UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

FORM 10-K



For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 or



For the transition period from _______ to ______



Commission File No. 1-8625



 

READING INTERNATIONAL, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



Registrant’s telephone number, including Area Code:  (213) 235-2240

Securities Registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:





Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:  None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes ☐  No ☑

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Yes ☐  No  ☑

Indicate by check mark whether registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for shorter period than the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes ☑  No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes ☑    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K of any amendments to this Form 10-K.  ☐ 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.  See definition of “large accelerated filer,”  “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer  ☐   Accelerated filer ☑   Non-accelerated filer ☐   Smaller reporting company  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes  ☐  No  ☑

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.  As of April 25, 2016, there were 21,654,302 shares of class A non-voting common stock, par value $0.01 per share and 1,680,590 shares of class B voting common stock, par value $0.01 per share, outstanding.    The aggregate market value of voting and nonvoting stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was $195,571,016 as of December 31, 2015.

Documents Incorporated by Reference 

Certain portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement, in connection with its 2016 annual meeting of stockholders, to be filed within 120 days of December 31, 2015, are incorporated by reference into Part III, Items 10-14, of this annual report on Form 10-K. 

---

 

READING INTERNATIONAL, INC.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015

INDEX





 

---

 

PART I

Item 1 – Our Business

GENERAL

Reading International, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“RDI” and collectively with our consolidated subsidiaries and corporate predecessors, the “Company,” “Reading” and “we,” “us,” or “our”), was incorporated in 1999 incident to our reincorporation in Nevada. Our class A non-voting common stock (“Class A Stock”) and class B voting common stock (“Class B Stock”) are listed for trading on the NASDAQ Capital Market (Nasdaq-CM) under the symbols RDI and RDIB, respectively.  Our principal executive offices are located at 6100 Center Drive, Suite 900, Los Angeles, California 90045. Our general telephone number is (213) 235-2240 and our website is www.readingrdi.com.  It is our practice to make available free of charge on our website our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we have electronically filed such material with or furnished it to the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

We are an internationally diversified company principally focused on the development, ownership and operation of entertainment and real property assets in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand.  Currently, we have two business segments:

We synergistically bring together real-estate based entertainment and real estate and believe that these two business segments complement one another, as our cinemas have historically provided the steady cash flows that allow us to be opportunistic in acquiring and holding real estate assets (including non-income producing land) and support our real estate development activities.  Our real estate allows us to develop an asset base that will stand the test of time and develop a long-term asset base that is capable of being leveraged. More specifically, the combination of these two segments provides advantages as follows:







Insofar as we are aware, we are the only publicly traded company in the world to apply this two-track, synergistic approach to the cinema and real estate development businesses on an international basis.  None of the major cinema exhibition companies (other than Marcus Theatres) have any material landholdings as they operate on a leased-facility model.



We have worked to maintain a balance between our U.S. and our Australia/New Zealand assets.  In recent periods, this has adversely impacted our reported revenues and earnings, as the Australian Dollar has since 2010 dropped 28% from 1.0122 to 0.7286 and the New Zealand Dollar has over that same period decreased 11% from 0.7687 to 0.6842. However, we continue to believe that, over the long term, this is a prudent diversification of risk.  In recent periods, the Australian Dollar has traded as high as 1.1001 and the New Zealand Dollar has traded as high as 0.8776.  Australia has been identified by the United Nations as having the highest natural resources per person in the world.   In 2013, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development rated Australia as the best place to live and work in the world.  Dalian Wanda Group ("Wanda"), the purchaser of AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. ("AMC"), in June 2015, has recently purchased Hoyts, the second largest exhibiter in Australia and New Zealand.

---

 

At December 31, 2015, the book value of our assets was $375.1 million, and, as of that same date, we had a consolidated stockholders’ book equity of $137.2 million. Calculated based on book value, $107.8 million, or 29% of our assets, relate to our cinema exhibition activities and $219.8 million,  or 58%, of our assets, relate to our real estate activities.



For additional segment financial information, please see Note 1 – Description of Business and Segments Reporting to our 2015 consolidated financial statements. 

We have diversified our assets among three countries: the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Based on book value, at December 31, 2015, we had approximately 35% of our assets in the United States, 46% in Australia and 19% in New Zealand compared to 35%, 44%, and 21% respectively, at the end of 2014.

At December 31, 2015, we had cash and cash equivalents of $19.7 million, which are accounted for as a corporate asset. Our cash included $9.3 million denominated in U.S. dollars, $6.8 million (AU$9.3 million) in Australian dollars, and $3.6 million (NZ$5.2 million) in New Zealand dollars. We had non-current assets of $113.3 million in the United States, $161.2 million (AU$221.2 million) in Australia and $63.6 million in New Zealand (NZ$93.0 million).

For 2015, our gross revenue in these jurisdictions was $138.2 million, $93.5 million, and $25.6 million, respectively, compared to $130.8 million, $97.3 million, and $26.6 million for 2014.  These changes are due primarily to the increased box office sales experienced in the United States, due primarily to higher average ticket prices, compared to reduced revenue in our Australia and New Zealand operations. Revenues fell in Australia and New Zealand primarily as a result of the strengthening U.S. dollar when compared to the Australian and New Zealand dollars; this was partially offset by greater box office and concession sales in local currencies as a result of higher attendance. Measured in local currency, revenues in Australia and New Zealand both increased.



---

 



CINEMA EXHIBITION

We are dedicated to creating inspiring cinema experiences for our guests through hospitality-styled comfort and service, cinematic presentation, uniquely designed venues, curated film and event programming, and crafted food and beverage options. We manage our worldwide cinema exhibition business under various brands:



Historically, we have focused on the ownership and/or operation of three categories of cinemas:



Currently, we are focused on upgrading our existing cinemas and developing new cinema opportunities to provide our customers with premium offerings, including luxury seating, state-of-the-art presentation including sound, lounges, cafés and bar service, and other amenities.  In 2015, we added the first IMAX auditorium to our circuit, but endeavor, where possible to include one or more large format TITAN XC screen offerings.

We believe that the cinema exhibition business will continue to generate fairly consistent cash flows in the years ahead, even in recessionary or inflationary environments, because people will continue to spend a reasonable portion of their entertainment dollars on entertainment outside of the home.  When compared to other forms of outside-the-home entertainment, movies continue to be a popular and competitively priced option.

Although the cinema exhibition business is considered a mature business, we see growth opportunities in our cinema exhibition business principally from (i) the enhancement of our existing cinemas, (ii) the development in select markets of art and specialty cinemas, (iii) the development of new state-of-the-art cinemas on land that we already own or may in the future acquire, and (iv) the development of new cinemas in selected markets. While we continue to consider possible opportunities in third party developments, we prefer to put our capital to work on properties that we own rather than take on potentially burdensome lease obligations.  Our circuit has been completely converted to digital projection and sound systems.

We continue to expand and upgrade our circuit on an opportunistic basis.  During 2015 we opened a new state-of-the-art cinema (eight screens) in Auckland, New Zealand, and entered into a lease for a to-be-built state-of-the art eight-screen cinema in Kapolei, Hawaii.  We anticipate that the Kapolei theater will open in the fourth quarter of this year.  We completed the renovation and rebranding as an “Angelika” luxury art cinema of our conventional cinema at the Carmel Mountain Plaza in San Diego, California and completely renovated our fourteen-screen Harbourtown cinema in Queensland, Australia, converting an auditorium in that theater to a TITAN XC auditorium.  We added the first IMAX to our circuit, which opened at our Bakersfield cinema in time for the opening of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”. We continue to progress the construction of a new state-of-the art eight-screen cinema at our Newmarket Shopping Center in Brisbane, Australia.  We anticipate opening that cinema in the fourth quarter of 2017.

In 2015 we upgraded the food and beverage menu at a number of our U.S. cinemas. We are focused on the renovation and upgrading of our existing U.S. cinemas, along the lines of our Carmel Mountain cinema.  Working with veteran Food Network Executive Bruce Seidel of Hot Lemon Productions and chef Santos Loo we are upgrading our food and beverage offerings.  We have obtained beer and wine, and in some cases liquor, licenses for six of our venues and are in the application process for an additional 10 venues.  We intend to be able to offer alcoholic beverages at 16 or more of our venues by the end of 2017.

As discussed in greater detail below, as a part of our real estate operations, we acquired the fee interest in the ETC in which our Townsville, Australia cinema is located and in the adjacent discount center.

In January of 2015, we amended the lease of our Ward Theater in Honolulu as part of a planned renovation and further development by The Howard Hughes Company of its Ward Village development.

On January 31, 2016, following our run of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”, we surrendered our Gaslamp Cinema in San Diego. We paid the landlord a $1.0 million negotiated termination fee, which was less expensive than continuing to operate an unprofitable

---

 

theater at this location.  This cinema was acquired in 2008 as a part of the acquisition of a package of 15 locations from Pacific Theatres. The cinema was, at that time, a substantial money-loser and the purchase price was calculated taking into account the losses generated by that cinema and the likelihood that such losses would continue into the future.

In 2014, we completed an upgrade of our Cinemas 1,2,3 in New York City, which included the installation of luxury recliner seats.  This property is slated for redevelopment.  No determination has been made as to whether a cinema use will be maintained as a part of that redevelopment.  If it is not, then the equipment used at this property will be used elsewhere in our circuit. 

In 2014, we entered into a long-term lease for a new, state-of-the-art Angelika Film Center in the Union Market district of Washington D.C.  However, the lease was terminated as the anticipated location for this cinema ultimately was determined by the landlord, Edens, to not be feasible.  We are currently finalizing with Edens the terms and conditions of a new lease for a cinema in a different location in the Union Market area.

REAL ESTATE

We engage in real estate development and the ownership and rental or licensing to third parties of retail, commercial and live theater assets. We own the fee interests in all of our live theaters, and in 11 of our cinemas.  Our real estate business creates long-term value for our stockholders through the continuous improvement and development of our investment and operating properties, including our ETCs.

Our real estate activities have historically consisted principally of:



Given the substantial increase in Manhattan rents and commercial real estate values in recent periods, we are currently advancing plans for the redevelopment of our Union Square and Cinemas 1,2,3 properties.

We currently anticipate that our Union Square property will be redeveloped into approximately 70,200 square feet of net leaseable area, comprised of retail and office space.  BKSK Architects has designed the building with an iconic glass dome which has been approved by the City of New York Landmarks Preservation Commission.  On March 22, 2016, our application for a variance was approved by the Board of Standards and Appeals.  This was the last major regulatory hurdle to our commencement of construction at the site.  While our building plans still must be approved by the New York City Department of Buildings, we do not currently anticipate encountering any material issues in obtaining such approval.  All tenancies have been terminated.  The building has been vacated, and we have begun internal demolition activities at the site.  We currently anticipate that construction will be completed by the second quarter of 2018.  We have retained Edifice Real Estate Partners, LLC as our development manager, Newmark Grubb Knight Frank as our leasing agent, and, an affiliate of CNY Construction LLC to provide pre-construction management services.  BKSK and Gensler have assisted with the internal layout and interior design of the building.

We have completed a preliminary feasibility study and are currently in negotiations with the owner of the approximately 2,600 square foot corner parcel adjacent to our Cinemas 1,2,3 property on the corner of 60th Street and 3rd Avenue for the joint development of our properties.  A combination of the properties would produce approximately 121,000 square foot of FAR and approximately 140,000 square feet of gross buildable area.  No assurances can be given that we will be able to come to terms with the adjacent owners.

On April 11, 2016, we purchased for $11.2 million a 24,000 square foot Class B office building with 72 parking spaces located at 5995 Sepulveda Boulevard in Culver City, California.  We intend to use approximately 50% of the leasable area for our headquarters offices and to lease the remainder to unaffiliated third parties.  Culver City has in recent years developed as a center of entertainment and high-tech activity in Los Angeles County.  Major tenants in the area include SONY and Google, with Facebook slated to take space in the near future.  We anticipate, when the move is complete and the excess space is leased, we will be able to reduce our headquarters occupancy cost by approximately $350,000 per annum.

Overseas, on December 23, 2015, we acquired two adjoining ETCs in Townsville, Queensland, Australia for a total of $24.3 million (AU$33.6 million) comprising approximately 5.6 acres. The total gross leasable area of the two properties, the Cannon Park City Centre and the Cannon Park Discount Centre, is 133,000 square feet.  Our multiplex cinema at the Cannon Park City Centre is the anchor tenant of that center.  This acquisition is consistent with our business plan to own, where practical, the land underlying our entertainment assets. For additional information, see Note 4 – Acquisitions, Disposals, and Assets Held for Sale – 2015 Transactions – Cannon Park, Queensland, Australia. 

---

 

We continue to work on the expansion of our Auburn  ETC in Sydney, Australia, our Newmarket Shopping Center in Brisbane, Australia, and our Courtenay Central ETC in Wellington, New Zealand.

At Auburn, we have entered into agreements to lease for approximately 15,000 square feet of to-be-constructed retail space.  Upon completion, this will increase the square footage of that center from approximately 117,000 to approximately 132,000 square feet. 

At Newmarket, we have received all necessary land use approvals for the addition of a state-of-the art eight-screen cinema, approximately 10,000 square feet of additional retail space and approximately 142 additional car parks.  Construction is expected to commence in the second quarter of 2016, with a projected opening in the fourth quarter of 2017.  On November 30, 2015, we acquired an approximately 23,000 square foot parcel adjacent to our tenant Coles supermarket.  This property is currently improved with an office building. We intend, over time, to integrate this property into our Newmarket development.  This will increase our Newmarket footprint from approximately 204,000 to approximately 227,000 square feet.

At Courtenay Central, we continue to advance the addition of an approximately 36,000 square foot Countdown supermarket and approximately 4,000 square feet of general retail space.   The agreement to lease the supermarket was signed in 2013, all necessary land use approvals have been obtained, construction budgets for the supermarket have been approved by all parties, and we anticipate beginning construction in the third quarter of this year and occupancy by the fourth quarter 2017. Simultaneously, we are working on the renovation of our existing center and the seismic upgrading of the contiguous 9-story parking structure.

In addition to certain historic railroad properties (such as our 2.1 acre Viaduct Property in downtown Philadelphia) and certain expansion space associated with our existing ETC operations, we have two unimproved properties that we acquired for, and are currently being held for, development:  our 202-acre parcel in Coachella, California (near Palm Springs) and our 70.4 acre parcel in Manukau, a suburb of Auckland, New Zealand (located adjacent to the Auckland Airport).  The Coachella property is currently zoned for residential and mixed-use uses.  The Manukau property is currently zoned for agricultural purposes, but we are in the process of seeking a zoning change to industrial.

Over the past 24 months, we have culled our real estate holdings to focus on those projects which we believe offer more upside potential to us. As part of this process we sold our property in Lake Taupo, New Zealand, for $2.5 million (NZ$3.4 million), which closed in two tranches, with a balance of $821,000 (NZ$1.2 million) received on March 31, 2016. We sold our land holdings in Moonee Ponds, Australia on April 15, 2015 for $17.8 million (AU$23.0 million), for which all monies have now been received and our land holdings in Burwood, Australia, for $47.4 million (AU$65.0 million) on May 12, 2014, with a balance due of $42.6 million (AU$58.5 million) scheduled to be paid at closing in December 2017. Our Burwood agreement provides for mandatory pre-payments in the event that any of the land is sold by the buyer, any such prepayment being in an amount equal to the greater of (a) 90% of the net sales price or (b) the balance of the purchase price multiplied by a fraction the numerator of which is the square footage of property being sold by the buyer and the denominator of which is the original square footage of the property being sold to the buyer. The buyer has informed us that it is under contract to sell a portion of this property and a potential prepayment of approximately $18.2 million (AU$25 million) is possible in 2016. We sold our Doheny Drive Condominium in Los Angeles for $3.0 million, which closed on February 25, 2015. These sales were made based on our belief that the assets involved had reached the highest value that we could reasonably achieve without investing substantial additional sums for land use planning, construction, and marketing.

OPERATING INFORMATION

At December 31, 2015, our principal tangible assets included:







---

 

Cinema Exhibition

We own and/or manage cinema assets as follows:







(1) Cinemas owned and operated through consolidated, but not wholly owned, subsidiaries.

(2) Cinemas owned and operated through interests in unconsolidated joint venture associates.

(3) Cinemas in which we have no ownership interest, but which are operated by us under management agreements.

(4) 33.3% unincorporated joint venture interest.

(5) 50% unincorporated joint venture interest.





Although we operate cinemas in three jurisdictions, the general nature of our operations and operating strategies does not vary materially from jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction. In each jurisdiction, our gross receipts are primarily from box office receipts, food and beverage sales, concession sales, and screen advertising. Our ancillary revenue is created principally from theater rentals (for example, for film festivals and special events), and ancillary programming (such as concerts and sporting events).

Our cinemas generated approximately 65% of their 2015 revenue from box office receipts.  Ticket prices vary by location, and we offer reduced rates for senior citizens, children and, in certain markets, military and students.

Show times and features are placed in advertisements on our various websites, on internet sites and, in some markets, in local newspapers. Film distributors may also advertise certain feature films in various print, radio and television media, as well as on the internet, and those costs are generally paid by distributors. We are increasing our presence in social media, thereby reducing our dependency on print advertising.

Concession sales accounted for approximately 29% of our total 2015 cinema revenue. Although certain cinemas have licenses for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, historically concession products have been primarily popcorn, candy, and soda. This is changing, as more of our theaters are offering expanded food and beverage offerings.  One of our focuses for 2016 and 2017 is to upgrade our existing cinemas with expanded food and beverage offerings. We intend to have alcoholic beverage licenses for at least 16 of our domestic cinemas by 2017.

Screen advertising and other revenue contribute approximately 6% of our total 2015 cinema revenue.  With the exception of certain rights that we have retained to sell to local advertisers, generally speaking, we are not in the screen advertising business and nationally recognized screen-advertising companies provide such advertising for us.

In New Zealand, we also own a one-third interest in Rialto Distribution, an unincorporated joint venture engaged in the business of distributing art film in New Zealand and Australia.  The remaining two-thirds interest in Rialto Distribution is owned by the founders of Rialto Distribution, who have been in the art film distribution business since 1993.  

Management of Cinemas

With the exception of our three unconsolidated cinemas, we manage all of our cinemas with executives located in Los Angeles; Manhattan; Melbourne, Australia; and Wellington, New Zealand. Approximately 2,506 individuals were employed (on a full-time or part-time basis) in our cinema operations as of December 31, 2015. Our two New Zealand Rialto cinemas are owned by a joint venture

---

 

in which Reading New Zealand is a 50% joint venture partner. While we are principally responsible for the booking of these two cinemas, our joint venture partner, Event Cinemas, manages their day-to-day operations.  In addition, we have a one-third interest in a 16-screen Brisbane cinema managed by Event Cinemas.

Licensing and Pricing

Film product is available from a variety of sources, ranging from the major film distributors, such as Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Bros, Buena Vista Pictures (Disney), Sony Pictures Releasing, Universal Pictures and Lionsgate, to a variety of smaller independent film distributors.  In Australia and New Zealand, some of those major distributors distribute through local unaffiliated distributors. Worldwide, the major film distributors dominate the market for mainstream conventional films.  In the U.S. art and specialty film is distributed through the art and specialty divisions of these major distributors, such as Fox Searchlight and Sony Pictures Classics, and through independent distributors such as The Weinstein Company. Generally speaking, film payment terms are based upon an agreed-upon percentage of box office receipts that will vary from film-to-film.

Competition 

In certain markets in the U.S. in which we operate, film may be allocated by the distributor among competitive cinemas, commonly known as “clearance”, while in other U.S. markets we have access to all available film.  This is discussed in greater detail below.  Accordingly, we, from time-to-time, are unable to license every film that we may desire to play. In the Australian and New Zealand markets, we generally have access to all available film product.

We believe that the success of a cinema depends on its access to popular film product because film patrons tend to decide on a film they would like to see first and then a cinema where the film is available.  If a particular film is only offered at one cinema in a given market, then customers wishing to see that film will, of necessity, go to that cinema. If two or more cinemas in the same market offer the same film, then customers will typically take into account factors such as the relative convenience, quality and cost of the various cinemas. For example, most cinema patrons seem to prefer a modern stadium-design multiplex to an older sloped-floor cinema, and to prefer a cinema that either offers convenient access to free parking (or public transport) over a cinema that does not.

This view is being challenged by some exhibitors, who are now promoting a “dine-in” concept.  These exhibitors believe that if offered the right environment, consumers will choose the venue first, and the movie second.  We believe that the jury is out as to the economic viability of this concept given, among other things, the space and fit-out costs involved, the necessarily reduced seat count where food is served at the seat, the split between consumers who want and who oppose having in-auditorium dining (some people just want to see the movie, and find in-auditorium service and dinning to be a distraction from the movie itself), and the pricing of such offerings.  It also appears to us, that one still needs to at least offer top film product.  So, even with these dine-in theaters, access to film remains a principal concern.

In the United States in certain markets, distributors typically take the position that they are free to provide or not provide their films to particular exhibitors, at their complete and absolute discretion, even though the number of “digital prints” is theoretically unlimited and all advertising for conventional film is paid for by the distributors. Some competitors, like AMC, are becoming increasing aggressive in their efforts to prevent competitors’ access to film product in film zones where they have cinemas.  We face clearance situations in several markets in which we show film.

The use of clearances is currently under attack. We believe that, as the two principal justifications for clearances (the cost of producing an additional print and the shared advertising cost) no longer exist, that ultimately clearances should (except in exceptional cases – for example where a distributor’s strategy is for a limited or staged release) go away.  If this occurred, on balance, we believe that this will be a positive development for us, as it will generally speaking increase our access to film in competitive markets.  Pressure on the major chains to stop using “clearances” is increasing.  An investigation by the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, into the possible anticompetitive activities of major chains has been initiated.   Also, there have been private lawsuits by small chains to stop the practice.  For example, iPic Theaters has obtained a temporary injunction against clearance practices by one major chain in Harris County, Texas, and is seeking further injunctions against other major chains in Texas as well as in other jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia.

For now, competition for films can be intense, depending upon the number of cinemas in a particular market. Our ability to obtain top grossing first run feature films may be adversely impacted by our comparatively small size, and the limited number of screens and markets that we can supply to distributors. Moreover, in the United States, because of the dramatic consolidation of screens into the hands of a few very large and powerful exhibitors such as Regal, AMC, Cinemark and Carmike, these mega-exhibition companies are in a position to offer distributors access to many more screens in major markets than we can.  Also, the majors have a significant number of markets where they operate without material competition, meaning that the distributors have no alternative exhibitor for their films in these markets.  Accordingly, distributors may decide to give preference to these mega-exhibitors when it comes to licensing top grossing films, rather than deal with independents such as ourselves. The situation is different in Australia and New Zealand, where typically every major multiplex cinema has access to all of the film currently in distribution, regardless of the

---

 

ownership of that multiplex cinema.  However, on the reverse side, we have suffered somewhat in these markets from competition from boutique operators, who are able to book top grossing commercial films for limited runs, thus increasing competition for customers wishing to view such top grossing films.

Generally speaking, our cinemas are modern multiplex cinemas with good and convenient parking. The availability of state-of-the-art technology and/or luxury seating can also be a factor in the preference of one cinema over another. In recent periods, a number of cinemas have been opened or re-opened featuring luxury seating and/or expanded food and beverage service, including the sale of alcoholic beverages and food served to the seat.  We have for a number of years offered alcoholic beverages in certain of our Australia and New Zealand cinemas and at certain of our Angelika Film Centers in the U.S.  We are currently working to upgrade the seating and food and beverage offerings (including the offering of alcoholic beverages) at a number of our existing cinemas.

The film exhibition markets in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand are to a certain extent dominated by a limited number of major exhibition companies.  The principal exhibitors in the United States are Regal (with 7,361 screens in 572 cinemas), AMC (with 4,937 screens in 348 cinemas), Cinemark (with 4,489 screens in 334 cinemas), and Carmike (with 2,881 screens in 270 cinemas).  As of December 31, 2015, we were the 11th largest exhibitor with 1% of the box office in the United States with 252 screens in 27 cinemas under management.  AMC and Carmike have recently announced the acquisition of Carmike by AMC.  If this acquisition goes through, AMC/Carmike will be the largest exhibitor in the United States with 9,426 screens in 682 theaters.

The principal exhibitors in Australia are Greater Union, which does business under the Event Cinemas name (a subsidiary of Amalgamated Holdings Limited), Hoyts Cinemas (“Hoyts”), and Village Cinemas. The major exhibitors control approximately 65% of the total cinema box office: Event 31%, Hoyts 19%, and Village 15%.  Event has 503 screens nationally, Hoyts 344 screens, and Village 214 screens.  By comparison, our 141 screens (excluding any partnership theaters) represent approximately 7% of the total box office. In June 2015, Hoyts was acquired by Wanda, which also holds a controlling interest in AMC.

The principal exhibitors in New Zealand are Event Cinemas with 105 screens nationally and Hoyts with 63 screens.  Reading has 54 screens (excluding its interest in unconsolidated joint ventures).  The major exhibitors in New Zealand control approximately 56% of the total box office: Event 35% and Hoyts 21%.  Reading has 13% of the market (Event and Reading market share figures exclude any partnership theaters).

In Australia and New Zealand, the industry is somewhat vertically integrated in that Roadshow Film Distributors, a subsidiary of Village, serves as a distributor of film in Australia and New Zealand for Warner Brothers. Films produced or distributed by the majority of the local international independent producers are also distributed by Roadshow Film Distributors.

Many of our competitors have substantial financial resources which could allow them to operate in a more competitive manner than we can.

In-Home and Mobile Device Competition

The “in-home” and mobile device entertainment industry has experienced significant leaps in recent periods in both the quality and affordability of in-home and mobile device entertainment systems and in the accessibility to and quality of entertainment programming through cable, satellite, internet distribution channels, and Blu-ray/DVD. The success of these alternative distribution channels puts additional pressure on film distributors to reduce and/or eliminate the time period between theatrical and secondary release dates and the willingness of consumers to take the time and pay the admission price to go to the movie theater.  To a certain extent, it appears that consumers are willing to trade convenience for presentation. These are issues common to both our U.S. and international cinema operations. 

Competitive issues are discussed in greater detail under the caption, Item 1A - Risk Factors.

Seasonality

Major films are generally released to coincide with holidays. With the exception of Christmas and New Year’s Days, this fact provides some balancing of our revenue because there is no material overlap between holidays in the United States and those in Australia and New Zealand. Distributors will delay, in certain cases, releases in Australia and New Zealand to take advantage of Australian and New Zealand holidays that are not celebrated in the United States. However, the deferral of releases is becoming increasing less common, given the need to address internet and other channels of distribution that operate on a worldwide basis.

Real Estate

Our real estate activities have historically consisted principally of:

---

 

While we report our real estate as a separate segment, it has historically operated as an integral portion of our overall business and, historically, has principally been in support of that business.  We have, however, acquired or developed certain properties that do not currently have any cinema or other entertainment component. 

Our real estate activities, holdings and developments are described in greater detail in Item 2 – Properties.  

Employees

As of December 31, 2015, we had 88 full-time executive and administrative employees and 2,506 cinema employees. A small number of our cinema employees in New Zealand are union members, as are our projectionists in Hawaii. None of our Australian-based employees or other employees are subject to union contracts. Overall, we are of the view that the existence of these collective-bargaining agreements does not materially increase our costs of labor or our ability to compete. We believe our relations with our employees to be generally good.

Item 1A – Risk Factors

Investing in our securities involves risk.  Set forth below is a summary of various risk factors that you should consider in connection with your investment in the Company. This summary should be considered in the context of our overall Annual Report on Form 10K, as many of the topics addressed below are discussed in significantly greater detail in the context of specific discussions of our business plan, our operating results, and the various competitive forces that we face.

BUSINESS RISK FACTORS

We are currently engaged principally in the cinema exhibition and real estate businesses.  Because we operate in two business segments (cinema exhibition and real estate), we discuss separately below the risks we believe to be material to our involvement in each of these segments. We have discussed separately certain risks relating to the international nature of our business activities, our use of leverage, and our status as a controlled corporation.  Please note that, while we report the results of our live theater operations as real estate operations – because we are principally in the business of renting space to producers rather than in licensing or producing plays ourselves – the cinema exhibition and live theater businesses share certain risk factors and are, accordingly, discussed together below.

Cinema Exhibition and Live Theater Business Risk Factors

We operate in a highly competitive environment with many competitors who are significantly larger and may have significantly better access to funds than we do.

We are a comparatively small cinema operator and face competition from much larger cinema exhibitors.  These larger exhibitors are able to offer distributors more screens in more markets – including markets where they may be the exclusive exhibitor – than can we.  Faced with such competition, we may not be able to get access to all of the films we want, which may adversely affect our revenue and profitability.

These larger competitors may also enjoy (i) greater cash flow, which can be used to develop additional cinemas, including cinemas that may be competitive with our existing cinemas, (ii) better access to equity capital and debt, (iii) better visibility to landlords and real estate developers; and (iv) better economies of scale, than we do.

In the case of our live theaters, we compete for shows not only with other “for profit” Off-Broadway theaters, but also with “not-for-profit” operators and, increasingly, with Broadway theaters.  We believe our live theaters are generally competitive with other Off-Broadway venues.  However, due to the increased cost of staging live theater productions, we are seeing an increasing tendency for plays that would historically have been staged in an Off-Broadway theater moving directly to larger Broadway venues.

We face competition from other sources of entertainment and other entertainment delivery systems.

Both our cinema and live theater operations face competition from “in-home” and mobile device sources of entertainment. These include competition from network, cable and satellite television, internet streaming video services, Video on Demand, Blu-ray/DVD,

---

 

the internet, video games and other sources of entertainment. The quality of in-house entertainment systems, as well as programming available on an in-home and mobile basis, has increased, while the cost to consumers of such systems (and such programming) has decreased in recent periods, and some consumers may prefer the security and/or convenience of an ”in-home” or mobile entertainment experience to the more public and presentation oriented experience offered by our cinemas and live theaters. Film distributors have been responding to these developments by, in some cases, decreasing or eliminating the period of time between cinema release and the date such product is made available to “in-home” forms of distribution.

The narrowing and/or elimination of this so-called “window” for cinema exhibition may be problematic for the cinema exhibition industry.  However, to date, attempts by the major film distributors to continue to narrow or eliminate the window have  been strenuously resisted by the cinema exhibition industry, and we view the total elimination of the cinema exhibition window by major film distributors, while theoretically possible, to be unlikely.

However, there is the risk that, over time, distributors may move towards simultaneous release of motion picture product in multiple channels of distribution. Also, some traditional in-home and mobile distributors have begun the production of full-length movies, specifically for the purpose of direct or simultaneous release to the in-home and mobile markets. These factors may adversely affect the competitive advantage enjoyed by cinemas over “in-home” and mobile forms of entertainment, as it may be that the cinema market and the “in-home” and mobile markets will have simultaneous access to the same motion picture product. In recent times a number of movies were released on a simultaneous basis to movie exhibitors and to in-home and mobile markets. It is likely that this trend will continue, making it increasingly important for exhibitors to enhance the convenience and quality of the theater-going experience.

We also face competition from various other forms of “beyond-the-home” entertainment, including sporting events, concerts, restaurants, casinos, video game arcades, and nightclubs. Our cinemas also face competition from live theaters and vice versa.

Our cinema and live theater businesses may be vulnerable to fears of terrorism, other natural disasters which could cause customers to avoid public assembly seating

Political events, such as terrorist attacks, and health-related epidemics, such as flu outbreaks, could cause patrons to avoid our cinemas or other public places where large crowds are in attendance. In addition, a natural disaster, such as a typhoon or an earthquake, could impact our ability to operate certain of our cinemas, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

Our cinema operations depend upon access to film that is attractive to our patrons, and our live theater operations depend upon the continued attractiveness of our theaters to producers.

Our ability to generate revenue and profits is largely dependent on factors outside of our control, specifically, the continued ability of motion picture and live theater producers to produce films and plays that are attractive to audiences, the amount of money spent by film distributors and theatrical producers to promote their motion pictures and plays, and the willingness of these producers to license their films on terms that are financially viable to our cinemas and to rent our theaters for the presentation of their plays.  To the extent that popular movies and plays are produced, our cinema and live theater activities are ultimately dependent upon our ability, in the face of competition from other cinema and live theater operators to book these movies and plays into our facilities, and to provide a superior customer offering.

We rely on film distributors to supply the films shown in our theatres. In the U.S., the film distribution business is highly concentrated, with seven major film distributors accounting for approximately 89.5% of U.S. box office revenues. Numerous antitrust cases and the consent decree resulting from these antitrust cases affect the distribution of films. Consequently, we cannot guarantee a supply of films by entering into long-term arrangements with major distributors. We are therefore required to negotiate licenses for each film and for each theatre. A deterioration of our relationship with any of the seven major film distributors could adversely affect our ability to obtain commercially successful films and to negotiate favorable licensing terms for such films, both of which could adversely affect our business and operating results.

In the U.S., at least until recently, distributors have had broad discretion not to show the same film at competitive cinemas.   This has, in many situations, given the larger exhibitors (as a result of their market power) power to influence distributors to exercise their discretion in this regard in favor of the larger exhibitors.   In this industry, this is called “clearance.”    Recent judicial decisions, however, have thrown doubt on the extent to which this practice will continue to be permitted under applicable antitrust laws.

Adverse economic conditions could materially affect our business by reducing discretionary income and by limiting or reducing sources of film and live theater funding.

Cinema and live theater attendance is a luxury, not a necessity.  Accordingly, a decline in the economy resulting in a decrease in discretionary income, or a perception of such a decline, may result in decreased discretionary spending, which could adversely affect our cinema and live theater businesses. Adverse economic conditions can also affect the supply side of our business, as reduced

---

 

liquidity can adversely affect the availability of funding for movies and plays.  This is particularly true in the case of Off-Broadway plays, which are often times financed by high net worth individuals (or groups of such individuals) and that are very risky due to the absence of any ability to recoup investment in secondary markets like Blu-ray/DVD, cable, satellite or internet distribution.

Our screen advertising revenue may decline. 

Over the past several years, cinema exhibitors have been looking increasingly to screen advertising as a way to improve income.  No assurances can be given that this source of income will be continuing, or that the use of such advertising will not ultimately prove to be counterproductive, by giving consumers a disincentive to choose going to the movies over “in-home” or mobile entertainment alternatives.

We face uncertainty as to the timing and direction of technological innovations in the cinema exhibition business and as to our access to those technologies.

We have converted all of our cinema auditoriums to digital projection.  However, no assurances can be given that other technological advances will not require us to make further material investments in our cinemas or face loss of business.  Also, equipment is currently being developed for holographic or laser projection. The future of these technologies in the cinema exhibition industry is uncertain.

We face competition from new competitors offering food and beverage as an integral part of their cinema offerings.

A number of new entrants, such as Alamo Drafthouse and iPic, offering an expanded food and beverage menu (including the sale of alcoholic beverages), have emerged in recent periods. In addition, some competitors are converting existing cinemas to provide such expanded menu offerings and in-theater dining options. The existence of such cinemas may alter traditional cinema selection practices of moviegoers, as they seek out cinemas with such expanded offerings as a preferred alternative to traditional cinemas.

We may be subject to increased labor and benefits costs.

We are subject to laws governing such matters as minimum wages, working conditions and overtime. As minimum wage rates increase, we may need to increase not only the wages of our minimum wage employees, but also the wages paid to employees at wage rates that are above minimum wage. Labor shortages, increased employee turnover and health care mandates could also increase our labor costs. This in turn could lead us to increase prices which could impact our sales. Conversely, if competitive pressures or other factors prevent us from offsetting increased labor costs by increases in prices, our results of operations may be adversely impacted.

Cyber security threats and our failure to protect our electronically stored data could adversely affect our business.

We store and maintain electronic information and data necessary to conduct our business. Data maintained in electronic form is subject to the risk of intrusion, tampering and theft. While we have adopted industry-accepted security measures and technology to protect the confidential and proprietary information, the development and maintenance of these systems is costly and require ongoing monitoring and updating as technologies change and efforts to overcome security measures become more sophisticated. As such, we may be unable to anticipate and implement adequate preventive measures in time. This may adversely affect our business, including exposure to government enforcement actions and private litigation, and our reputation with our customers and employees may be injured. In addition to Company-specific cyber threats or attacks, our business and results of operations could also be impacted by breaches affecting our peers and partners within the entertainment industry, as well as other retail companies.



Real Estate Development and Ownership Business Risks

We operate in a highly competitive environment in which we must compete against companies with much greater financial and human resources than we have.

We have limited financial and human resources, compared to our principal real estate competitors.  In recent periods, we have relied heavily on outside professionals in connection with our real estate development activities.  Many of our competitors have significantly greater resources and may be able to achieve greater economies of scale than we can.

Risks Related to the Real Estate Industry Generally

Our financial performance will be affected by risks associated with the real estate industry generally.

Events and conditions generally applicable to developers, owners, and operators of real property will affect our performance as well.  These include (i) changes in the national, regional and local economic climate, (ii) local conditions, such as an oversupply of, or a reduction in demand for, commercial space and/or entertainment-oriented properties, (iii) reduced attractiveness of our properties to

---

 

tenants, (iv) the rental rates and capitalization rates applicable to the markets in which we operate and the quality of properties that we own, (v) competition from other properties, (vi) inability to collect rent from tenants, (vii) increased operating costs, including labor, materials, real estate taxes, insurance premiums, and utilities, (viii) costs of complying with changes in government regulations, (ix) the relative illiquidity of real estate investments, and (x) decreases in sources of both construction and long-term lending as traditional sources of such funding leave or reduce their commitments to real estate-based lending.  In addition, periods of economic slowdown or recession, rising interest rates or declining demand for real estate, or the public perception that any of these events may occur, could result in declining rents or increased lease defaults.

We may incur costs complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar laws.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar statutory regimes in Australia and New Zealand or under applicable state or local law, all places of public accommodation (including cinemas and theaters) are required to meet certain governmental requirements related to access and use by persons with disabilities.  A determination that we are not in compliance with those governmental requirements with respect to any of our properties could result in the imposition of fines or an award of damages to private litigants.  The cost of addressing these issues could be substantial. 

Illiquidity of real estate investments could impede our ability to respond to adverse changes in the performance of our properties.

Real estate investments are relatively illiquid and, therefore, tend to limit our ability to vary our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions.  Many of our properties are either (i) “special purpose” properties that could not be readily converted to general residential, retail or office use, or (ii) undeveloped land.  In addition, certain significant expenditures associated with real estate investment, such as real estate taxes and maintenance costs, are generally not reduced when circumstances cause a reduction in income from the investment, and competitive factors may prevent the pass-through of such costs to tenants.

Real estate development involves a variety of risks.

Real estate development involves a variety of risks, including the following:

---

 

The ownership of properties involves risk. 

The ownership of investment properties involves risks, such as:  (i) ongoing leasing and re-leasing risks, (ii) ongoing financing and re-financing risks, (iii) market risks as to the multiples offered by buyers of investment properties, (iv) risks related to the ongoing compliance with changing governmental regulation (including, without limitation, environmental laws and requirements to remediate environmental contamination that may exist on a property (such as, by way of example, asbestos), even though not deposited on the property by us), (v) relative illiquidity compared to some other types of assets, and (vi) susceptibility of assets to uninsurable risks, such as biological, chemical or nuclear terrorism, or risks that are subject to caps tied to the concentration of such assets in certain geographic areas, such as earthquakes. Furthermore, as our properties are typically developed around an entertainment use, the attractiveness of these properties to tenants, sources of finance and real estate investors will be influenced by market perceptions of the benefits and detriments of such entertainment-type properties.  

A number of our assets are in geologically active areas, presenting risk of earthquake and land movement.

We have cinemas in California and New Zealand, areas that present a greater risk of earthquake and/or land movement than other locations. New Zealand has in recent periods had several major earthquakes damaging our facilities in Christchurch and Wellington. The ability to insure for such casualties is limited and may become more difficult and/or more expensive in future periods.

We may be subject to liability under environmental laws and regulations.

We own and operate a large number of cinemas and other properties within the U.S. and internationally, which may be subject to various foreign, federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment or human health. Such environmental laws and regulations include those that impose liability for the investigation and remediation of spills or releases of hazardous materials. We may incur such liability, including for any currently or formerly owned, leased or operated property, or for any site, to which we may have disposed, or arranged for the disposal of, hazardous materials or wastes. Certain of these laws and regulations may impose liability, including on a joint and several liability, which can result in a liable party being obliged to pay for greater than its share, regardless of fault or the legality of the original disposal. Environmental conditions relating to our properties or operations could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations and cash flows.

Legislative or regulatory initiatives related to global warming/climate change concerns may negatively impact our business.

Recently, there has been an increasing focus and continuous debate on global climate change including increased attention from regulatory agencies and legislative bodies. This increased focus may lead to new initiatives directed at regulating an as yet unspecified array of environmental matters. Legislative, regulatory or other efforts in the U.S. to combat climate change could result in future increases in the cost of raw materials, taxes, transportation and utilities for our vendors and for us which would result in higher operating costs for the Company. Also, compliance by our cinemas and accompanying real estate with new and revised environmental, zoning, land-use or building codes, laws, rules or regulations, could have a material and adverse effect on our business. However, we are unable to predict at this time, the potential effects, if any, that any future environmental initiatives may have on our business.

International Business Risks

Our international operations are subject to a variety of risks, including the following:

Currency Risk: while we report our earnings and net assets in U.S. dollars, substantial portions of our revenue and of our obligations are denominated in either Australian or New Zealand dollars. The value of these currencies can vary significantly compared to the U.S. dollar and compared to each other. We do not hedge the currency risk, but rather have relied upon the natural hedges that exist as a result of the fact that our film costs are typically fixed as a percentage of the box office, and our local operating costs and obligations are likewise typically denominated in local currencies. However, we do have debt at our parent company level that is serviced by our overseas cash flow, and our ability to service this debt could be adversely impacted by declines in the relative value of the Australian and New Zealand dollar compared to the U.S. dollar.  Also, our use of local borrowings to mitigate the business risk of currency fluctuations has reduced our flexibility to move cash between jurisdictions.  Set forth below is a chart of the exchange ratios between these three currencies over the past twenty years: 

---

 



Risks Associated with Certain Discontinued Operations

Certain of our subsidiaries were previously in industrial businesses. As a consequence, properties that are currently owned or may have in the past been owned by these subsidiaries may prove to have environmental issues.  Where we have knowledge of such environmental issues and are in a position to make an assessment as to our exposure, we have established what we believe to be appropriate reserves, but we are exposed to the risk that currently unknown problems may be discovered. These subsidiaries are also exposed to potential claims related to exposure of former employees to coal dust, asbestos, and other materials now considered to be, or which in the future may be found to be, carcinogenic or otherwise injurious to health. 

Operating Results, Financial Structure and Borrowing Risk

From time to time, we may have negative working capital. 

In recent years, as we have invested our cash in new acquisitions and the development of our existing properties, we have from time-to-time had negative working capital. This negative working capital is typical in the cinema exhibition industry because our short-term liabilities are in part financing our long-term assets instead of long-term liabilities financing short-term assets, as is the case in other industries such as manufacturing and distribution.

---

 

We have substantial short to medium term debt.

Generally speaking, we have historically financed our operations through relatively short-term debt.  No assurances can be given that we will be able to refinance this debt, or if we can, that the terms will be reasonable.  However, as a counterbalance to this debt, we have significant unencumbered real property assets, which could be sold to pay debt or encumbered to assist in the refinancing of existing debt, if necessary. 

We have substantial lease liabilities.

Most of our cinemas operate in leased facilities. These leases typically have “cost of living” or other rent adjustment features and require that we operate the properties as cinemas.  A downturn in our cinema exhibition business might, depending on its severity, adversely affect the ability of our cinema operating subsidiaries to meet these rental obligations.  Even if our cinema exhibition business remains relatively constant, cinema level cash flow will likely be adversely affected unless we can increase our revenue sufficiently to offset increases in our rental liabilities. Unlike property rental leases, our newly added digital equipment leases do not have “cost of living” or other lease adjustment features.

Our stock is thinly traded.

Our stock is thinly traded, with an average daily volume in 2015 of only approximately 56,000 Class A Common shares.  This can result in significant volatility, as demand by buyers and sellers can easily get out of balance.

Ownership and Management Structure, Corporate Governance, and Change of Control Risks 

Pending disputes among the Cotter family raise uncertainty regarding the ongoing control of the Company and may distract the time and attention of our officers and directors from our business and operations or interfere with the effective management of the Company.



Up until his death on September 13, 2014, James J. Cotter, Sr., the father of Ellen Cotter, James J. Cotter, Jr. and Margaret Cotter, was our controlling stockholder, having the sole power to vote approximately 66.9% of the outstanding voting stock of the Company.  Under applicable Nevada Law, a stockholder holding more than 2/3rds of the Company’s voting stock has the power at any time, with or without cause, to remove any one or more directors (up to and including the entire board of directors) by written consent taken without a meeting of the stockholders.



Since his death, disputes have arisen among Ellen Cotter, James J. Cotter, Jr. and Margaret Cotter concerning the voting control of those shares and regarding the exercise by the Estate of James J. Cotter, Sr. Deceased (the “Cotter Estate”) of options to acquire an additional 100,000 shares of Class B Stock.  At the present time, Ellen Cotter is the Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer of our Company. James J. Cotter, Jr. is a director and from June 2013 until June 12, 2015 was the President and from August 7, 2014 until June 12, 2015 was the Chief Executive Officer of our Company, having been removed from those positions by Board action on June 12, 2015.  Margaret Cotter is the Vice-Chair of our Company and the President of Liberty Theaters, LLC, the company through which we own and operate our live theaters.  She heads up the management and redevelopment of our New York properties.



As of December 31, 2015, according to the books of the Company, the Living Trust established by Declaration of Trust dated June 5, 2013, by James J. Cotter, Sr. (the “Cotter Trust”), held of record 696,080 shares of our Class B Voting Stock (“Voting Stock”) constituting approximately 41.4% of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock.  According to the books of the Company, the Cotter Estate as of that date held of record an additional 427,808 shares of Voting Stock, constituting approximately 25.5% of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock. We are advised, based upon public filings made by one or more of Ellen Cotter, Margaret Cotter and James J. Cotter, Jr. (the “Cotter Filings”) that the Voting Stock currently held of record by the Cotter Estate will eventually pour over into the Cotter Trust.  We are further advised from the Cotter Filings that the Cotter Trust also provides for the establishment of a voting trust (the “Cotter Voting Trust”) which will eventually hold the Voting Stock currently held by the Cotter Estate and the Cotter Trust.  At the present time, however, such Voting Stock is held of record by the Cotter Trust and the Cotter Estate, respectively.



Ellen Cotter, James J. Cotter, Jr. and Margaret Cotter are currently the trustees of the Cotter Trust.  On December 22, 2014, the District Court of Clark County, Nevada appointed Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter as co-executors of the Cotter Estate. Accordingly, at the present time, Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter acting as a majority of the Trustees of the Cotter Trust with respect to the shares held by the Cotter Trust and as the co-executors of the Cotter Estate with respect to the shares held by the Cotter Estate (including the 100,000 shares of Voting Stock acquired by the Cotter Estate through the exercise of stock options previously granted to Mr. Cotter, Sr.), and voting in their individual capacity their direct holdings of 50,000 shares and 35,100 shares respectively of the Voting Stock, have the power to vote Voting Stock representing 71.9% of our outstanding Voting Stock.

---

 

The identity of the trustee(s) of the Cotter Voting Trust and the terms of that trust are in dispute as between Ellen Cotter, James J. Cotter, Jr. and Margaret Cotter.



We are advised by the Cotter Filings that the 2013 amended and restated declaration of trust for the Cotter Trust names Margaret Cotter as the sole trustee of the Cotter Voting Trust and names James J. Cotter, Jr., as the first alternate trustee in the event that Margaret Cotter is unable or unwilling to act as trustee.  We are further advised by the Cotter Filings that a 2014 partial amendment to the declaration of trust, signed by Mr. Cotter, Sr. while he was in the hospital, names Margaret Cotter and James J. Cotter, Jr. as co-trustees of the Cotter Voting Trust and provides that, in the event they are unable to agree upon an important trust decision, they shall rotate the voting of the Voting Stock between them annually on each January 1st.  It further directs the trustees of the Cotter Voting Trust to, among other things, vote such shares of our Voting Stock held by the Cotter Voting Trust in favor of the election of Ellen Cotter, Margaret Cotter and James J. Cotter, Jr. to our board of directors and to rotate annually the chairmanship of our board between Ellen Cotter, Margaret Cotter and James J. Cotter, Jr.



On February 6, 2015, Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter filed a Petition in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, captioned In re James J. Cotter Living Trust dated August 1, 2000 (Case No. BP159755) (the “Trust Case”).  The Petition, among other things, seeks relief that could determine the validity of the 2014 partial amendment and who, as between Margaret Cotter and James J. Cotter Jr., has authority as trustee or co-trustees of the Cotter Voting Trust to vote the Cotter Voting Trust’s shares of our Voting Stock (in whole or in part) and the scope and extent of such authority.  James J. Cotter, Jr. has filed an opposition to the Petition and has filed pleadings in that proceeding seeking the removal of Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter as trustees of the Cotter Trust.  The Trust Case is currently scheduled to be tried in July of this year.



In addition, James J. Cotter, Jr. and certain other stockholders have filed two derivative actions (discussed in greater detail below) against Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter and certain of our Directors and officers, alleging a variety of misconduct on their part, and among other things seeking the reinstatement of James J. Cotter, Jr. as president and chief executive officer of our Company, challenging the voting by Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter of the shares held by the Cotter Estate, and seeking to void the result of the election of directors held at our 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.  See discussion under the heading, Legal Proceedings; Derivative Litigation and James J. Cotter, Jr. Arbitration, infra.



Although the Company is not a party to the Trust Case and takes no position as to the claims asserted or the relief sought therein, the matters raised in the Trust Case create uncertainty regarding the ongoing control of the Company. Until these matters can be resolved, it is unclear whether, upon the creation of and the transfer of ownership of the Voting Stock to the Cotter Voting Trust, Margaret Cotter will be the sole trustee of the Cotter Voting Trust or whether Margaret Cotter and James J. Cotter. Jr. will be co-trustees of the Cotter Voting Trust.  It is likewise uncertain, in the event that the court should determine that Margaret Cotter and James J. Cotter are co-trustees of the Cotter Voting Trust, how the power-sharing authority would be applied in practice.



These pending matters could, in the future, potentially distract the time and attention of Ellen Cotter, James J. Cotter, Jr. and Margaret Cotter from the business and operations of our Company and thus potentially have an adverse effect on the effective management of our Company.  Furthermore, the uncertainty as to the future management and control of our Company could potentially  adversely impact, among other things (i) our ability to develop and maintain favorable business relationships, (ii) our ability to attract and retain talented and experienced directors, executives and employees, (iii) the compensation and other terms needed to attract and retain such individuals, (iv) our ability to borrow money on favorable long-term terms, and (v) our ability to pursue and complete long-term business objectives. 



The interests of our controlling stockholder may conflict with your interests.

As of December 31, 2015, the Cotter Estate and the Cotter Trust beneficially own 66.9% of our outstanding Class B Stock.  At the present time, according to the books of the Company, Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter vote (including their direct holdings of 50,000 shares and 35,100 shares respectively of the Class B Stock), Class B Stock representing 71.9% of our outstanding Class B Stock.  Our Class A Stock is non-voting, while our Class B Stock represents all of the voting power of our Company.  For as long as the Cotter Estate, the Cotter Trust and/or the Cotter Voting Trust (referred to herein collectively as the “Cotter Entities”) continue to own shares of Class B Stock representing more than 50% of the voting power of our common stock, the Cotter Entities will be able to elect all of the members of our Board of Directors and determine the outcome of all matters submitted to a vote of our stockholders, including matters involving mergers or other business combinations, the acquisition or disposition of assets, the incurrence of indebtedness, the issuance of any additional shares of common stock or other equity securities and the payment of dividends on common stock. The Cotter Entities will also have the power to prevent or cause a change in control, and could take other actions that might be desirable to the Cotter Entities but not to other stockholders.  To the extent that the Cotter Entities hold more than 2/3rds of our outstanding Class B Stock, the Cotter Entities will have the power at any time, with or without cause, to remove any one or more Directors (up to and including the entire board of directors) by written consent taken without a meeting of the stockholders.    



---

 

In addition, the Cotter Estate or the Cotter Trust and/or their respective affiliates have controlling interests in companies in related and unrelated industries.  In the future, we may participate in transactions with these companies (see Note 18 – Related Parties and Transactions).



While controlling stockholders may owe certain fiduciary duties to the company and/or minority stockholders, these duties are limited.   No assurances can be given that the Cotter Entities will not take action that, while beneficial to them and legally enforceable, would not necessarily be in the best interests of our Company and/or our stockholders generally.



We are a “Controlled Company” under applicable NASDAQ Regulations.   As permitted by those Regulations, our Board has elected to opt out of certain corporate governance rules applicable to non-controlled companies.

Generally speaking, the NASDAQ requires listed companies to meet certain minimum corporate governance provisions.  However, a “Controlled Company”, such as we, may elect not to be governed by certain of these provisions.  Our Board of Directors has elected to exempt our Company from requirements that (i) at least a majority of our Directors be independent, (ii) nominees to our Board of Directors be nominated by a committee comprised entirely of independent Directors or by a majority of our Company’s independent Directors, and (iii) the compensation of our Chief Executive Officer be determined or recommended to our Board of Directors by a compensation committee comprised entirely of independent Directors or by a majority of our Company’s independent Directors.  Notwithstanding the determination by our Board of Directors to opt-out of these NASDAQ requirements, we believe that a majority of our Board of Directors is nevertheless currently comprised of independent Directors, and our compensation committee is nevertheless currently comprised entirely of independent Directors. Nominations are considered by the Board, acting as a whole. 

We depend on key personnel for our current and future performance.

Our current and future performance depends to a significant degree upon the continued contributions of our senior management team and other key personnel. The loss or unavailability to us of any member of our senior management team or a key employee could significantly harm us. We cannot assure you that we would be able to locate or employ qualified replacements for senior management or key employees on acceptable terms. Due to the uncertainty of our control situation, the ongoing availability of these employees and our ability to replace them is uncertain.





Item 1B - Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

---

 

Item 2 – Properties 

EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES

We lease approximately 11,700 square feet of office space in Los Angeles, California to serve as our executive headquarters.  This lease expires on December 31, 2016 and we will not renew it, since as discussed below we have purchased a headquarters building in Culver City, California.  We own an 8,100 square foot office building in Melbourne, Australia, approximately 5,200 square feet of which serves as the headquarters for our Australian and New Zealand operations (the remainder being leased to an unrelated third party). We maintain our accounting personnel and certain IT and operational personnel in approximately 5,800 square foot of offices located in our Wellington Courtenay Central ETC.  We occupy approximately 3,500 square feet at our Village East leasehold property for administrative purposes.



On April 11, 2016, we purchased a 24,000 square foot Class B office building with 72 parking spaces located at 5995 Sepulveda Boulevard in Culver City, California.  We intend to use approximately 50% of the leasable area for our headquarters offices and to lease the remainder to unaffiliated third parties.



ENTERTAINMENT PROPERTIES

Entertainment Use Leasehold Interests

As of December 31, 2015, we lease approximately 1,800,000 square feet of completed cinema space in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand as follows:



In 2014, we entered into a long term lease for a new state-of-the-art Angelika Film Center in the Union Market district of Washington DC.  However, the lease was terminated as the anticipated location for this cinema ultimately was determined by the landlord, Edens, to not be feasible.   We are currently finalizing with Edens the terms and conditions of a new lease for a cinema in a different location in the Union Market area. 

In December 2014, we entered into a lease for a new luxury cinema, under the Consolidated Theatres brand, at the new Ka Makana Ali'i Shopping Center being developed in Kapolei, Hawaii by an affiliate of DeBartolo Development and finalized terms for a new eight-screen cinema complex in Auckland, New Zealand, which opened in November 2015. 

Fee Interests

In Australia, as of December 31, 2015, we owned approximately 1,200,000 square feet of land at nine locations.  Most of this land is located in the greater metropolitan areas of Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, and Sydney. The foregoing does not include the 50.6-acre Burwood, Australia site, which has been sold but not yet recognized as a sale under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“US GAAP”).  Of these fee interests, approximately 165,000 square feet are currently improved with cinemas.  This figure includes an approximately 23,000 square foot parcel currently improved with an approximately 22,000 square foot office building that we intend to integrate with and into our Newmarket Shopping Center and that, accordingly, is not listed above as a separate location.

In New Zealand, as of December 31, 2015, we owned approximately 3,400,000 square feet of land at seven locations. The foregoing excludes the 0.5-acre Taupo, New Zealand site, which has been sold but not yet recognized as a sale under US GAAP. The foregoing includes the Courtenay Central ETC in Wellington, the development land behind the Courtenay Central ETC, the 70.4-acre Manukau site, and the fee interests underlying four cinemas in New Zealand, which properties include approximately 21,000 square feet of ancillary retail space.

In the United States, as of December 31, 2015, we owned approximately 74,000 square feet of improved real estate comprised of three live theater buildings, which include approximately 16,000 square feet of leasable space, the fee interest in the Union Square property formally used as a live theater, and the fee interest in our Cinemas 1, 2, 3 in Manhattan (held through a limited liability company in

---

 

which we have a 75% managing member interest). We also own 202 acres of unimproved land in Coachella Valley, California, held through a limited liability company in which the Cotter Estate has a 50% non-managing member interest. 

As discussed above we purchased a property in Culver City to house our executive offices.

Live Theaters

Included among our real estate holdings are three Off-Broadway style live theaters, operated through our Liberty Theaters subsidiary. We license theater auditoriums to the producers of Off-Broadway theatrical productions and provide various box office and concession services. The terms of our licenses are, naturally, principally dependent upon the commercial success of our tenants. While we attempt to choose productions that we believe will be successful, we have no control over the production itself.  At the current time, we have two single-auditorium theaters in Manhattan:

We also own a four-auditorium theater complex, the Royal George in Chicago (main stage 452 seats, cabaret 199 seats, great room 100 seats and gallery 60 seats), which has ancillary retail and office space.

At the end of 2015, we closed our Union Square Theater as a part of our redevelopment of that property.

Liberty Theaters is primarily in the business of renting theater space. However, we may from time-to-time participate as an investor in a play, which can help facilitate the production of the play at one of our facilities, and do from time-to-time rent space on a basis that allows us to share in a production’s revenue or profits.  Revenue, expense, and profits are reported as a part of the real estate segment of our business.

Joint Venture Interests

We also hold real estate through several unincorporated joint ventures, two 75%-owned subsidiaries, and one majority-owned subsidiary, as described below:

---

 

OPERATING PROPERTY

As of December 31,  2015, we own fee interests in approximately 1,300,000 square feet of income-producing properties (including certain properties principally occupied by our cinemas) as follows:





(1) Rental square footage refers to the amount of area available to be rented to third parties. A number of our real estate holdings include entertainment components rented to one or more of our subsidiaries at fair market rent. The rental area to such subsidiaries is noted under the entertainment square footage.

(2) Represents the percentage of rental square footage currently leased to third parties.

(3) Refers to the gross carrying cost of the land and buildings of the property.

(4) Owned by a limited liability company in which we hold a 75% managing member interest.  The remaining 25% is owned by Sutton Hill Capital, LLC (“SHC”), a company owned in equal parts by the Cotter Estate or the Cotter Trust and a third party.





(5) For further information on the developments of these properties, refer to succeeding section "Investment and Development Property".



---

 

LONG-TERM LEASEHOLD OPERATING PROPERTY

In addition, in certain cases we have long-term leases that we view more akin to real estate investments than cinema leases. As of December 31, 2015, we had approximately 155,000 square foot of space subject to such long-term leases as follows:







(1) Rental square footage refers to the amount of area available to be rented to third parties. A number of our real estate holdings include entertainment components rented to one or more of our subsidiaries at fair market rent. The rental area to such subsidiaries is noted under the entertainment square footage.

(2) Represents the percentage of rental square footage currently leased to third parties.

(3) Refers to the gross carrying cost of the land and buildings of the property.

(4) The lease of the Village East provides for a call option pursuant to which Reading may purchase the cinema ground lease for $5.9 million at the end of the lease term in 2020.  Additionally, the lease has a put option pursuant to which SHC may require Reading to purchase all or a portion of SHC's interest in the existing cinema lease and the cinema ground lease at any time between July 1, 2013 and December 4, 2019.  See Note 18 - Related Parties and Transactions to our 2015 consolidated financial statements.



INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY

We are engaged in several investment and development projects relative to our currently undeveloped parcels of land.  In addition, we anticipate that redevelopment of one or more of our existing developed properties may also occur. The following table summarizes our investment and development projects as of December 31, 2015:





(1) A number of our real estate holdings include additional land held for development.  In addition, we have acquired certain parcels for future development.

(2) Includes, as applicable, the land, building, development costs, and capitalized interest of the property.



Some of our income operating properties and our investment and development properties carry various debt encumbrances based on their income streams and geographic locations. For an explanation of our debt and the associated security collateral please see Note 10 – Debt to our 2015 consolidated financial statements.

OTHER PROPERTY INTERESTS AND INVESTMENTS

We own the fee interest in 11 parcels comprising 195 acres in Pennsylvania and Delaware. These acres consist primarily of vacant land. With the exception of certain properties located in Philadelphia (including the raised railroad bed leading to the old Reading Railroad Station), the properties are principally located in rural areas of Pennsylvania and Delaware. These properties are unencumbered by any debt.    

Item 3 – Legal Proceedings



TAX AUDIT/LITIGATION

The Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) examined the tax return of Craig Corporation (“CRG”) for its tax year ended June 30, 1997. CRG was a stand-alone entity in the year of audit but is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. In Tax Court, CRG and the IRS agreed to compromise the claims made by the IRS against CRG, and the court order was entered on January 6, 2011.  As of December 31, 2015, the remaining federal tax obligation was $2.5 million, reflecting additional interest accrued during the term of the four year installment plan. For additional information, see Note 9 – Income Taxes.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ASBETOS CLAIMS

Certain of our subsidiaries were historically involved in railroad operations, coal mining, and manufacturing.  Also, certain of these subsidiaries appear in the chain-of-title of properties that may suffer from pollution.  Accordingly, certain of these subsidiaries have, from time-to-time, been named in and may in the future be named in various actions brought under applicable environmental laws. Also, we are in the real estate development business and may encounter from time-to-time unanticipated environmental conditions at properties that we have acquired for development.  These environmental conditions can increase the cost of such projects and adversely affect the value and potential for profit of such projects. We do not currently believe that our exposure under applicable environmental laws is material in amount.

From time-to-time, we have claims brought against us relating to the exposure of former employees of our railroad operations to asbestos and coal dust. These are generally covered by an insurance settlement reached in September 1990 with our insurance carriers. However, this insurance settlement does not cover litigation by people who were not our employees and who may claim second-hand exposure to asbestos, coal dust and/or other chemicals or elements now recognized as potentially causing cancer in humans. Our known exposure to these types of claims, asserted or probable of being asserted, is not material.

---

 

DERIVATIVE LITIGATION AND JAMES J. COTTER, JR. ARBITRATION

On June 12, 2015, the Board of Directors terminated James J. Cotter, Jr.  as the President and Chief Executive Officer of our Company.   That same day, Mr. Cotter, Jr. filed a lawsuit, styled as both an individual and a derivative action, and titled “James J. Cotter, Jr., individually and derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, et al.” Case No,: A-15-719860-V, Dept XI (the “Cotter Jr. Derivative Action” and the “Cotter, Jr. Complaint,” respectively) against the Company and each of our other than sitting Directors (Ellen Cotter, Margaret Cotter, Guy Adams, William Gould, Edward Kane, Douglas McEachern, and Tim Storey, the “Defendant Directors”) in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark County (the “Nevada District Court”).  On October 22, 2015, Mr. Cotter, Jr., amended his complaint to drop his individual claims (the “Amended Cotter Jr. Derivative Complaint”).  Accordingly, the Amended Cotter, Jr. Complaint presently purports to assert only purportedly derivative claims and to seek remedies only on behalf of the Company.  The lawsuit currently alleges, among other things, that the Defendant Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by terminating  Mr. Cotter, Jr. as President and Chief Executive Officer,   continuing to make use of the Executive Committee that has been in place for more than the past ten years, making allegedly potentially misleading statements in its press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), paying certain compensation to Ms. Ellen Cotter, and allowing the Cotter Estate to make use of Class A Common Stock to pay for the exercise of certain long outstanding stock options held of record by the Cotter Estate.  He seeks reinstatement as President and CEO and alleges as damages fluctuations in the price for our Company’s shares after the announcement of his termination as President and CEO and certain unspecified damages to our Company’s reputation.

In a derivative action, the stockholder plaintiff seeks damages or other relief for the benefit of the Company, and not for the stockholder plaintiff’s individual benefit.  Accordingly, the Company is, at least in theory, only a nominal defendant in such a derivative action.  However, as a practical matter, because Mr. Cotter, Jr. is also seeking, among other things, an order that our Board’s determination to terminate Mr. Cotter Jr. was ineffective and that he be reinstated as the President and CEO of the Company and also that our Board’s Executive Committee be disbanded (an injunctive remedy that, if granted, would be binding on the Company), and as he asserts potentially misleading statements in certain press releases and filings with the SEC, the Company is incurring significant cost and expense defending the decision to terminate Mr. Cotter, Jr. as President and Chief Executive Officer, its board committee structure, and the adequacy of those press releases and filings.  Also, the Company continues to incur costs promulgating and responding to discovery demands and satisfying indemnity obligations to the Defendant Directors.

Our directors and officers liability insurer is providing insurance coverage, subject to a $500,000 deductible (which has now been exhausted) and its standard reservation of rights, with respect to the defense of the Director Defendants.  Our new Directors, Dr. Judy Codding and Mr. Michael Wrotniak, are not named in the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action as they were not Directors at the time of the breaches of fiduciary duty alleged by Mr. Cotter, Jr.

Pursuant to the terms of Mr. Cotter Jr.’s employment agreement with the Company, disputes relating to his employment are to be arbitrated.  Accordingly, on July 14, 2015, the Company filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association against Mr. Cotter, Jr.  The demand seeks declaratory relief, among other things, that Mr. Cotter, Jr.'s employment and employment agreement with the Company have been validly terminated and that the Board of Directors validly removed him from his positions as Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company and positions with the Company’s subsidiaries.

Mr. Cotter, Jr. has filed a counter-complaint in the arbitration, asserting claims for breach of his employment contract, declaratory relief, and contractual indemnification.  Mr. Cotter, Jr.’s counsel has advised that Mr. Cotter is seeking a variety of damages, including consequential damages, and that such claimed damages total not less than $1,000,000.  On April 19, 2016, Mr. Cotter, Jr. filed an action in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada seeking to recover his costs of defending the Arbitration, plus compensatory damages and interest at the maximum legal rate.  The Company intends to vigorously defend these claims.

On August 6, 2015, the Company received notice that a  Motion to Intervene in the Cotter Jr Derivative Action and a proposed derivative complaint had been filed in the Nevada District Court captioned T2 Partners Management, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business as Kase Capital Management; T2 Accredited Fund, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business as Kase Fund; T2 Qualified Fund, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, doing business as Kase Qualified Fund; Tilson Offshore Fund, Ltd, a Cayman Islands exempted company; T2 Partners Management I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, doing business as Kase Management: T2 Partners Management Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, doing business as Kase Group; JMG Capital Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Pacific Capital Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc. vs. Margaret Cotter, Ellen Cotter, Guy Adams, Edward Kane, Douglas McEachern, Timothy Storey, William Gould and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, as defendants, and, Reading International, Inc., a Nevada corporation, as Nominal Defendant (the “T2 Derivative Action” ).  On August 11, 2015, the Court granted the motion of T2 Partners Management, LP et. al. (the “T2 Plaintiffs”), allowing these plaintiffs to file their complaint (the “T2 Derivative Complaint”).

---

 

On September 9, 2015, certain of the Defendant Directors filed a Motion to Dismiss the T2 Derivative Complaint.  The Company joined this Motion to Dismiss on September 14, 2015.  The hearing on this Motion to Dismiss was vacated as the T2 Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew the T2 Derivative Complaint, with the parties agreeing that T2 Plaintiffs would have leave to amend the Complaint.  On February 12, 2016, The T2 plaintiff filed an amended T2 Derivative Complaint (the “Amended T2 Derivative Complaint”).

The T2 Plaintiffs allege in their Amended T2 Derivative Complaint various violations of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste by the Defendant Directors.  More specifically the T2 Derivative Complaint seeks the reinstatement of James J. Cotter, Jr. as President and Chief Executive Officer and certain monetary damages, as well as equitable injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs of suit.   Once again, the Company has been named as a nominal defendant.  However, because the T2 Derivative Complaint also seeks the reinstatement of Mr. Cotter, Jr., as our President and CEO, it is being defended by the Company.  In addition, the Company continues to incur costs promulgating and responding to discovery demands and satisfying indemnity obligations to the Defendant Directors.  The Defendant Directors are the same as named in the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action as well as our two new Directors Dr. Judy Codding and Michael Wrotniak and Company legal counsel, Craig Tompkins. The cost of the defense of Directors Codding and Wrotniak is likewise being covered by our Directors and officer’s liability insurance carrier with the same reservations of right as in the Cotter Jr. Derivative Action, but without any separate deductible.  The cost of the defense of Mr. Tompkins is being covered by the Company under its indemnity agreement with him.

The Amended T2 Derivative Complaint has deleted its request for an order disbanding our Executive Committee and for an order “collapsing the Class A and B stock structure into a single class of voting stock.” The Amended T2 Complaint has added a request for an order setting aside the election results from the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, based on an allegation that Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter were not entitled to vote the shares of Class B Common Stock held of record by the Cotter Estate and the Cotter Trust. The Company and the other defendants contest the allegations of the T2 Plaintiffs.  The Company followed applicable Nevada law in recognizing that Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter had the legal right and power to vote the shares of Class B Common Stock held of record by the Cotter Estate and the Cotter Trust, and the independent Inspector of Elections has certified the results of that election. Furthermore, even if the election results were to be overturned or voided, this would have no impact on the current composition of our Board or any action taken by our Board since our 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, as all of the nominees were standing for re-election and accordingly retain their directorships until their replacements are elected. The Company will vigorously contest any assertions by the T2 Plaintiffs challenging the voting at the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and believes that the court will rule for the Company should this issue ever reach the court.  The case is currently set for trial in November, 2016.   The T2 Plaintiffs have not sought any expedited ruling from the Court with respect to their assertions that Ellen Cotter and Margaret Cotter did not have the right and power to vote the shares of Class B Common Stock held of record by the Cotter Estate and the Cotter Trust.

The Company believes that the claims set forth in the Amended Cotter Jr. Derivative Complaint and the Amended T2 Derivative Complaint are entirely without merit and seek equitable remedies for which no relief can be given. The Company intends to defend vigorously against any claims against our officers and directors and against any attempt to reinstate Mr. Cotter, Jr. as President and Chief Executive Officer or to effect any changes in the rights of our Company’s stockholders.

 THE STOMP ARBITRATION

In April 2015, Liberty Theatres, LLC (“Liberty”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, commenced an  American Arbitration Association arbitration proceeding (Case No.:01-15-0003-3728) against The Stomp Company Limited Partnership (the “Producer”) in response to the Producer’s purported termination of their license agreement with Liberty relating to the long playing show STOMP.  Liberty sought specific performance, injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. The Producer counterclaimed for unspecified damages, alleging that Liberty has interfered with the Producer’s endeavors to move the show to another Off-Broadway theater. The Producer based its purported termination of the license agreement upon the alleged deficient condition of the Orpheum Theater, in which STOMP has been playing for more than the past 20 years.

On December 18, 2015, the Arbitrator issued his Partial Final Award of Arbitration, providing for, among other things (i) the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting the Producer from “transferring or taking actions to market, promote, or otherwise facilitate any transfer of, STOMP to another theatre in New York City having fewer than 500 seats without Liberty’s prior written consent”, (ii) the Producer’s Notice of Termination purportedly terminating the parties’ license agreement was invalid, null and void and the License Agreement remains in full force and effect, and (iii) the award to Liberty of its reasonable attorneys’ fees in an amount to be determined by the Arbitrator.   The  Company expects the final award of attorneys’ fees to be decided during the second quarter of 2016.

In explaining his decision to award Liberty its reasonable attorneys’ fees, the Arbitrator stated as follows:  “Liberty is entitled to such an award [of attorneys’ fees] not only because it is the prevailing party in this proceeding, but because [the Producer] unfairly disparaged the Orpheum and caused Liberty to incur attorneys’ fees in order to address and resolve [the Producer’s] groundless and

---

 

frivolous allegations with respect to the Orpheum’s condition, Liberty’s performance under the License Agreement, and Stomp’s reasons for seeking to transfer STOMP to a larger theatre.”



---

 

PART II

Item 5 – Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

MARKET INFORMATION

The following table sets forth the high and low closing prices of the RDI and RDIB common stock for each of the quarters in 2015 and 2014 as reported by NASDAQ:





As of December 31, 2015, the approximate number of common stockholders of record was 2,200 for Class A stock and 350, for Class B stock. On April 25, 2016, the closing price per share of our Class A Stock and Class B stock was $12.79 and $11.65, respectively.

We have never declared a cash dividend on our common stock and we have no current plans to declare a dividend; however, we review this matter on an ongoing basis.

The following table summarizes the securities authorized for issuance under our equity compensation plans:





---

 

Performance Graph

The following line graph compares the cumulative total stockholder return on Reading International, Inc.’s common stock for the five-year period ended December 31, 2015 against the cumulative total return as calculated by the NASDAQ composite, a peer group of public companies engaged in the motion picture theater operator industry and a peer group of public companies engaged in the real estate operator industry. Measurement points are the last trading day for each of the five years ended December 31, 2015. The graph assumes that $100 was invested on December 31, 2010 in our common stock, the NASDAQ composite and the noted peer groups, and assumes reinvestment of any dividends. The stock price performance on the following graph is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.

RECENT SALES OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES; USE OF PROCEEDS FROM REGISTERED SECURITIES

None.

PURCHASE OF EQUITY SECURITIES BY THE ISSUER AND AFFILIATED PURCHASERS

In May 2014, our Board of Directors authorized a stock buy-back program to spend up to an aggregate of $10.0 million to acquire shares of the Company’s common stock. As part of this program, during 2015,  we purchased 240,102 Class A Non-voting shares on the open market for $3.1 million for a weighted average price of $12.95 per share. As of December 31, 2015, approximately $2.8 million may yet be purchased under the program.

Also in 2015, a number of executives chose to net settle their share options with the Company, as allowed by our share option plan. This resulted in the Company issuing 52,777 Class A Non-voting shares. As part of this transaction the Company also remitted $201,000 of taxes on their behalf. The Company also acquired an additional 141,288 Class A Non-voting shares as payment on the excise of 185,100 class B voting stock options that had a combined exercise price of $1.8 million.

---

 

Item 6 – Selected Financial Data

The table below sets forth certain historical financial data regarding our Company. This information is derived in part from, and should be read in conjunction with, our consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “2015 Annual Report”), and the related notes to the consolidated financial statements.





Both EBIT and EBITDA are non-US GAAP measures and are presented for informational purposes. They should not be construed as an alternative to net earnings (loss), as an indicator of operating performance or as an alternative to cash flow provided by operating activities as a measure of liquidity (as determined in accordance with US GAAP).  These measures should be reviewed in conjunction with the relevant US GAAP financial measures. EBIT and EBITDA as we have calculated them may not be comparable to similarly titled measures reported by other companies.

EBIT presented above represents net income (loss) adjusted for interest expense (net of interest income), income tax expense and an adjustment of interest expense for discontinued operations, if any. EBIT is useful in evaluating our operating results for the following reasons:

---

 

We define EBITDA as net income adjusted for interest expense (net of interest income), income tax expense, depreciation and amortization expense, and an adjustment of interest expense, depreciation, and amortization for discontinued operations, if any. EBITDA is useful principally for the following reasons:



Reconciliation of EBIT and EBITDA to net income is presented below:





---

 

Item 7 – Management’s Discussions and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations



Organization of Information

Management’s Discussion and Analysis provides a narrative on the Company’s financial performance and condition that should be read in conjunction with the accompanying financial statements.  It includes the following sections:



FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

Our statements in this annual report, including the documents incorporated herein by reference, contain a variety of forward-looking statements as defined by the Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements reflect only our expectations regarding future events and operating performance and necessarily speak only as of the date the information was prepared.  No guarantees can be given that our expectation will in fact be realized, in whole or in part.  You can recognize these statements by our use of words such as, by way of example, “may,” “will,” “expect,” “believe,” and “anticipate” or other similar terminology.

These forward-looking statements are neither historical facts nor assurances of future performance.  Instead, they are based only on our current beliefs, expectations and assumptions regarding the future of our business, future plans and strategies after having considered a variety of risks and uncertainties.  Forward-looking statements are necessarily the product of internal discussion and do not necessarily completely reflect the views of individual members of our Board of Directors or of our management team.  Individual Board members and individual members of our management team may have a different view as to the risks and uncertainties involved, and may have different views as to future events or our operating performance.

Among the factors that could cause actual results and our financial condition to differ materially from those expressed in or underlying our forward-looking statements are the following:

---

 

The above list is not necessarily exhaustive, as business is by definition unpredictable and risky, and it is subject to influence by numerous factors outside of our control, such as changes in government regulation or policy, competition, interest rates, supply, technological innovation, changes in consumer taste,  the weather, and the extent to which consumers in our markets have the economic wherewithal to spend money on beyond-the-home entertainment.

Given the variety and unpredictability of the factors that will ultimately influence our businesses and our results of operation, it naturally follows that no guarantees can be given that any of our forward-looking statements will ultimately prove to be correct.  Actual results will undoubtedly vary and there is no guarantee as to how our securities will perform either when considered in isolation or when compared to other securities or investment opportunities.

Finally, we undertake no obligation to update publicly or to revise any of our forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required under applicable law.  Accordingly, you should always note the date to which our forward-looking statements speak.

Additionally, certain of the presentations included in this annual report may contain “non-US GAAP financial measures.”  In such case, a reconciliation of this information to our US GAAP financial statements will be made available in connection with such statements.



COMPANY OVERVIEW

We are an internationally diversified company principally focused on the development, ownership, and operation of entertainment and real estate assets in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand.  Currently, we operate in two business segments:

We believe that these two business segments can complement one another, as we can use the comparatively consistent cash flows generated by our cinema operations to fund the front-end cash demands of our real estate development business.

We manage our worldwide cinema exhibition businesses under various brands:



---

 

CINEMA ACTIVITIES

We believe the cinema business to be one that will likely continue to generate fairly consistent cash flows in the years ahead, even in a recessionary or inflationary environment. This is based on our belief that people will continue to spend some reasonable portion of their entertainment dollar on entertainment outside of the home and that, when compared to other forms of outside-the-home entertainment, movies continue to be a popular and competitively priced option. Because we believe the cinema exhibition business to be a mature business with most markets either adequately screened or over-screened, we see growth in our cinema business coming principally from (i) the enhancement of our existing cinemas (for example, by the addition of luxury seating and expanding our food and beverage offerings), (ii) the development in select markets of specialty cinemas, and (iii) the opportunistic acquisition of already existing cinemas, rather than from the development of new conventional cinemas. From time-to-time, we invest in the securities of other companies, where we believe the business or assets of those companies to be attractive or to offer synergies to our existing entertainment and real estate businesses. We continue to focus on the development and redevelopment of our existing assets (particularly our New York assets and our Angelika Film Center chain), as well as to continue to be opportunistic in identifying and endeavoring to acquire undervalued assets, particularly assets with proven cash flow and that we believe to be resistant to recessionary trends.

We see ourselves principally as a geographically diversified real estate and cinema exhibition company and intend to add to stockholder value by building the value of our portfolio of tangible assets, including both entertainment and other types of land and “brick and mortar” assets.  We endeavor to maintain a reasonable asset allocation between our domestic and international assets and operations, and between our cash-generating cinema operations and our cash-consuming real estate investment and development activities.  We believe that, by blending the cash generating capabilities of a cinema operation with the investment and development opportunities of our real estate operations, our business strategy is unique among public companies.

Business Climate

Cinema Exhibition - General

Along with the majority of our industry, we have completed the conversion of all of our U.S., Australia, and New Zealand cinema operations to digital exhibition.  We anticipate that the cost of this conversion will be covered in substantial part by the receipt of “virtual print fees” paid by film distributors for the use of such digital projection equipment.

The “in-home” entertainment industry has experienced significant leaps in recent periods in both the quality and affordability of in-home entertainment systems and in the accessibility to and quality of entertainment programming through alternative film distribution channels, such as network, cable, satellite, internet distribution channels, and Blu-ray/DVD. The success of these alternative distribution channels puts additional pressure on film distributors to reduce and/or eliminate the time period between theatrical and secondary release dates. These are issues common to both our U.S. and international cinema operations. 

Certain new entrants to the cinema exhibition market, as well as certain of our historic competitors, have begun to develop new, and to reposition existing, cinemas that offer a broader selection of premium seating and food and beverage choices. These include, in some cases, food service to the seat and the offering of alcoholic beverages. We have for some years offered premium seating,  café food selections and alcoholic beverages in certain cinemas.  Accordingly, we are experienced in, and believe that we can compete effectively with, this emerging competition. We are currently reviewing the potential for further expanding our offerings at a variety of our cinemas.