(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 and coaches have entered into long-term employment contracts whereby such individuals' compensation is guaranteed. Amounts due under guaranteed contracts as of September 30, 2017 aggregated $214 million, which is payable as follows: $5 million in 2017,  $85 million in 2018, $63 million in 2019, $30 million in 2020 and $31 million thereafter. In addition to the foregoing amounts, certain players and coaches may earn incentive compensation under the terms of their employment contracts.

Operating Leases

The Company and its subsidiaries lease business offices, have entered into satellite transponder lease agreements and use certain equipment under lease arrangements.

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.

Vivendi Settlement.   In connection with a commercial transaction that closed during 2002 among Liberty, Vivendi Universal S.A. (“Vivendi”) and the former USA Holdings, Inc., Liberty brought suit against Vivendi and Universal Studios, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging, among other things, breach of contract and fraud by Vivendi. On June 25, 2012, a jury awarded Liberty damages in the amount of €765 million, plus prejudgment interest, in connection with a finding of breach of contract and fraud by the defendants.  On January 17, 2013, the court entered judgment in favor of Liberty in the amount of approximately €945 million, including prejudgment interest. The parties negotiated a stay of the execution of the judgment during the pendency of the appeal.  Vivendi had filed notice of its appeal of the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. During the first quarter of 2016, Liberty entered into a settlement with Vivendi which resulted in a $775 million payment to settle all claims related to the dispute described above. Following the payment of a contingency fee to our legal counsel, as well as amounts payable to Liberty Global plc, an additional plaintiff in the action, Liberty recognized a net pre-tax gain on the legal settlement of approximately $511 million. This settlement resulted in a dismissal of all appeals and mutual releases of the parties.

SoundExchange Royalty Claims.   In August 2013, SoundExchange, Inc. (“SoundExchange”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that SIRIUS XM underpaid royalties for statutory licenses during the 2007-2012 rate period in violation of the regulations established by the Copyright Royalty Board for that period.  SoundExchange principally alleges that SIRIUS XM improperly reduced its calculation of gross revenue, on which the royalty payments are based, by deducting non-recognized revenue attributable to pre-1972 recordings and Premier package revenue that is not “separately charged” as required by the regulations. SIRIUS XM believes that it properly applied the gross revenue exclusions contained in the regulations established by the Copyright Royalty Board. SoundExchange is seeking compensatory damages of not less than $50 million and up to $100 million or more, payment of late fees and interest and attorneys’ fees and costs.

In August 2014, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in response to SIRIUS XM’s motion to dismiss the complaint, stayed the case on the grounds that the case properly should be pursued in the first instance before the Copyright Royalty Board rather than the District Court.  In its opinion, the District Court concluded that the gross revenue exclusions in the regulations established by the Copyright Royalty Board for the 2007-2012 period were ambiguous and did not, on their face, make clear whether our royalty calculation approaches were permissible under the regulations.  In December 2014, SoundExchange filed a petition with the Copyright Royalty Board requesting an order interpreting the applicable regulations.

On September 11, 2017, the Copyright Royalty Board issued a ruling concluding that SIRIUS XM correctly interpreted the revenue exclusions applicable to pre-1972 recordings.  Given the limitations on its jurisdiction, the Copyright Royalty Board deferred to further proceedings in the District Court the question of whether SIRIUS XM properly applied those pre-1972 revenue exclusions.  The Judges also concluded that SIRIUS XM improperly claimed a revenue exclusion based on its Premier package upcharge, because, in the Judges’ view, the portion of the package that contained programming that did not include sound recordings was not offered for a “separate charge.”

Rulings by the Copyright Royalty Board, including its September 11, 2017 ruling, are subject to limited legal review by the Register of Copyrights.  Following a review by the Register of Copyrights and publication in the Federal Register, SIRIUS XM expects that the ultimate ruling by the Copyright Royalty Board in this matter will be transmitted back to the District Court for further proceedings, such as adjudication claims relating to damages and defenses.  SIRIUS XM believes it has substantial defenses to SoundExchange claims that can be asserted, including in proceedings in the District Court, and will continue to defend this action vigorously.

This matter is titled SoundExchange, Inc. v. SIRIUS XM Radio, Inc., No.13-cv-1290-RJL (D.D.C.), and Determination of Rates and Terms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services, United States Copyright Royalty Board, No. 2006-1 CRB DSTRA.  Information concerning the action is publicly available in filings under the docket numbers. This matter is not related to certain claims under state law brought by owners of pre-1972 recording copyrights arising out of SIRIUS XM’s use and performance of those recordings.

SIRIUS XM concluded that a loss, in excess of its recorded liabilities, is reasonably possible in connection with the SoundExchange royalty claims.  At September 30, 2017 the estimable portion of such possible loss ranges from $0 to $85 million plus any related interest or late fees.  Based on SIRIUS XM’s defenses, such a loss is not considered probable at this time and no liability for such additional loss has been recorded at September 30, 2017.  The matters underlying this estimated range and the estimable portion of reasonably possible losses may change from time to time and the actual possible loss may vary from this estimate.