COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments and Contingencies

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.

As of December 31, 2016, 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
2017	$	464,877	$	435,186	$	49,618	$	64,222
2018	414,790		331,815		7,348		52,134
2019	384,257		286,270		4,449		48,093
2020	353,934		229,104		1,962		45,500
2021	320,798		191,197		2,097		6,250
Thereafter	2,147,942		411,341		12,242		—
Total	$	4,086,598	$	1,884,913	$	77,716	$	216,199

Rent expense charged to operations for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 was $1.12 billion, $1.14 billion and $1.17 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.

International Outdoor Investigation

On April 21, 2015, inspections were conducted at the premises of Clear Channel in Denmark and Sweden as part of an investigation by Danish competition authorities. Additionally, on the same day, Clear Channel UK received a communication from the UK competition authorities, also in connection with the investigation by Danish competition authorities. Clear Channel and its affiliates are cooperating with the national competition authorities.

Stockholder Litigation

On May 9, 2016, a stockholder of CCOH filed a derivative lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned GAMCO Asset Management Inc. v. iHeartMedia Inc. et al., C.A. No. 12312-VCS. The complaint names as defendants the Company, iHeartCommunications, Inc. ("iHeartCommunications"), an indirect subsidiary of the Company, Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P. (together, the "Sponsor Defendants"), the Company's private equity sponsors and majority owners, and the members of CCOH's board of directors. CCOH also is named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties by causing CCOH to: (i) continue to loan cash to iHeartCommunications under the intercompany note at below-market rates; (ii) abandon its growth and acquisition strategies in favor of transactions that would provide cash to the Company and iHeartCommunications; (iii) issue new debt in the CCIBV note offering (the "CCIBV Note Offering") to provide cash to the Company and iHeartCommunications through a dividend; and (iv) effect the sales of certain outdoor markets in the U.S. (the "Outdoor Asset Sales") allegedly to provide cash to the Company and iHeartCommunications through a dividend. The complaint also alleges that the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor Defendants aided and abetted the directors' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint further alleges that the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor Defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of these transactions and that these transactions constituted a waste of corporate assets for which the defendants are liable to CCOH. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, a ruling that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to CCOH and that the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor Defendants aided and abetted the CCOH board of directors' breaches of fiduciary duty, rescission of payments made by CCOH to iHeartCommunications and its affiliates pursuant to dividends declared in connection with the CCIBV Note Offering and Outdoor Asset Sales, and an order requiring the Company, iHeartCommunications and the Sponsor Defendants to disgorge all profits they have received as a result of the alleged fiduciary misconduct.

On July 20, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's verified stockholder derivative complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On November 23, 2016, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss all claims brought by the plaintiff. On December 19, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the ruling.