Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	6. Commitments and Contingencies We are subject to certain legal proceedings and claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been fully adjudicated. In our opinion, we do not have a potential liability related to any current legal proceedings and claims that would individually or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or operating results. However, the results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. Should we fail to prevail in any of these legal matters or should all of these legal matters be resolved against us in the same reporting period, the operating results of a particular reporting period could be materially adversely affected. Series B Preferred Stock Litigation Persons claiming to own 94.16% of our Series B preferred stock filed a complaint against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery, in Cedarview Opportunities Master Fund, L.P., et al. v. Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. (Del.Ct.Ch. C.A. No. 2017-0785-AGB), on November 2, 2017, which was subsequently amended. The amended complaint (the “Preferred Holder Complaint”) alleges counts for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and specific performance regarding the Certificate of Designations in connection with a forbearance agreement we entered into with certain Noteholders on May 8, 2017 (the “Forbearance Agreement”) and breach of our Third Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the “Charter”) and for a declaratory judgment regarding the validity of a provision of the Charter regarding the foreign ownership issue we describe in greater detail under the heading “Our Continued Recapitalization and Restructuring Efforts—Foreign Ownership Issue” in our Annual Report. Specifically, it alleges that the Forbearance Agreement (which expired on May 31, 2017) and certain payments pursuant thereto were barred by the Certificate of Designations due to the existence of a “Voting Rights Triggering Event” under the Certificate of Designations because, among other things, the forbearance agreement allegedly constituted a “de facto” extension or refinancing of the Notes. The Preferred Holder Complaint alleges that SBS breached the Charter by suspending certain rights of the Series B preferred stockholders, and that Section 10.4 of the Charter is overbroad and thus invalid as a matter of Delaware law. The complaint requests relief including, among other things, an order interpreting and enforcing the Certificate of Designations, preventing us from making any additional payments on the Notes and requiring us to redeem the Series B preferred stock at face value plus accrued dividends (or approximately $172.9 million as of September 30, 2018), as well as unspecified money damages and a declaration that Section 10.4 of the Charter is invalid. This is the fourth lawsuit filed against us by holders or purported holders of our Series B preferred stock, the first three of which we successfully challenged and won. We filed a motion to dismiss these claims, for which oral argument was heard on April 12, 2018. We received a ruling on the motion to dismiss on August 27, 2018. The ruling granted our motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and dismissed the claim for specific performance (insofar as it sought a redemption of the Series B preferred stock) and dismissed the claim for a declaratory judgment regarding the Charter (insofar as it sought a declaration that Section 10.4 of the Charter is invalid on the face). The other claims in the Preferred Holder Complaint were not dismissed. We continue to believe these claims are without merit, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously. However given the uncertainties inherent in litigation, there can be no assurances that we will be successful and win the current litigation. State Tax Assessment The Company is periodically subject to state tax audits. During the first quarter of 2018, the Company agreed to settle an audit by a State tax authority, which challenged the Company’s allocation of subsidiary capital and attributable liabilities, for the tax years from December 31, 2010 through 2013. The Company settled the liability for $0.3 million. This settlement also results in $0.2 million of additional taxes owed to another local jurisdiction that was paid during the third quarter of 2018. Tax years 2014 and later remain open and subject to audit. Local Tax Assessment The Company received an audit assessment (the “Assessment”) wherein it was proposed that the Company underpaid a local tax for the tax periods between June 1, 2005 and May 31, 2015 totaling $1,439,452 in underpaid tax, applicable interest and penalties. The Company disagrees with the assessment and related calculations but is developing a settlement strategy to discuss and pursue with the taxing jurisdiction with the hope of avoiding a lengthy litigation process. While we are uncertain as to whether the jurisdiction will accept this offer, an accrual of $391,000, based upon our current best estimate of probable loss, was charged to operations in the second quarter of 2016. However, if the settlement offer is not accepted by the jurisdiction, the amount of the ultimate loss to the Company, if any, may equal the entire amount of the Assessment sought by the taxing jurisdiction. Gutierrez-Ortiz Lawsuit We were a defendant in the case styled, Aida Ivette Gutiérrez Ortiz et al. v. Municipio Autónomo de Bayamón, et al., a lawsuit involving the death of a man who was shot and killed at a concert co-promoted by SBS. Plaintiffs alleged that we were negligent because we did not provide the necessary security to prevent the entry of firearms in the concert venue or its surrounding areas. Plaintiffs also alleged we did not provide the necessary measures to control the venue and that the Company failed to provide the necessary medical assistance to aid the victim. Plaintiffs sought an estimated $3.5 million against the Company. During the trial which took place in August 2018, we settled the matter for $75,000.

6. Commitments and Contingencies

We are subject to certain legal proceedings and claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been fully adjudicated. In our opinion, we do not have a potential liability related to any current legal proceedings and claims that would individually or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or operating results. However, the results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. Should we fail to prevail in any of these legal matters or should all of these legal matters be resolved against us in the same reporting period, the operating results of a particular reporting period could be materially adversely affected.

Series B Preferred Stock Litigation

Persons claiming to own 94.16% of our Series B preferred stock filed a complaint against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery, in Cedarview Opportunities Master Fund, L.P., et al. v. Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. (Del.Ct.Ch. C.A. No. 2017-0785-AGB), on November 2, 2017, which was subsequently amended. The amended complaint (the “Preferred Holder Complaint”) alleges counts for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and specific performance regarding the Certificate of Designations in connection with a forbearance agreement we entered into with certain Noteholders on May 8, 2017 (the “Forbearance Agreement”) and breach of our Third Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the “Charter”) and for a declaratory judgment regarding the validity of a provision of the Charter regarding the foreign ownership issue we describe in greater detail under the heading “Our Continued Recapitalization and Restructuring Efforts—Foreign Ownership Issue” in our Annual Report. Specifically, it alleges that the Forbearance Agreement (which expired on May 31, 2017) and certain payments pursuant thereto were barred by the Certificate of Designations due to the existence of a “Voting Rights Triggering Event” under the Certificate of Designations because, among other things, the forbearance agreement allegedly constituted a “de facto” extension or refinancing of the Notes. The Preferred Holder Complaint alleges that SBS breached the Charter by suspending certain rights of the Series B preferred stockholders, and that Section 10.4 of the Charter is overbroad and thus invalid as a matter of Delaware law. The complaint requests relief including, among other things, an order interpreting and enforcing the Certificate of Designations, preventing us from making any additional payments on the Notes and requiring us to redeem the Series B preferred stock at face value plus accrued dividends (or approximately $172.9 million as of September 30, 2018), as well as unspecified money damages and a declaration that Section 10.4 of the Charter is invalid. This is the fourth lawsuit filed against us by holders or purported holders of our Series B preferred stock, the first three of which we successfully challenged and won. We filed a motion to dismiss these claims, for which oral argument was heard on April 12, 2018. We received a ruling on the motion to dismiss on August 27, 2018. The ruling granted our motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and dismissed the claim for specific performance (insofar as it sought a redemption of the Series B preferred stock) and dismissed the claim for a declaratory judgment regarding the Charter (insofar as it sought a declaration that Section 10.4 of the Charter is invalid on the face). The other claims in the Preferred Holder Complaint were not dismissed. We continue to believe these claims are without merit, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously. However given the uncertainties inherent in litigation, there can be no assurances that we will be successful and win the current litigation.

State Tax Assessment

The Company is periodically subject to state tax audits. During the first quarter of 2018, the Company agreed to settle an audit by a State tax authority, which challenged the Company’s allocation of subsidiary capital and attributable liabilities, for the tax years from December 31, 2010 through 2013. The Company settled the liability for $0.3 million. This settlement also results in $0.2 million of additional taxes owed to another local jurisdiction that was paid during the third quarter of 2018. Tax years 2014 and later remain open and subject to audit.

Local Tax Assessment

The Company received an audit assessment (the “Assessment”) wherein it was proposed that the Company underpaid a local tax for the tax periods between June 1, 2005 and May 31, 2015 totaling $1,439,452 in underpaid tax, applicable interest and penalties. The Company disagrees with the assessment and related calculations but is developing a settlement strategy to discuss and pursue with the taxing jurisdiction with the hope of avoiding a lengthy litigation process. While we are uncertain as to whether the jurisdiction will accept this offer, an accrual of $391,000, based upon our current best estimate of probable loss, was charged to operations in the second quarter of 2016. However, if the settlement offer is not accepted by the jurisdiction, the amount of the ultimate loss to the Company, if any, may equal the entire amount of the Assessment sought by the taxing jurisdiction.

Gutierrez-Ortiz Lawsuit

We were a defendant in the case styled, Aida Ivette Gutiérrez Ortiz et al. v. Municipio Autónomo de Bayamón, et al., a lawsuit involving the death of a man who was shot and killed at a concert co-promoted by SBS. Plaintiffs alleged that we were negligent because we did not provide the necessary security to prevent the entry of firearms in the concert venue or its surrounding areas. Plaintiffs also alleged we did not provide the necessary measures to control the venue and that the Company failed to provide the necessary medical assistance to aid the victim. Plaintiffs sought an estimated $3.5 million against the Company. During the trial which took place in August 2018, we settled the matter for $75,000.