Commitments, Contingencies And Guarantees

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Commitments, Contingencies And Guarantees

Commitments, Contingencies And Guarantees

NOTE 6 — COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND GUARANTEES

The Company and its subsidiaries are currently involved in certain legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business and, as required, the Company has accrued its estimate of the probable costs for 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.

On or about July 12, 2006 and April 12, 2007, two of the Company's operating businesses (L&C Outdoor Ltda. ("L&C") and Publicidad Klimes São Paulo Ltda. ("Klimes"), respectively) in the São Paulo, Brazil market received notices of infraction from the state taxing authority, seeking to impose a value added tax ("VAT") on such businesses, retroactively for the period from December 31, 2001 through January 31, 2006. The taxing authority contends that these businesses fall within the definition of "communication services" and as such are subject to the VAT.

L&C and Klimes have filed separate petitions to challenge the imposition of this tax. L&C's challenge was unsuccessful at the first administrative level, but successful at the second administrative level. The state taxing authority filed an appeal to the third and final administrative level, which required consideration by a full panel of 16 administrative law judges. On September 27, 2010, L&C received an unfavorable ruling at this final administrative level, which concluded that the VAT applied. L&C intends to appeal this ruling to the judicial level. In addition, L&C has filed a petition to have the case remanded to the second administrative level for consideration of the reasonableness of the amount of the penalty assessed against it. The amounts allegedly owed by L&C are approximately $8.8 million in taxes, approximately $17.5 million in penalties and approximately $31.6 million in interest (as of September 30, 2011 at an exchange rate of 0.547). On August 8, 2011, Brazil's National Council of Fiscal Policy (CONFAZ) published a rule authorizing sixteen states, including the State of São Paulo, to reduce the principal amount of VAT allegedly owed for communications services; the rule also authorizes the states to reduce or waive related interest and penalties. The State of São Paulo ratified the amnesty in late August 2011. However, it is not required to reduce the principal amount of VAT or waive the payment of penalties and interest. In late 2011 or early 2012, the Company expects the São Paulo state legislature to pass legislation setting forth the precise terms of the amnesty. Based on the uncertainty of any amnesty terms that may be offered, the Company does not know whether the offered terms will be acceptable. Accordingly, the Company continues to vigorously pursue its case in the administrative courts and, if necessary, in the relevant appellate courts. At September 30, 2011, the range of reasonably possible loss is from zero to approximately $58 million. The maximum loss that could ultimately be paid depends on the timing of the final resolution at the judicial level and applicable future interest rates. Based on the Company's review of the law, the outcome of similar cases at the judicial level and the advice of counsel, the Company has not accrued any costs related to these claims and believes the occurrence of loss is not probable.

Klimes' challenge was unsuccessful at the first administrative level, and denied at the second administrative level on or about September 24, 2009. On January 5, 2011, the administrative law judges at the third administrative level published a ruling that the VAT applies but significantly reduced the penalty assessed by the taxing authority. With the penalty reduction, the amounts allegedly owed by Klimes are approximately $9.9 million in taxes, approximately $4.9 million in penalties and approximately $19.3 million in interest (as of September 30, 2011 at an exchange rate of 0.547). In late February 2011, Klimes filed a writ of mandamus in the 13th lower public treasury court in São Paulo, State of São Paulo, appealing the administrative court's decision that the VAT applies. On that same day, Klimes filed a motion for an injunction barring the taxing authority from collecting the tax, penalty and interest while the appeal is pending. The court denied the motion in early April 2011. Klimes filed a motion for reconsideration with the court and also appealed that ruling to the São Paulo State Higher Court, which affirmed in late April 2011. On June 20, 2011, the 13th lower public treasury court in São Paulo reconsidered its prior ruling and granted Klimes an injunction suspending any collection effort by the taxing authority until a decision on the merits is obtained at the first judicial level. On August 8, 2011, Brazil's National Council of Fiscal Policy (CONFAZ) published a rule authorizing sixteen states, including the State of São Paulo, to reduce the principal amount of VAT allegedly owed for communications services; the rule also authorizes the states to reduce or waive related interest and penalties. The State of São Paulo ratified the amnesty in late August 2011. However, it is not required to reduce the principal amount of VAT or waive the payment of penalties and interest. In late 2011 or early 2012, the Company expects the São Paulo state legislature to pass legislation setting forth the precise terms of the amnesty. Based on the uncertainty of any amnesty terms that may be offered, the Company does not know whether the offered terms will be acceptable. Accordingly, the Company continues to vigorously pursue its appeal in the 13th lower public treasury court. At September 30, 2011, the range of reasonably possible loss is from zero to approximately $34 million. The maximum loss that could ultimately be paid depends on the timing of the final resolution at the judicial level and applicable future interest rates. Based on the Company's review of the law, the outcome of similar cases at the judicial level and the advice of counsel, the Company has not accrued any costs related to these claims and believes the occurrence of loss is not probable.

At September 30, 2011, Clear Channel guaranteed $39.7 million of credit lines provided to certain of its international subsidiaries by a major international bank. Most of these credit lines related to intraday overdraft facilities covering participants in Clear Channel's European cash management pool. As of September 30, 2011, no amounts were outstanding under these agreements.

As of September 30, 2011, Clear Channel had outstanding commercial standby letters of credit and surety bonds of $136.9 million and $49.3 million, respectively. Letters of credit in the amount of $9.1 million are collateral in support of surety bonds and these amounts would only be drawn under the letter of credit in the event the associated surety bonds were funded and Clear Channel did not honor its reimbursement obligation to the issuers. These letters of credit and surety bonds relate to various operational matters including insurance, bid, and performance bonds as well as other items.

As of September 30, 2011, Clear Channel had outstanding bank guarantees of $58.3 million. Bank guarantees in the amount of $4.3 million are backed by cash collateral.