TIME WARNER INC. | 2013 | FY |

16.       COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

Time Warner has commitments under certain network programming, film licensing, creative talent, employment and other agreements aggregating $25.113 billion at December 31, 2013.

The Company also has commitments for office space, studio facilities and operating equipment. Time Warner's net rent expense was $398 million in 2013, $407 million in 2012 and $416 million in 2011. Included in such amounts was sublease income of $65 million for 2013, $62 million for 2012 and $56 million for 2011.

The commitments under certain programming, film licensing, talent and other agreements (“Programming and Other”) and minimum rental commitments under noncancelable long-term operating leases (“Operating Leases”) payable during the next five years and thereafter are as follows (millions):

Additionally, as of December 31, 2013, the Company has future sublease income arrangements of $187 million, which are not included in Operating Leases in the table above.

Contingent Commitments

The Company also has certain contractual arrangements that would require it to make payments or provide funding if certain circumstances occur (“contingent commitments”). Contingent commitments include contingent consideration to be paid in connection with acquisitions and put/call arrangements on certain investment transactions, which could require the Company to make payments to acquire certain assets or ownership interests.

The following table summarizes the Company's contingent commitments at December 31, 2013. For put options where payment obligations are outside the Company's control, the timing of amounts presented in the table represents the earliest period in which the payment could be requested. For other contingent commitments, the timing of amounts presented in the table represents when the maximum contingent commitment will expire, but does not mean that the Company expects to incur an obligation to make any payments within that time period. In addition, amounts presented do not reflect the effects of any indemnification rights the Company might possess (millions).

The following is a description of the Company's contingent commitments at December 31, 2013:

• Guarantees consist of guarantees the Company has provided on certain operating commitments entered into by entities formerly owned by the Company, including the arrangement described below.

Six Flags

In connection with the Company's former investment in the Six Flags theme parks located in Georgia and Texas (collectively, the “Parks”), in 1997, certain subsidiaries of the Company (including Historic TW and, in connection with the separation of TWC in 2009, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.) agreed to guarantee (the “Six Flags Guarantee”) certain obligations of the partnerships that hold the Parks (the “Partnerships”) for the benefit of the limited partners in such Partnerships, including: annual payments made at the Parks or to the limited partners and additional obligations at the end of the respective terms for the Partnerships in 2027 and 2028 (the “Guaranteed Obligations”). The aggregate undiscounted estimated future cash flow requirements covered by the Six Flags Guarantee over the remaining term (through 2028) are $962 million (for a net present value of $411 million). To date, no payments have been made by the Company pursuant to the Six Flags Guarantee.

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation (formerly known as Six Flags, Inc. and Premier Parks Inc.) (“Six Flags”), which has the controlling interest in the Parks, has agreed, pursuant to a subordinated indemnity agreement (the “Subordinated Indemnity Agreement”), to guarantee the performance of the Guaranteed Obligations when due and to indemnify Historic TW, among others, if the Six Flags Guarantee is called upon. If Six Flags defaults in its indemnification obligations, Historic TW has the right to acquire control of the managing partner of the Parks. Six Flags' obligations to Historic TW are further secured by its interest in all limited partnership units held by Six Flags.

Because the Six Flags Guarantee existed prior to December 31, 2002 and no modifications to the arrangements have been made since the date the guarantee came into existence, the Company is required to continue to account for the Guaranteed Obligations as a contingent liability. Based on its evaluation of the current facts and circumstances surrounding the Guaranteed Obligations and the Subordinated Indemnity Agreement, the Company is unable to predict the loss, if any, that may be incurred under the Guaranteed Obligations, and no liability for the arrangements has been recognized at December 31, 2013. Because of the specific circumstances surrounding the arrangements and the fact that no active or observable market exists for this type of financial guarantee, the Company is unable to determine a current fair value for the Guaranteed Obligations and related Subordinated Indemnity Agreement.

• Generally, letters of credit, bank guarantees and surety bonds support performance and payments for a wide range of global contingent and firm obligations, including insurance, litigation appeals, import of finished goods, real estate leases and other operational needs. Other contingent commitments primarily include amounts payable representing contingent consideration on certain acquisitions, which if earned would require the Company to pay a portion or all of the contingent amount, and contingent payments for certain put/call arrangements, whereby payments could be made by the Company to acquire assets, such as a venture partner's interest or a co-financing partner's interest in one of the Company's films.

Time Warner does not guarantee the debt of any of its investments accounted for using the equity method of accounting.

Programming Licensing Backlog

Programming licensing backlog represents the amount of future revenues not yet recorded from cash contracts for the licensing of theatrical and television product for pay cable, basic cable, network and syndicated television exhibition. Because backlog generally relates to contracts for the licensing of theatrical and television product that have already been produced, the recognition of revenue for such completed product is principally dependent on the commencement of the availability period for telecast under the terms of the related licensing agreement. Cash licensing fees are collected periodically over the term of the related licensing agreements. Backlog was approximately $5.5 billion and $6.0 billion at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Included in these amounts is licensing of film product from the Warner Bros. segment to the Home Box Office segment in the amount of $749 million and $654 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and to the Turner segment in the amount of $477 million and $506 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Backlog excludes filmed entertainment advertising barter contracts, which are expected to result in the future realization of revenues and cash through the sale of the advertising spots received under such contracts to third parties.

Contingencies

In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries are defendants in or parties to various legal claims, actions and proceedings. These claims, actions and proceedings are at varying stages of investigation, arbitration or adjudication, and involve a variety of areas of law.

On October 8, 2004, certain heirs of Jerome Siegel, one of the creators of the “Superman” character, filed suit against the Company, DC Comics and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs' complaint seeks an accounting and demands up to one-half of the profits made on Superman since the alleged April 16, 1999 termination by plaintiffs of Siegel's grants of one-half of the rights to the Superman character to DC Comics' predecessor-in-interest. Plaintiffs have also asserted various Lanham Act and unfair competition claims, alleging “wasting” of the Superman property by DC Comics, and the Company has filed counterclaims. On March 26, 2008, the court entered an order of summary judgment finding, among other things, that plaintiffs' notices of termination were valid and that plaintiffs had thereby recaptured, as of April 16, 1999, their rights to a one-half interest in the Superman story material, as first published, but that the accounting for profits would not include profits attributable to foreign exploitation, republication of pre-termination works and trademark exploitation. On January 10, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor, holding that the parties reached a binding settlement agreement in 2001, and directed the district court to reconsider its ruling on DC Comics' counterclaims challenging the validity of the plaintiffs' termination notices. By orders dated March 20, 2013, April 18, 2013, and June 18, 2013, the district court, among other things, granted summary judgment and entered final judgment in this lawsuit and the related Superboy lawsuit, described below, in DC Comics' favor, ruling that the plaintiffs had transferred any and all rights in the Superman and Superboy properties to DC Comics in 2001 pursuant to a binding settlement agreement. On July 16, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On October 22, 2004, the same Siegel heirs filed a related lawsuit against the same defendants, as well as Warner Communications Inc. (now known as Warner Communications LLC) and Warner Bros. Television Production Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs claim that Siegel was the sole creator of the character Superboy and, as such, DC Comics has had no right to create new Superboy works since the alleged October 17, 2004 termination by plaintiffs of Siegel's grants of rights to the Superboy character to DC Comics' predecessor-in-interest. This lawsuit seeks a declaration regarding the validity of the alleged termination and an injunction against future use of the Superboy character. As described in the paragraph above regarding the Superman lawsuit, by orders dated April 18, 2013 and June 18, 2013, the district court, among other things, entered final judgment in DC Comics' favor, ruling that the plaintiffs had transferred any and all rights in the Superman and Superboy properties to DC Comics in 2001 pursuant to a binding settlement agreement. On July 16, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On May 14, 2010, DC Comics filed a related lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the heirs of Superman co-creator Joseph Shuster, the Siegel heirs, their attorney Marc Toberoff and certain companies that Mr. Toberoff controls. The lawsuit asserts a claim for declaratory relief concerning the validity and scope of the copyright termination notice served by the Shuster heirs, which, together with the termination notices served by the Siegel heirs described above, purports to preclude DC Comics from creating new Superman and/or Superboy works for distribution and sale in the United States after October 26, 2013. The lawsuit also asserts state law-based claims, including seeking declaratory relief with respect to, inter alia, the validity of various agreements between Mr. Toberoff, his companies and the Shuster and Siegel heirs, and claims for intentional interference by Mr. Toberoff with DC Comics' contracts and prospective economic advantage with the Shuster and Siegel heirs, for which DC Comics seeks monetary damages. On October 17, 2012, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of DC Comics, holding that, among other things, the copyright termination notice served by the Shuster heirs is invalid and the agreements referenced above interfered with DC Comics' rights under the copyright termination provisions. On April 4, 2013, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on DC Comics' state law intentional interference claims. On November 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's October 2012 decision. On January 21, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied defendants' request for a rehearing of the court's November 2013 decision.

On April 4, 2007, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a complaint against CNN America Inc. (“CNN America”) and Team Video Services, LLC (“Team Video”). This administrative proceeding relates to CNN America's December 2003 and January 2004 terminations of its contractual relationships with Team Video, under which Team Video had provided electronic newsgathering services in Washington, DC and New York, NY. The National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, under which Team Video's employees were unionized, initially filed charges of unfair labor practices with the NLRB in February 2004, alleging that CNN America and Team Video were joint employers, that CNN America was a successor employer to Team Video, and/or that CNN America discriminated in its hiring practices to avoid becoming a successor employer or due to specific individuals' union affiliation or activities. The NLRB complaint seeks, among other things, the reinstatement of certain union members and monetary damages. On November 19, 2008, the presiding NLRB Administrative Law Judge issued a non-binding recommended decision, finding CNN America liable. On February 17, 2009, CNN America filed exceptions to this decision with the NLRB.

On March 10, 2009, Anderson News L.L.C. and Anderson Services L.L.C. (collectively, “Anderson News”) filed an antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against several magazine publishers, distributors and wholesalers, including Time Inc. and one of its subsidiaries, Time/Warner Retail Sales & Marketing, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by engaging in an antitrust conspiracy against Anderson News, as well as other related state law claims. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to reduce competition in the wholesale market for single-copy magazines by rejecting the magazine distribution surcharge proposed by Anderson News and another magazine wholesaler and refusing to distribute magazines to them. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages. On August 2, 2010, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and, on October 25, 2010, the court denied Anderson News' motion for reconsideration of that dismissal. On November 8, 2010, Anderson News appealed and, on April 3, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case to the district court. On January 7, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied defendants' petition for writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacating the district court's dismissal of the complaint. In February 2014, Time Inc. and several other defendants amended their answers to assert antitrust counterclaims against plaintiffs.

In April 2013, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) Appeals Division issued a notice of deficiency to the Company relating to the appropriate tax characterization of stock warrants received from Google Inc. in 2002. On May 6, 2013, the Company filed a petition with the United States Tax Court seeking a redetermination of the deficiency set forth in the notice. The Company's petition asserts that the IRS erred in determining that the stock warrants were taxable upon exercise (in 2004) rather than at the date of grant based on, among other things, a misapplication of Section 83 of the Internal Revenue Code. Should the IRS prevail in this litigation, the additional tax payable by the Company would be approximately $70 million.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against or prosecute, as applicable, the matters described above.

The Company establishes an accrued liability for legal claims when the Company determines that a loss is both probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Once established, accruals are adjusted from time to time, as appropriate, in light of additional information. The amount of any loss ultimately incurred in relation to matters for which an accrual has been established may be higher or lower than the amounts accrued for such matters.

For matters disclosed above for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, whether in excess of an accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, the Company has estimated a range of possible loss. The Company believes the estimate of the aggregate range of possible loss in excess of accrued liabilities for such matters is between $0 and $65 million at December 31, 2013. The estimated aggregate range of possible loss is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions. The matters represented in the estimated aggregate range of possible loss will change from time to time and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate.

In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation and claims, the Company often cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter may be. An adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.

us-gaap:CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock