|
Commitments and Contingencies
|
12 Months Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dec. 31, 2014
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies
Leases
The following is a schedule of future minimum lease payments and future minimum sublease income under noncancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2014:
We conduct our operations using leased office facilities in various locations. We lease office space under arrangements expiring through 2024. Rent expenses for twelve months ended January 31, 2013, the eleven months ended December 31, 2013 and the twelve months ended December 31, 2014 were $3.2 million, $5.7 million and $8.6 million, respectively.
For operating leases that include escalation clauses over the term of the lease, tenant improvement reimbursements and rent abatement periods, we recognize rent expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term including expected renewal periods. The difference between rent expense and rent payments is recorded as deferred rent in current and long-term liabilities. As of December 31, 2013 and 2014 deferred rent was $9.4 million and $15.3 million.
Purchase Obligation
As of December 31, 2014, we had a non-cancelable royalty-related contractual obligation, which is recoupable against future royalty payments in the amount of $5.0 million and a non-cancelable royalty-related contractual obligation, which is not recoupable against future royalty payments in the amount of $5.0 million.
Legal Proceedings
We have been in the past, and continue to be, a party to various legal proceedings, which have consumed, and may continue to consume, financial and managerial resources. We record a liability when we believe that it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Our management periodically evaluates developments that could affect the amount, if any, of liability that we have previously accrued and make adjustments as appropriate. Determining both the likelihood and the estimated amount of a loss requires significant judgment, and management’s judgment may be incorrect. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of any pending legal matters is likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
PRO rate-setting litigation
On November 5, 2012, we filed a petition in the rate court established by the consent decree between the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (“ASCAP”) and the U.S. Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for the determination of reasonable license fees and terms for the ASCAP consent decree license applicable to the period January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2015. On June 11, 2013 we filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a determination that as a matter of law the publishers alleged to have withdrawn certain rights of public performance by digital audio transmission from the scope of grant of rights ASCAP could license on behalf of such publishers subsequent to the date of our request for a license from ASCAP were not valid as to our ASCAP consent decree license. On September 17, 2013, our motion for partial summary judgment was granted, alleviating the need to negotiate direct licenses for such purportedly withdrawn performance rights. A trial to determine the royalty rates we will pay ASCAP concluded in February 2014 and the court issued its opinion in March 2014. On April 14, 2014, ASCAP, Sony/ATV, EMI Music Publishing, and Universal Publishing Group filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s decision with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments have been scheduled for March 19, 2015.
On June 13, 2013, Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”) filed a petition in the rate court established by the consent decree between BMI and the U.S. Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for the determination of reasonable fees and terms for the BMI consent decree license applicable to the period January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014. We filed our response on July 19, 2013. On November 1, 2013, we filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a determination that as a matter of law the publishers alleged to have withdrawn certain rights of public performance by digital audio transmission from the scope of grant of rights BMI could license on behalf of such publishers subsequent to the date of our request for a license from BMI were not valid as to our BMI consent decree license. On December 18, 2013, our motion for summary judgment was denied based on the Court’s determination that an attempted partial withdrawal, although inconsistent with BMI’s obligations under its consent decree, would result in a publisher’s complete withdrawal from BMI. This rate proceeding commenced on February 10, 2015.
Pre-1972 copyright litigation
On April 17, 2014, UMG Recordings, Inc., Sony Music Entertainment, Capitol Records, LLC, Warner Music Group Corp., and ABKCO Music and Records, Inc. filed suit against Pandora Media Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The complaint claims common law copyright infringement and unfair competition arising from allegations that Pandora owes royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972.
On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed suit against Pandora Media Inc. in the federal district court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs’ complaint in the Flo & Eddie case pursuant to California’s Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“Anti-SLAPP”) statute. This motion is currently pending before the Court.
The outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain. Based on our current knowledge we believe that the final outcome of the matters discussed above will not likely, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows; however, in light of the uncertainties involved in such matters, there can be no assurance that the outcome of each case or the costs of litigation, regardless of outcome, will not have a material adverse effect on our business. In particular, rate court proceedings could take years to complete, could be very costly and may result in royalty rates that are materially less favorable than rates we currently pay.
Indemnification Agreements, Guarantees and Contingencies
In the ordinary course of business, we are party to certain contractual agreements under which we may provide indemnifications of varying scope, terms and duration to customers, vendors, lessors, business partners and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of breach of such agreements, services to be provided by us or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In addition, we have entered into indemnification agreements with directors and certain officers and employees that will require us, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors, officers or employees. Such indemnification provisions are accounted for in accordance with guarantor’s accounting and disclosure requirements for guarantees, including indirect guarantees of indebtedness of others. To date, we have not incurred, do not anticipate incurring and therefore have not accrued for, any costs related to such indemnification provisions.
While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the outcome of any claims under indemnification arrangements will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||