

NOTE 13.	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

Cable Operations Litigation

Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC: The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York. After three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision compatible set-top boxes. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related state common law claims to proceed. Cablevision's answer to the third amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012. On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Motion practice and discovery have been stayed pending settlement discussions. While a loss is reasonably possible, the present state of settlement negotiations leaves the Company currently unable to estimate a range of possible loss.

In re Cablevision Consumer Litigation: Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and carriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May 2, 2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial summary judgment. On March 31, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. On May 5, 2014, the Court directed that expert discovery commence. Expert discovery is proceeding. On May 30, 2014, the Court approved the form of class notice, and on October 7, 2014, approved the class notice distribution plan. The class notice distribution has been completed, and the opt-out period expired on February 27, 2015. The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

Patent Litigation

Cablevision is named as a defendant in certain lawsuits claiming infringement of various patents relating to various aspects of the Company's businesses. In certain of these cases other industry participants are also defendants. In certain of these cases the Company expects that any potential liability would be the responsibility of the Company's equipment vendors pursuant to applicable contractual indemnification provisions. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

Other Litigation

Friedman v. Charles Dolan, et al.: On March 7, 2014, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in Delaware Chancery Court purportedly on behalf of the nominal defendant Cablevision against the Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), the Chairman of the Board, and certain other members of Cablevision's Board of Directors, including the members of the Compensation Committee. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duties to preserve corporate assets by allegedly causing or allowing Cablevision to grant excessive compensation packages to the CEO, the Chairman of the Board, and/or other members of the Board of Directors in the time period 2010 to 2012. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, disgorgement, costs, and attorneys' fees. Cablevision filed a pro forma answer on April 14, 2014, and on April 21, 2014 the individual defendants filed notices of motions to dismiss in lieu of an answer. The motions to dismiss were filed on June 16, 2014. Oral argument took place on January 23, 2015. On June 30, 2015, the Court granted the individual defendants’ motions to dismiss. On July 30, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The Company does not believe that this lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on results of operations or the financial position of the Company.

In April 2011, Thomas C. Dolan, a director and Executive Vice President, Strategy and Development, in the Office of the Chairman at Cablevision, filed a lawsuit against Cablevision and Rainbow Media Holdings LLC (which was subsequently dismissed as a party) in New York State Supreme Court. The lawsuit raises compensation-related claims related to events from 2005 to 2008. The matter is being handled under the direction of an independent committee of the Board of Directors of Cablevision. In April 2015, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on liability, with damages still to be determined. On June 18, 2015, the Company filed a notice of appeal. The Company has recorded an expense for the amount of damages reasonably estimable at this time, which is reflected in discontinued operations in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of income for the six months ended June 30, 2015 (see Note 10). It is possible that the amount of damages ultimately determined could exceed the amount recorded.

In addition to the matters discussed above, the Company is party to various lawsuits, some involving claims for substantial damages. Although the outcome of these other matters cannot be predicted and the impact of the final resolution of these other matters on the Company's results of operations in a particular subsequent reporting period is not known, management does not believe that the resolution of these other lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company or the ability of the Company to meet its financial obligations as they become due.