Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Guarantees

Letters of Credit and Surety Bonds

At March 31, 2023, we had outstanding letters of credit and surety bonds of $178 million that were not recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Letters of credit and surety bonds are primarily used as security against non-performance in the normal course of business.

CBS Television City

In connection with the sale of the CBS Television City property and sound stage operation (“CBS Television City”) in 2019, we guaranteed a specified level of cash flows to be generated by the business during the first five years following the completion of the sale. Included in “Other current liabilities” on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 2023 is a liability totaling $25 million, reflecting the present value of the remaining estimated amount payable under the guarantee obligation.

Lease Guarantees

We have certain indemnification obligations with respect to leases primarily associated with the previously discontinued operations of Famous Players Inc. These lease commitments totaled $17 million at March 31, 2023, and are presented within “Other liabilities” on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. The amount of lease commitments varies over time depending on the expiration or termination of individual underlying leases, or the related indemnification obligation, and foreign exchange rates, among other things. We may also have exposure for certain other expenses related to the leases, such as property taxes and common area maintenance. We believe our accrual is sufficient to meet any future obligations based on our consideration of available financial information, the lessees’ historical performance in meeting their lease obligations and the underlying economic factors impacting the lessees’ business models.

Other

In the course of our business, we both provide and receive indemnities which are intended to allocate certain risks associated with business transactions. Similarly, we may remain contingently liable for various obligations of a business that has been divested in the event that a third party does not live up to its obligations under an indemnification obligation. We record a liability for our indemnification obligations and other contingent liabilities when probable and reasonably estimable.

Legal Matters

General

On an ongoing basis, we vigorously defend ourselves in numerous lawsuits and proceedings and respond to various investigations and inquiries from federal, state, local and international authorities (collectively, “Litigation”). Litigation may be brought against us without merit, is inherently uncertain and always difficult to predict. However, based on our understanding and evaluation of the relevant facts and circumstances, we believe that the following matters are not likely, in the aggregate, to result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Stockholder Matters

Litigation Relating to the Merger

Beginning in February 2020, three purported CBS stockholders filed separate derivative and/or putative class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Delaware Chancery Court”). In March 2020, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the three lawsuits and appointed Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund and International Union of Operating Engineers of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware as co-lead plaintiffs for the consolidated action captioned In re CBS Corporation Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Litigation (the “CBS Litigation”). In April 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated Class Action and Derivative Complaint (as used in this paragraph, the “Complaint”) against Shari E. Redstone, National Amusements, Inc., Sumner M. Redstone National Amusements Trust, additional members of the CBS Board of Directors (including Candace K. Beinecke, Barbara M. Byrne, Gary L. Countryman, Linda M. Griego, Robert N. Klieger, Martha L. Minow, Susan Schuman, Frederick O. Terrell and Strauss Zelnick), former CBS President and Acting Chief Executive Officer Joseph Ianniello and the Company as nominal defendant. The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiation and approval of an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 13, 2019, between CBS and Viacom (as amended, the “Merger Agreement”). The Complaint also alleges waste and unjust enrichment in connection with certain aspects of Mr. Ianniello’s compensation awards. The Complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses, as well as other relief. In June 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint. In January 2021, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed one disclosure claim, while allowing all other claims against the defendants to proceed. On January 7, 2022, the Delaware Chancery Court granted Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund’s motion to withdraw as a co-lead plaintiff in the CBS Litigation. In December 2022, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed the fiduciary duty claim against Mr. Klieger.

In April 2023, the parties to the CBS Litigation agreed to settle the CBS Litigation on the terms and conditions set forth in a binding term sheet (the “CBS Term Sheet”), which will be incorporated into a long-form settlement agreement that will be subject to the final approval of the Delaware Chancery Court. The CBS Term Sheet provides for, among other things, the final dismissal of the CBS Litigation in exchange for a settlement payment to the Company in the amount of $167.5 million, less administrative costs and plaintiffs’ counsels’ fees and expenses.

Beginning in November 2019, four purported Viacom stockholders filed separate putative class action lawsuits in the Delaware Chancery Court. In January 2020, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the four lawsuits. In February 2020, the Delaware Chancery Court appointed California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) as lead plaintiff for the consolidated action. Subsequently, in February 2020, CalPERS, together with Park Employees’ and Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago and Louis M. Wilen, filed a First Amended Verified Class Action Complaint (as used in this paragraph, the “Complaint”) against NAI, NAI Entertainment Holdings LLC, Shari E. Redstone, the members of the special transaction committee of the Viacom Board of Directors (comprised of Thomas J. May, Judith A. McHale, Ronald L. Nelson and Nicole Seligman) and our President and Chief Executive Officer and director, Robert M. Bakish (as used in this paragraph, the “Viacom Litigation”). The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to Viacom stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the Merger Agreement. The Complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses, as well as other relief. In May 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. In December 2020, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed the claims against Mr. Bakish, while allowing the claims against the remaining defendants to proceed. In February 2023, the parties to the Viacom Litigation agreed to settle the Viacom Litigation on the terms and conditions set forth in a binding term sheet (the “Viacom Term Sheet”), which was incorporated into a long-form settlement agreement entered into in March 2023 (the “Settlement Agreement”). The Viacom Term Sheet and Settlement Agreement provide for, among other things, the final dismissal of the Viacom Litigation in exchange for a settlement payment in the amount of $122.5 million, which

we have recorded in "Other current liabilities" on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The settlement of the Viacom Litigation is subject to the final approval of the Delaware Chancery Court, and the vast majority of the settlement payment will be due no less than five business days before the final settlement hearing.

Litigation Related to Stock Offerings

In August 2021, Camelot Event Driven Fund filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, and in November 2021, an amended complaint was filed that, among other changes, added an additional named plaintiff (as used in this paragraph, the “Complaint”). The Complaint is purportedly on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the Company’s Class B Common Stock and 5.75% Series A Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock pursuant to public securities offerings completed in March 2021, and was filed against the Company, certain senior executives, members of our Board of Directors, and the underwriters involved in the offerings. The Complaint asserts violations of federal securities law and alleges that the offering documents contained material misstatements and omissions, including through an alleged failure to adequately disclose certain total return swap transactions involving Archegos Capital Management referenced to our securities and related alleged risks to the Company’s stock price. In December 2021, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation seeking the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the outside director defendants from the lawsuit, which the Court subsequently ordered. On the same date, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which were heard in January 2023. On February 7, 2023, the Court dismissed all claims against the Company while allowing the claims against the underwriters to proceed. The plaintiffs and underwriter defendants have appealed the ruling.

Litigation Related to Television Station Owners

In September 2019, the Company was added as a defendant in a multi-district putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuit was filed by parties that claim to have purchased broadcast television spot advertising beginning about January 2014 on television stations owned by one or more of the defendant television station owners and alleges the sharing of allegedly competitively sensitive information among such television stations in alleged violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The action, which names the Company among fourteen total defendants, seeks monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest as well as injunctions against the allegedly unlawful conduct. In October 2019, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the matter, which was denied by the Court in November 2020. We have reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit. The settlement, which will include no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company, will be subject to Court approval.

Claims Related to Former Businesses

Asbestos

We are a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos. We are typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of our products is the basis of a claim. Claims against us in which a product has been identified most commonly relate to allegations of exposure to asbestos-containing insulating material used in conjunction with turbines and electrical equipment.

Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to period. We do not report as pending those claims on inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. As of March 31, 2023, we had pending approximately 21,640 asbestos

claims, as compared with approximately 21,580 as of December 31, 2022. During the first quarter of 2023, we received approximately 650 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 590 claims. We report claims as closed when we become aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when we have reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. Our total costs for the years 2022 and 2021 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately $57 million and $63 million, respectively. Our costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses.

Filings include claims for individuals suffering from mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos-related disease. The predominant number of pending claims against us are non-cancer claims. It is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may impact the estimate of our asbestos liabilities, including, among others, the number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims. We record an accrual for a loss contingency when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and when the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Our liability estimate is based upon many factors, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims, as well as consultation with a third party firm on trends that may impact our future asbestos liability. While we believe that our accrual for matters related to our predecessor operations, including environmental and asbestos, are adequate, there can be no assurance that circumstances will not change in future periods, and as a result our actual liabilities may be higher or lower than our accrual.

Other 

From time to time, we receive claims from federal and state environmental regulatory agencies and other entities asserting that we are or may be liable for environmental cleanup costs and related damages principally relating to our historical and predecessor operations. In addition, from time to time we receive personal injury claims including toxic tort and product liability claims (other than asbestos) arising from our historical operations and predecessors.