(11)   Commitments and Contingencies

Guarantees

In connection with agreements for the sale of assets by the Company or its subsidiaries, the Company may retain liabilities that relate to events occurring prior to its sale, such as tax, environmental, litigation and employment matters. The Company generally indemnifies the purchaser in the event that a third party asserts a claim against the purchaser that relates to a liability retained by the Company. These types of indemnification obligations may extend for a number of years. The Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential liability for these types of indemnification obligations as the sale agreements may not specify a maximum amount and the amounts are dependent upon the outcome of future contingent events, the nature and likelihood of which cannot be determined at this time. Historically, the Company has not made any significant indemnification payments under such agreements and no amount has been accrued in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements with respect to these indemnification guarantees.

Employment Contracts

The Atlanta Braves and certain of their players (current and former), coaches and executives have entered into long-term employment contracts whereby such individuals' compensation is guaranteed. Amounts due under guaranteed contracts as of September 30, 2019 aggregated $399 million, which is payable as follows: $159 million in 2019, $52 million in 2020, $61 million in 2021, $22 million in 2022 and $105 million thereafter. In addition to the foregoing amounts, certain players, coaches and executives may earn incentive compensation under the terms of their employment contracts.

Litigation

The Company has contingent liabilities related to legal and tax proceedings and other matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Although it is reasonably possible the Company may incur losses upon conclusion of such matters, an estimate of any loss or range of loss cannot be made. In the opinion of management, it is expected that amounts, if any, which may be required to satisfy such contingencies will not be material in relation to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Suit. On March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against SIRIUS XM Holdings in the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in this action alleges that SIRIUS XM Holdings violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the “TCPA”) by, among other things, making telephone solicitations to persons on the National Do-Not-Call registry, a database established to allow consumers to exclude themselves from telemarketing calls unless they consent to receive the calls in a signed, written agreement, and making calls to consumers in violation of SIRIUS XM Holdings’ internal Do-Not-Call registry. The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA and a permanent injunction prohibiting SIRIUS XM Holdings from making, or having made, any calls to land lines that are listed on the National Do-Not-Call registry or its internal Do-Not-Call registry. The plaintiff has filed a motion seeking class certification, and that motion is pending.

Following a mediation, in April 2019, SIRIUS XM Holdings entered into an agreement to settle this purported class action suit.  The settlement resolves the claims of consumers for the period October 2013 through January 2019.  As part of the settlement, SIRIUS XM Holdings paid $25 million into a non-reversionary settlement fund from which cash to class members, notice, administrative costs, and attorney's fees and costs will be paid.  The settlement also contemplates that SIRIUS XM Holdings will provide three months of service to its All Access subscription package for those members of the class that elect to receive it, in lieu of cash, at no cost to those class members and who are not active subscribers at the time of the distribution. The availability of this three-month service option will not diminish the $25 million common fund. As part of the settlement, SIRIUS XM Holdings will also implement certain changes relating to its “Do-Not-Call” practices and telemarketing programs.  Settlement of this matter is subject to, among other things, final approval by the Court. This charge is included in the selling, general and administrative expense line item in the condensed consolidated financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 2019, but has been excluded from Adjusted OIBDA (as defined in note 12) for the corresponding period as this charge does not relate to the on-going performance of the business.

Pre-1972 Sound Recording Litigation.  On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit against Pandora in the federal district court for the Central District of California.  The complaint alleges a violation of California Civil Code Section 980, unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972 (“pre-1972 recordings”). On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California’s Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which following denial of Pandora’s motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The California Supreme Court accepted certification. In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis that, following the enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018) (the “MMA”), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was no longer “necessary to . . . settle an important question of law.”

In September and October 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan filed separate class action suits against Pandora in the federal district courts for the Northern District of California and the District of New Jersey.  The complaints allege a variety of violations of common law and state copyright statutes, common law misappropriation, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of rights of publicity arising from allegations that Pandora owes royalties for the public performance of pre-1972 recordings.  The Sheridan actions in California and New Jersey are currently stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc.

In September 2016, Ponderosa Twins Plus One and others filed a class action suit against Pandora alleging claims similar to those asserted in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media Inc.  This action is also currently stayed in the Northern District of California pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc.

The MMA grants a newly available federal preemption defense to the claims asserted in the aforementioned lawsuits. In July 2019, Pandora made the required payments and reporting under the MMA for certain of its uses of pre-1972

recordings to avail itself of this federal preemption defense. Based on the federal preemption contained in the MMA (along with other considerations), Pandora asked the Ninth Circuit to order the dismissal of the Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc. case. On October 17, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a memorandum disposition concluding that the question of whether the MMA preempts Flo and Eddie's claims challenging Pandora's performance of pre-1972 recordings "depends on various unanswered factual questions" and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

When the stays in the remaining cases - the two Sheridan v. Pandora Media, Inc. cases and the Ponderosa Twins Plus One et al. v. Pandora Media case - are lifted, Pandora expects to file motions to dismiss those actions as well.

SIRIUS XM Holdings believes it has substantial defenses to the claims asserted in these actions, and intends to defend these actions vigorously.