The Company accounts for its rentals that include renewal options, annual rent escalation clauses, minimum franchise payments and maintenance related to displays under the guidance in ASC 840.

The Company considers its non-cancelable contracts that enable it to display advertising on buses, bus shelters, trains, etc. to be leases in accordance with the guidance in ASC 840-10. These contracts may contain minimum annual franchise payments which generally escalate each year. The Company accounts for these minimum franchise payments on a straight-line basis. If the rental increases are not scheduled in the lease, such as an increase based on subsequent changes in the index or rate, those rents are considered contingent rentals and are recorded as expense when accruable. Other contracts may contain a variable rent component based on revenue. The Company accounts for these variable components as contingent rentals and records these payments as expense when accruable. No single contract or lease is material to the Company's operations.

The Company accounts for annual rent escalation clauses included in the lease term on a straight-line basis under the guidance in ASC 840-20-25. The Company considers renewal periods in determining its lease terms if at inception of the lease there is reasonable assurance the lease will be renewed. Expenditures for maintenance are charged to operations as incurred, whereas expenditures for renewal and betterments are capitalized.

The Company leases office space, certain broadcasting facilities, equipment and the majority of the land occupied by its outdoor advertising structures under long-term operating leases. The Company accounts for these leases in accordance with the policies described above.

The Company's contracts with municipal bodies or private companies relating to street furniture, billboards, transit and malls generally require the Company to build bus stops, kiosks and other public amenities or advertising structures during the term of the contract. The Company owns these structures and is generally allowed to advertise on them for the remaining term of the contract. Once the Company has built the structure, the cost is capitalized and expensed over the shorter of the economic life of the asset or the remaining life of the contract.

In addition, the Company has commitments relating to required purchases of property, plant and equipment under certain street furniture contracts. Certain of the Company's contracts contain penalties for not fulfilling its commitments related to its obligations to build bus stops, kiosks and other public amenities or advertising structures. Historically, any such penalties have not materially impacted the Company's financial position or results of operations.

Certain acquisition agreements include deferred consideration payments based on performance requirements by the seller typically involving the completion of a development or obtaining appropriate permits that enable the Company to construct additional advertising displays. At December 31, 2013, the Company believes its maximum aggregate contingency, which is subject to performance requirements by the seller, is approximately $30.0 million. As the contingencies have not been met or resolved as of December 31, 2013, these amounts are not recorded.

As of December 31, 2013, the Company's future minimum rental commitments under non-cancelable operating lease agreements with terms in excess of one year, minimum payments under non-cancelable contracts in excess of one year, capital expenditure commitments and employment/talent contracts consist of the following:

(In thousands)					Capital
	Non-Cancelable		Non-Cancelable		Expenditure		Employment/Talent
	Operating Leases		Contracts		Commitments		Contracts
2014	$	401,390	$	533,454	$	44,224	$	84,009
2015		377,981		422,395		27,007		76,770
2016		309,239		341,684		14,382		72,223
2017		266,063		200,411		2,454		30,618
2018		226,722		987		152		11,000
Thereafter		1,344,727		539,324		23,532		-
Total	$	2,926,122	$	2,038,255	$	111,751	$	274,620

Rent expense charged to operations for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 was $1.16 billion, $1.14 billion and $1.16 billion, respectively.

In various areas in which the Company operates, outdoor advertising is the object of restrictive and, in some cases, prohibitive zoning and other regulatory provisions, either enacted or proposed. The impact to the Company of loss of displays due to governmental action has been somewhat mitigated by Federal and state laws mandating compensation for such loss and constitutional restraints.

The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in certain legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business and, as required, have accrued an estimate of the probable costs for the resolution of those claims for which the occurrence of loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. These estimates have been developed in consultation with counsel and are based upon an analysis of potential results, assuming a combination of litigation and settlement strategies. It is possible, however, that future results of operations for any particular period could be materially affected by changes in the Company's assumptions or the effectiveness of its strategies related to these proceedings. Additionally, due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, there can be no assurance that the resolution of any particular claim or proceeding would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations.

Although the Company is involved in a variety of legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business, a large portion of its litigation arises in the following contexts: commercial disputes; defamation matters; employment and benefits related claims; governmental fines; intellectual property claims; and tax disputes.

Two derivative lawsuits were filed in March 2012 in Delaware Chancery Court by stockholders of CCOH, an indirect non-wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. The consolidated lawsuits were captioned In re Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 7315-CS. The complaints named as defendants certain of the Company's and CCOH's current and former directors and the Company, as well as Bain Capital and THL. CCOH also was named as a nominal defendant. The complaints alleged, among other things, that in December 2009 the Company breached fiduciary duties to CCOH and its stockholders by allegedly requiring CCOH to agree to amend the terms of a revolving promissory note payable by the Company to CCOH (the “Note”) to extend the maturity date of the Note and to amend the interest rate payable on the Note. According to the complaints, the terms of the amended Note were unfair to CCOH because, among other things, the interest rate was below market. The complaints further alleged that the Company was unjustly enriched as a result of that transaction. The complaints also alleged that the director defendants breached fiduciary duties to CCOH in connection with that transaction and that the transaction constituted corporate waste. On March 28, 2013, to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of further litigation, and without admitting the validity of any allegations made in the complaint, legal counsel for the defendants entered into a binding memorandum of understanding (the “MOU”) with legal counsel for a special litigation committee consisting of certain independent directors of CCOH and the plaintiffs to settle the litigation. On July 8, 2013, the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement, on terms consistent with the MOU, and presented the Stipulation of Settlement to the Delaware Chancery Court for approval. The Company and CCOH filed the Stipulation of Settlement with the SEC as an exhibit to their respective Current Reports on Form 8-K filed on July 9, 2013. On September 9, 2013, the Delaware Chancery Court approved the settlement and, on October 9, 2013, the right to appeal expired. On October 19, 2013, in accordance with the terms of the settlement, CCOH's board of directors (i) notified the Company of its intent to make a demand for repayment of $200 million outstanding under the Note on November 8, 2013, (ii) declared a dividend of $200 million, which was conditioned upon the Company satisfying such demand, and (iii) established a committee of the board of directors for the specific purpose of monitoring the Note. On October 23, 2013, the Company and CCOH amended the Note in accordance with the terms of the settlement. The Company and CCOH announced CCOH's intent to make a demand for repayment of $200 million outstanding under the Note and CCOH's declaration of the dividend in their respective Current Reports on Form 8-K filed on October 21, 2013, filed a copy of the amendment to the Note as an exhibit to their respective Current Reports on Form 8-K filed on October 23, 2013 and announced the demand and dividend payment in their respective Current Reports on Form 8-K filed on November 8, 2013.

In 2008, Summit Media, LLC, one of the Company's competitors, sued the City of Los Angeles (the “City”), Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. and CBS Outdoor in Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BS116611) challenging the validity of a settlement agreement that had been entered into in November 2006 among the parties. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. had taken down existing billboards and converted 83 existing signs from static displays to digital displays pursuant to modernization permits issued through an administrative process of the City. The Los Angeles Superior Court ruled in January 2010 that the settlement agreement constituted an ultra vires act of the City and nullified its existence, but did not invalidate the modernization permits issued to Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. and CBS. All parties appealed the ruling by the Los Angeles Superior Court to Court of Appeal for the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division 8. On December 10, 2012, the Court of Appeal issued an order upholding the Superior Court's finding that the settlement agreement was ultra vires and remanding the case to the Superior Court for the purpose of invalidating the modernization permits issued to Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. and CBS for the digital displays that were the subject of the settlement agreement. On January 22, 2013, Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. filed a petition with the California Supreme Court requesting its review of the matter, and the Supreme Court denied that petition on February 27, 2013. On April 12, 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court invalidated 82 digital modernization permits issued to Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. (77 of which displays were operating at the time of the ruling) and 13 issued to CBS and ordered that the companies turn off the electrical power to affected digital displays by the close of business on April 15, 2013. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. has complied with the order. On April 16, 2013, the Court conducted further proceedings during which it held that it was not invalidating two additional digital modernization permits that Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. had secured through a special zoning plan and confirmed that its April 12 order invalidated only digital modernization permits – no other types of permits the companies may have secured for the signs at issue. Summit Media, LLC filed a further motion requesting that the Court order the demolition of the 82 sign structures on which the now-invalidated digital signs operated, as well as the invalidation of several other permits for traditional signs allegedly issued under the settlement agreement. At a hearing held on November 22, 2013, the Court denied Summit Media, LLC's demolition motion by allowing the 82 sign structures and their LED faces to remain intact, thus allowing Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. to seek permits under the existing City sign code to either wrap the LED faces with vinyl or convert the LED faces to traditional static signs. The Court further confirmed the invalidation of all permits issued under the settlement agreement. In anticipation of this order, Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. had removed six static billboard facings solely permitted under the settlement agreement. At a hearing held on January 21, 2014, the Court denied Summit Media, LLC's motion for attorney's fees on the basis that Summit Media, LLC had a substantial financial interest in the outcome of the litigation and, therefore, was not entitled to fees under California's private attorney general statute.