COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:

Litigation

We are a party to lawsuits, claims, and regulatory matters from time to time in the ordinary course of business. Actions currently pending are in various stages and no material judgments or decisions have been rendered by hearing boards or courts in connection with such actions. Except as noted below, we do not believe the outcome of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on our financial statements. 

FCC Litigation Matters

On May 22, 2020, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") released an Order and Consent Decree pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay $48 million to resolve the matters covered by a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") issued in December 2017 proposing a $13 million fine for alleged violations of the FCC's sponsorship identification rules by the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, the FCC's investigation of the allegations raised in the Hearing Designation Order issued in connection with the Company's proposed acquisition of Tribune, and a retransmission related matter. The Company submitted the $48 million payment on August 19, 2020. As part of the consent decree, the Company also agreed to implement a 4-year compliance plan. Two petitions were filed on June 8, 2020 seeking reconsideration of the Order and Consent Decree. The Company filed an opposition to the petitions on June 18, 2020, and the petitions remain pending.

On September 1, 2020, one of the individuals who filed a petition for reconsideration of the Order and Consent Decree filed a petition to deny the license renewal application of WBFF(TV), Baltimore, MD, and the license renewal applications of two other Baltimore, MD stations with which the Company has a JSA or LMA, Deerfield Media station WUTB(TV) and Cunningham Broadcasting Corporation ("Cunningham") station WNUV(TV). The Company filed an opposition to the petition on October 1, 2020, and the petition remains pending.

On September 2, 2020, the FCC adopted a Memorandum Opinion and Order and NAL against the licensees of several stations with whom the Company has LMAs, JSAs, and/or SSAs in response to a complaint regarding those stations' retransmission consent negotiations. The NAL proposed a $0.5 million penalty for each station, totaling $9 million. The licensees filed a response to the NAL on October 15, 2020, asking the Commission to dismiss the proceeding or, alternatively, to reduce the proposed forfeiture to $25,000 per station. On July 28, 2021, the FCC issued a forfeiture order in which the $0.5 million penalty was upheld for all but one station. A Petition for Reconsideration of the forfeiture order was filed on August 7, 2021. On March 14, 2022, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order on Reconsideration, reaffirming the forfeiture order and dismissing (and in the alternative, denying) the Petition for Reconsideration. The Company is not a party to this forfeiture order; however, our consolidated financial statements include an accrual of additional expenses of $8 million for the above legal matters during the year ended December 31, 2021, as we consolidate these stations as VIEs.

On September 21, 2022, the FCC released an NAL against the licensees of a number of stations, including 83 Company stations and several stations with whom the Company has LMAs, JSAs, and/or SSAs, for violation of the FCC's limitations on commercial matter in children's television programming related to KidsClick network programming distributed by the Company in 2018. The NAL proposed a fine of $2.7 million against the Company, and fines ranging from $20,000 to $26,000 per station for the other licensees, including the LMA, JSA, and/or SSA stations, for a total of $3.4 million. As of June 30, 2023, we have accrued $3.4 million. On October 21, 2022, the Company filed a written response seeking reduction of the proposed fine amount, and the matter remains pending.

Other Litigation Matters

On November 6, 2018, the Company agreed to enter into a proposed consent decree with the Department of Justice ("DOJ"). This consent decree resolves the DOJ's investigation into the sharing of pacing information among certain stations in some local markets. The DOJ filed the consent decree and related documents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on November 13, 2018. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered the consent decree on May 22, 2019. The consent decree is not an admission of any wrongdoing by the Company and does not subject the Company to any monetary damages or penalties. The Company believes that even if the pacing information was shared as alleged, it would not have impacted any pricing of advertisements or the competitive nature of the market. The consent decree requires the Company to adopt certain antitrust compliance measures, including the appointment of an Antitrust Compliance Officer, consistent with what the DOJ has required in previous consent decrees in other industries. The consent decree also requires the Company's stations not to exchange pacing and certain other information with other stations in their local markets, which the Company's management had already instructed them not to do.

The Company is aware of twenty-two putative class action lawsuits that were filed against the Company following published reports of the DOJ investigation into the exchange of pacing data within the industry. On October 3, 2018, these lawsuits were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. The consolidated action alleges that the Company and thirteen other broadcasters conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United States and engaged in unlawful information sharing, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The consolidated action seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against adopting practices or plans that would restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs have alleged. The Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss on November 6, 2020. Since then, the Plaintiffs have served the Defendants with written discovery requests and have begun taking depositions of the employees of the defendants and certain third parties. The Court has set a pretrial schedule which currently requires discovery to be completed by December 15, 2023, or 90 days after the Special Master certifies completion of the privilege review, whichever date is later, and requires briefing on class certification to be completed within 195 days after that date. The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against all such claims.

On July 19, 2023, as part of the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings of DSG, an independently managed and unconsolidated subsidiary of Sinclair, DSG and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Diamond Sports Net, LLC, filed a complaint, under seal, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas naming certain subsidiaries of Sinclair, including SBG and STG, David D. Smith, Sinclair's Executive Chairman, Christopher S. Ripley, Sinclair's President and Chief Executive Officer, Lucy A. Rutishauser, Sinclair's Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, and Scott Shapiro, Sinclair's Executive Vice President, Corporate Development and Strategy, as defendants.

In the complaint, plaintiffs challenge a series of transactions involving SBG and certain of its subsidiaries, on the one hand, and DSG and its subsidiaries, on the other hand, since SBG acquired the former Fox Sports regional sports networks from The Walt Disney Company in August 2019. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the management services agreement entered into by STG and DSG was not fair to DSG and was designed to benefit STG and SBG; that the Bally's Corporation ("Bally's") transaction in November 2020 through which Bally's acquired naming rights to certain regional sports networks was not fair to DSG and was designed to benefit STG and SBG; and that certain distributions made by DSG that were used to pay down preferred equity of DSH, were inappropriate and were conducted at a time when DSG was insolvent. The complaint alleges that SBG and its subsidiaries (other than DSG and its subsidiaries) received payments or indirect benefits of approximately $1.5 billion as a result of the alleged misconduct. The complaint asserts a variety of claims, including certain fraudulent transfers of assets, unlawful distributions and payments, breaches of contracts, unjust enrichment and breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, avoidance of fraudulent transfers and unlawful distributions, and unspecified monetary damages to be determined. The defendants believe the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against plaintiffs' claims.

While at this early stage of the proceedings it is not possible to determine the probability of any outcome or probability or amount of any loss, in the event of an unfavorable outcome, Sinclair's subsidiaries may be required to pay monetary damages, which could materially and adversely affect Sinclair's financial and results of operations.