “syndicated exclusivity” rules, pursuant to which local television stations may enforce their contractual exclusivity rights with respect to network and syndicated programming. In addition, the FCC adopted a rule prohibiting two or more separately owned top-4 stations in a market from negotiating jointly for retransmission consent. However, in STELAR, Congress directed the FCC to adopt (within nine months) regulations that will prohibit a television station from coordinating retransmission consent negotiations or negotiating retransmission consent on a joint basis with a separately owned television station in the same market, irrespective of ratings. The Company does not currently engage in retransmission consent negotiations jointly with any other stations in its markets. The Company cannot predict the impact of the new rule or the FCC’s further proposals on our business.

From time to time, the FCC revises existing regulations and policies in ways that could affect the Company’s broadcasting operations. In addition, Congress from time to time considers and adopts substantive amendments to the governing communications legislation. For example, legislation was enacted in February 2012 that, among other things, authorizes the FCC to conduct voluntary “incentive auctions” in order to reallocate certain spectrum currently occupied by television broadcast stations to mobile wireless broadband services, to “repack” television stations into a smaller portion of the existing television spectrum band and to require television stations that do not participate in the auction to modify their transmission facilities, subject to reimbursement for reasonable relocation costs up to an industry-wide total of $1.75 billion. If some or all of the Company’s television stations are required to change frequencies or otherwise modify their operations, the stations could incur substantial conversion costs, reduction or loss of over-the-air signal coverage or an inability to provide high definition programming and additional program streams. In a Report and Order released on June 2, 2014, the FCC adopted rules to implement the incentive auction and repacking and identified additional proceedings it intends to conduct related to the incentive auction. Petitions for reconsideration of certain aspects of these rules remain pending, and the Report and Order is also subject to a petition for judicial review. The FCC has continued to release additional orders related to the repacking and incentive auctions. The Company cannot predict the likelihood, timing or outcome of any FCC regulatory action in this regard or its effect upon the Company’s business.

The Company completed the Local TV Acquisition on December 27, 2013 pursuant to FCC staff approval granted on December 20, 2013 in the Local TV Transfer Order, as further described in Note 5 to the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014. On January 22, 2014, Free Press filed an Application for Review seeking review by the full Commission of the Local TV Transfer Order. The Company filed an Opposition to the Application for Review on February 21, 2014. Free Press filed a reply on March 6, 2014. The matter is pending.

Other Contingencies—The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants from time to time in actions for matters arising out of their business operations. In addition, the Company and its subsidiaries are involved from time to time as parties in various regulatory, environmental and other proceedings with governmental authorities and administrative agencies. See Note 9 for a discussion of potential income tax liabilities.

The Company does not believe that any other matters or proceedings presently pending will have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.