e10vk
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 [FEE REQUIRED] |
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 |
|
or |
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 [NO FEE REQUIRED] |
|
|
|
For the transition period
from to |
Commission File No. 1-8625
Reading International, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Nevada |
|
95-3885184 |
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization) |
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification Number) |
|
550 South Hope Street, Suite 1825
Los Angeles, CA
(Address of principal executive offices) |
|
90071
(Zip Code) |
Registrants telephone number, including Area Code:
(213) 235-2240
Securities Registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
Title of each class |
|
Name of each exchange on which registered |
|
|
|
Class A Nonvoting Common Stock, $0.01 par value |
|
American Stock Exchange |
Class B Voting Common Stock, $0.01 par value |
|
American Stock Exchange |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:
None
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 þ No o
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. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated
filer (as defined in Exchange Act
Rule 12b-2). Yes þ No o
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the
issuers classes of common stock, as of the latest
practicable date. As of March 25, 2004, there were
20,452,733 shares of Class A Non-voting Common Stock,
par value $0.01 per share and 1,545,506 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
$110,322,000 as of March 25, 2004.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
None.
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC.
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
Year Ended December 31, 2004
INDEX
-1-
PART I
General Description of Our Business
Reading International, Inc., a Nevada corporation
(RII and collectively with our consolidated
subsidiaries and corporate predecessors, the
Company, Reading and we,
us, or our), was incorporated in 1999 as
Citadel Holding Corporation (CDL), and was renamed
Reading following our consolidation on December 31, 2001
(the Consolidation) of Reading Entertainment, Inc.
(RDGE), Craig Corporation (CRG) and CDL.
CDL was the corporate successor to Citadel Holding Corporation,
a Delaware corporation, which was incorporated in 1983.
Our businesses consist primarily of:
|
|
|
|
|
the development, ownership and operation of multiplex cinemas in
the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Puerto
Rico; and |
|
|
|
the development, ownership and operation of retail and
commercial real estate in Australia, New Zealand and the United
States, including entertainment-themed retail centers
(ETRC) in Australia and New Zealand and live theater
assets in Manhattan and Chicago in the United States. |
We consider ourselves to be essentially a cinema exhibition
operating company with a strong real estate emphasis. Currently,
we have;
|
|
|
|
|
interests in 47 cinemas comprising some 319 screens; |
|
|
|
assets with a book value of approximately $230,227,000; and |
|
|
|
stockholders equity of approximately $102,010,000. |
Calculated based on book value, nearly 70% of our assets, or
approximately $161,006,000, represents real estate, improvements
to real estate and equipment. Calculated based on book value,
nearly 73% of our assets, or approximately $168,361,000,
represents assets located in Australia and New Zealand,
including undeveloped land carried on our books at approximately
$27,346,000. While we currently intend to maintain our cinema
exhibition focus, the markets in which we operate are becoming
increasingly built out, and it is likely that we will, in the
years ahead, devote an increasing percentage of our efforts and
capital to the development, ownership and operation of
commercial real estate. Also, while we typically acquire and
develop, or redevelop, real estate for our own portfolio, and
with an intention to hold for the long term, we also try to be
opportunistic and will sell real estate when we believe that the
value offered for that real estate is materially in excess of
the value of such property to us.
In keeping with our real estate emphasis, in 2004 we retained
Wayne Smith, the former head of real estate for Hoyts (an
international cinema exhibition company), to head up our overall
Australian and New Zealand operations, and brought in Ian Sands,
the former chief executive officer of Village Roadshow
Distribution, and prior to that, Village Cinemas (also an
international cinema exhibition company) to specifically oversee
our cinema operations in these two countries. Historically, our
Australia and New Zealand operations were headed up by an
executive from the cinema exhibition side of the business.
We operate on four basic and rather simple premises:
|
|
|
|
|
First, notwithstanding the enormous advances that have been made
in home entertainment technology, we are essentially social
beings, and will continue to want to go beyond the home for our
entertainment. |
|
|
|
Second, cinemas can be used as anchors for larger retail
developments, and our involvement in the cinema business can
give us an advantage over other real estate developers or
redevelopers who must identify and negotiate with third party
anchor tenants. |
|
|
|
Third, pure cinema operators can get themselves into financial
difficulty as demands upon them to produce earnings growth tempt
them into reinvesting their cash flow into increasingly marginal
cinema |
-2-
|
|
|
|
|
sites. We do not feel pressure to build cinemas for the sake of
simply adding on units, and intend to focus our cash flow on our
real estate development and operating activities, to the extent
that attractive cinema opportunities are not available to us. |
|
|
|
Fourth, we are never afraid to convert a cinema to another use,
if that is a higher and better use of our property, or to sell
individual assets, if we are presented with an attractive
opportunity. |
Our current cinema assets are described in the following chart:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholly Owned | |
|
Consolidated(1) | |
|
Unconsolidated(2) | |
|
Managed(3) | |
|
Totals | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Australia
|
|
|
15 cinemas |
|
|
|
3 cinemas |
|
|
|
1 cinema(4) |
|
|
|
None |
|
|
|
19 cinemas |
|
|
|
|
112 screens |
|
|
|
16 screens |
|
|
|
16 screens |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
144 screens |
|
New Zealand
|
|
|
7 cinemas |
|
|
|
None |
|
|
|
5 cinemas(5) |
|
|
|
1 cinema(6) |
|
|
|
13 cinemas |
|
|
|
|
37 screens |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 screens |
|
|
|
5 screens |
|
|
|
71 screens |
|
Puerto Rico
|
|
|
6 cinemas |
|
|
|
None |
|
|
|
None |
|
|
|
None |
|
|
|
6 cinemas |
|
|
|
|
48 screens |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48 screens |
|
United States
|
|
|
6 cinemas |
|
|
|
1 cinema(7) |
|
|
|
None |
|
|
|
2 cinemas |
|
|
|
9 cinemas |
|
|
|
|
41 screens |
|
|
|
6 screens |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 screens |
|
|
|
56 screens |
|
TOTALS
|
|
|
34 cinemas |
|
|
|
4 cinemas |
|
|
|
6 cinemas |
|
|
|
3 cinemas |
|
|
|
47 cinemas |
|
|
|
|
238 screens |
|
|
|
22 screens |
|
|
|
45 screens |
|
|
|
14 screens |
|
|
|
319 screens |
|
|
|
(1) |
Cinemas owned and operated through majority owned subsidiaries. |
|
(2) |
Cinemas owned and operated through unconsolidated subsidiaries. |
|
(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 interests. |
|
(6) |
Managed through Berkeley Cinemas. |
|
(7) |
The Angelika Film Center and Café in Manhattan is owned by
a limited liability company in which we own a 50% interest
with right to manage. |
We currently own the fee interest in four of our Australian
cinemas (28 screens), in four of our wholly owned New
Zealand cinemas (24 screens) and in two of our New Zealand
joint venture cinemas (9 screens). In addition, we are in
escrow to purchase the fee interest underlying one of our
cinemas in Manhattan (3 screens). Our non-cinema real
estate holdings include approximately 349,000 square feet
of developed retail, office and live theater space in Australia,
New Zealand and the United States and approximately
2.6 million square feet of land held for development or
currently under development located in various urban and
suburban areas of Australia and New Zealand. Included among our
domestic real estate holdings are the fee interests in three
off Broadway style live theatres located in
Manhattan (the Union Square, Orpheum and Minetta Lane), and a
four stage off Broadway style theatre complex in
Chicago (the Royal George).
We anticipate that the major focus of our efforts in 2005
will be as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
the completion of construction of an approximately
100,000 square foot ETRC on our approximately
190,000 square foot parcel in Newmarket, a suburb of
Brisbane, in Queensland, Australia; |
|
|
|
the commencement of construction of an approximately
150,000 square foot retail and art cinema development as
Phase II of our existing ETRC in Wellington, New Zealand; |
|
|
|
the completion of planning for a mixed use ETRC/ residential
development on our 124,754 square foot parcel in Moonee
Ponds, a suburb of Melbourne, in Victoria, Australia; |
|
|
|
the integration into our operations of the 14 cinemas
(77 screens) added in 2004 and the addition this year of a
new 8 screen cinema under the terms of an existing heads of
agreement in an Australia; and |
-3-
|
|
|
|
|
the completion of the initial master planning and entitlement
process for the development of our 50-acre site in Burwood, a
suburb of Melbourne, in Victoria, Australia as a mixed-use
development, including entertainment, retail, office and
residential components. |
We will also continue our efforts to either sell or to bring on
a joint venture partner with respect to our Puerto Rican
operations.
During 2004, our principal accomplishments were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
the acquisition of ten existing cinemas (49 screens) in
Australia and New Zealand (including the fee interests
underlying three of the New Zealand cinemas) and the opening of
two new cinemas (15 screens) in Australia, one new cinema
(8 screens) in New Zealand, and one new cinema
(5 screens) in the United States. The newly opened New
Zealand cinema is owned and operated by our Berkeley Cinemas
joint venture; |
|
|
|
the renegotiation of our credit facility in Australia to
increase that facility from $21.4 million
(AUS$30 million) to $39.3 million
(AUS$55.0 million), and to add a new facility in the amount
of $25.2 million (AUS$32.7 million) to provide
construction finance for our Newmarket ETRC; |
|
|
|
the replacement of our New Zealand credit facility with a new
facility in the amount of $33.5 million
(NZ$50 million) (an increase of approximately
$12.6 million (NZ$18.7 million) over the facility that
it replaced); |
|
|
|
the exercise of our option to acquire, at developers cost,
a 25% membership interest in the limited liability company
formed to redevelop an approximately 100,000 square foot
mixed use condominium project (Place 57) on
which the Sutton Cinema was located, in Manhattan on
57th Street near its intersection with 3rd Avenue; |
|
|
|
the execution of an agreement to acquire the fee interest
underlying our Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 property located
on 3rd Avenue in Manhattan; and |
|
|
|
the negotiation with applicable governmental authorities of an
accelerated program for the rezoning of our 50-acre Burwood site
as part of an area designated as a major activity
center by the Victorian Government. Our Burwood site is
the largest undeveloped parcel of land in the major
activity center and the largest undeveloped parcel of land
in any major activity center in Victoria, Australia.
Approximately 430,000 people live within five miles of the
site, which is well served by both public transit and surface
streets. We estimate that approximately 70,000 people pass
by the site each day. It is currently anticipated that the site
will be developed as a mixed use project with entertainment,
retail and residential components. |
During the first quarter of 2005, we entered into a purchase and
sale agreement providing for the sale of our office building in
Glendale, California for $21 million. That facility is
currently subject to a first mortgage in the amount of
approximately $10.2 million. It is our intention to
complete a 1031 exchange of the Glendale
Property for the fee, ground lease estate and building
comprising the Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 property. We are
currently only a space tenant in the Cinemas 1,
2 & 3 property, although we do have an option to
acquire the building and ground lease estate elements of that
property at the end of our current lease term in 2010. Therefore
in order to complete the 1031 exchange we would
need to advance our acquisition of the building and ground lease
estate elements of the property. We believe that the Glendale
Building is fully priced, and that there is greater profit
potential for our Company in consolidating our interest in our
Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 property in Manhattan. The
Glendale Building is our only non-entertainment based property
in the United States, other than those properties in
Pennsylvania and Delaware associated with our historic railroad
operations.
Although a large proportion of our assets are in Australia and
New Zealand, we typically do not engage in currency hedging
transactions. We believe that a number of natural hedges occur
in our business, since film rent is typically negotiated as a
percentage of gross box office, and since we pay rent and wages,
and purchase our concession items in local currencies. To date,
we have made it a practice to finance our real estate
-4-
development activities through local currency borrowings and
cash flow and have not invested US dollars in Australia or
New Zealand since 2001.
We are a relatively recent entrant into the cinema exhibition
business, acquiring our first cinemas in 1994, and have faced
intense competition in a variety of markets. In Australia,
Puerto Rico and the United States, we have filed anti-trust or
trade practice litigation in order to protect our interests.
Over the past three years, we have incurred costs relating to
these suits of approximately $1.9 million,
$1.2 million and $421,000, respectively. Our anti-trust and
trade practice litigation in Australia was settled in 2003 on
what we believe to have been favorable terms. We booked
$2,259,000 of income and the recovery of approximately $518,000
in legal fees with respect to the settlement. Our antitrust and
tortuous interference litigation in the United States has
resulted in settlements with Disney, DreamWorks, Fox, MGM,
Universal and Loews, while we continue to pursue claims against
Columbia, Paramount and Regal. Our antitrust and tortuous
interference litigation in Puerto Rico is still in the early
stages of discovery. While it is obviously very difficult to
predict the results or cost of litigation, we are optimistic
that we have in fact resolved our competition problems in
Australia, and that the settlements reached to date in the
US action will materially improve our access to film at the
cinema that is the subject matter of that litigation. The
litigation in Puerto Rico moves slowly.
Our Class A Nonvoting Common Stock (Class A
Stock) and Class B Voting Common Stock
(Class B Stock) are listed for trading on the
American Stock Exchange under the symbols RDI and RDI.B. Our
principal executive offices are located at 550 South Hope
Street, Suite 1825, Los Angeles,
California 90071; however, we are scheduled to relocate our
headquarters to 500 Citadel Drive, Suite D-300, City
of Commerce, California 90040 during the second quarter of
this year. Our general telephone number is (213) 235-2240.
The Background of Our Company and Recent Material
Transactions
General
Our Company, as it now exists, was established when we
consolidated three companies, RDGE, CRG and CDL at the end of
2001. Prior to the Consolidation, these companies were separate
publicly traded companies but had substantial overlap of stock
ownership, management and control. Now we are organized as a
single consolidated group under the name Reading
International, Inc.
CDL was technically the surviving company; however, we changed
our name to Reading International, Inc. in the
Consolidation. The name reflects the fact that the majority of
our operating assets initially belonged to RDGE, and that our
current operations are predominantly international. From a
business point of view, the surviving business is principally
that of RDGE. The following description of the history and
background of the consolidated business draws from the history
and background of both RDGE and CDL. CRG was principally a
holding company for RDGE and Citadel, and had only limited
operations independent of RDGE and CDL.
CDL was originally incorporated in 1999 as a Nevada corporation.
This Nevada corporation was the successor of Citadel Holding
Corporation, a Delaware corporation originally formed in 1983
(CHC-Delaware). In January 2000, CHC Delaware
reincorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada and emerged
as CDL. Incident to the reincorporation, CDL common stock
was reclassified into 5,335,939 shares of Class A
Stock, par value $0.01 per share and 1,333,985 shares
of Class B Stock, par value $0.01 per share. On
September 20, 2000, CDL issued 2,622,466 shares of
Class A Stock and 655,616 shares of Class B Stock
to acquire through a subsidiary merger, the assets and business
of Off Broadway Investments (OBI), Inc. Following
the merger, OBI was renamed Liberty Theaters, Inc (Liberty
Theaters). At that time, Liberty Theaters was the operator
of the three Manhattan live theaters that we now own, and held
the fee interests in two of those live theaters.
As previously mentioned, on December 31, 2001, CDL
consolidated with CRG (and collectively with its consolidated
subsidiaries Craig) and RDGE (and collectively with
its consolidated subsidiaries Old Reading), to
form RII. The Consolidation was structured as a taxable
merger of CRG and RDGE with newly formed subsidiaries of RII.
The holders of CRG common stock, CRG common preference
stock and RDGE common stock received 15,094,432 shares of
RII Class A Stock, increasing the total amount of
-5-
Class A Stock outstanding to 20,484,993 shares at
December 31, 2001. In the Consolidation, each holder of
RDGE common stock received 1.25 shares of
RII Class A Stock, and each holder of CRG common
stock and CRG common preference stock received
1.17 shares of RII Class A Stock.
As of December 31, 2004, we had outstanding
20,452,733 shares of our Class A Nonvoting Common
Stock and 1,545,506 shares of our Class B Voting
Common Stock. As of this same date, Mr. James J. Cotter was
our controlling stockholder, with beneficial ownership of
1,161,388 shares of our Class B Voting Common Stock,
representing approximately 75.2 percent of such shares.
While we have from time to time exchanged, at the request of
individual shareholders, shares of our Class B Voting
Common Stock held by such stockholders for our Class A
Non-Voting Common Stock, we have not repurchased any of our
outstanding common stock since the Consolidation. During 2004,
we issued 98,949 shares at $8.00 (NZ$11.94) per share in
connection with our acquisition of six cinemas in New Zealand.
The holder of those shares has the right to sell such shares
back to us at NZ$11.94 per share at any time during January
2006. During 2004, at the request of three of our stockholders,
we exchanged 486,908 shares of our Class B Voting
Common Stock held by such holders for a like number of shares of
our Class A Non-Voting Common Stock.
Historic Citadel Activities
CDL was originally formed as a savings and loan holding company
for Fidelity Federal Bank, FSB (Fidelity). In 1994,
CDL sold its interest in Fidelity and was thereafter principally
in the real estate business, owning and operating commercial
real estate and providing real estate advisory services to its
affiliate, Old Reading. In 1997, CDL acquired an interest in a
California citrus farm known as the Big 4 Ranch, and in
1998 acquired an interest in a Southern California based medical
device manufacturer, Gish Biomedical, Inc. (Gish).
In 2000, CDL entered the cinema exhibition and live theater
business by taking advantage of opportunities for investment in
these industries in the United States that, although attractive,
had not been practically available to Old Reading due to capital
constraints. Old Reading has been in the cinema exhibition
business since 1994 when it acquired Angelika Film Center in
Manhattan. In 2002, following the Consolidation, we divested our
interest in the Big 4 Ranch and in 2003, liquidated our interest
in Gish. These historic CDL operations are discussed in greater
detail below under the heading Certain Historic Investments
and Businesses.
Development of Our Cinema and Entertainment-Themed Retail
Center (ETRC) Development Activities
Prior to 1976, Old Reading was principally in the transportation
business, owning and operating the Reading Railroad. Following
the disposition of substantially all rolling stock and active
rail lines in 1976, Old Reading pursued a number of endeavors
including the development of some of its historic railroad
properties. Since 1976, Old Reading and its successor companies
have steadily reduced its railroad real estate holdings.
However, we still own certain rights of way and other properties
in Pennsylvania and Delaware, previously used in our historic
railroad activities.
In 1993, following the sale of our last major railroad real
estate asset the historic Reading Terminal Headhouse
in downtown Philadelphia Old Reading entered the
real estate based segment of the entertainment industry. Since
that date, we have:
|
|
|
|
|
developed a chain of multiplex cinemas in Australia and New
Zealand operating principally under the Reading name
and featuring primarily conventional film product; |
|
|
|
developed a chain of principally art and urban cinemas including
the Angelika Film Center & Café complexes in
Manhattan and in Dallas, Houston and Plano, Texas; |
|
|
|
acquired and expanded a chain of multiplex cinemas in Puerto
Rico featuring conventional film product
(CineVista); and |
|
|
|
acquired seven off Broadway style live theaters,
located in four fee owned complexes, three in Manhattan and one
in Chicago. |
-6-
In Australia and New Zealand, we are also in the business of
developing ETRCs. ETRCs typically consist of a
multiplex cinema, complementary restaurant and retail uses, and
convenient parking, all located on land owned or controlled by
us. We opened the cinema portion of our first ETRC in Perth in
December 1999, and the cinema portion of our second and
substantially larger ETRC in Auburn (a suburb of Sydney) in
September 2000. A third complex was opened in Wellington, the
capital of New Zealand, in March 2002. These three ETRCs
have in the aggregate, approximately 116,000 square feet of
restaurant and retail space (in addition to their respective
cinema components). The Wellington ETRC also includes a nine
level, 1,086-space parking garage, which serves as an
independent source of revenue, providing parking to neighboring
businesses and the Te Papa Museum.
We began construction of our fourth ETRC, located in Newmarket
(a suburb of Brisbane), in the fourth quarter of 2004. We are
currently in the planning stages for mixed use projects (in each
case involving a significant cinema component) at our sites in
Moonee Ponds (a suburb of Melbourne), and Burwood (also a suburb
of Melbourne), and for the Phase II development of our
existing ETRC in Wellington, New Zealand. In addition, we have
an additional 95,530 square feet of open land at Auburn (a
suburb of Sydney), available for expansion of our existing ETRC
operation there.
Our 50-acre Burwood site is currently in the master planning and
land entitlement process, having been designated last year as a
major activity center by the Victoria State
Government. Major activity center designation gives property
owners and local governmental authorities considerable
flexibility with respect to the scope and extent of the
potential uses of properties receiving such designation. We
regard this designation as a very positive development, and
believe our development options with respect to the property
have been significantly enhanced. We are currently pursuing a
mixed use development plan for the site which will include
entertainment, retail, office, hotel and residential components.
Where practical, we prefer to own the land underlying our
cinemas and live theaters. This means that many of our projects
|
|
|
|
|
are more capital intensive; |
|
|
|
have longer lead times and entail greater development risks
during the development phase; and |
|
|
|
have, at least initially, lower cash returns than those of
companies focused on the development of cinemas in leased
facilities in established or newly developed malls. |
We believe that these risks are reasonably offset by the greater
control and flexibility we experience over the property
development as the owners of these sites. We also benefit from
increases in the value of our properties that may result as the
properties are developed for cinema operations and other
commercial uses and over the passage of time.
Although we prefer to own the land underlying our cinemas, in
recent periods most of the more attractive opportunities
presented to us have been in leased facilities. Also, the use of
leased facilities has allowed us to grow more quickly and to
stretch our capital further than if we had limited ourselves to
situations where fee ownership was available. Consequently, a
substantial majority of our screens are now located in leased
facilities. Currently 30 of our 38 wholly owned or
consolidated cinemas (representing 208 screens) are located
in leased facilities, as compared to only 8 cinemas
(representing 52 screens) located in properties where we
own the fee interest. Our Berkeley Cinemas joint ventures in New
Zealand own the fee interest in two of their five cinemas
(representing 9 screens).
Our Decision to Move out of Puerto Rico
We currently intend to focus our future cinema exhibition
activities in Australia, New Zealand and the U.S., and to exit
the Puerto Rico market when the right opportunity presents
itself. Our decision has been made in large part due to the lack
of opportunity and to the competitive situation in Puerto Rico,
where one competitor has acquired a greater than 81% market
share of the cinema exhibition business and continues to build
in what we believe to be an already overbuilt market. We have
sought relief in the Puerto Rican courts alleging violation of
applicable antitrust laws and we are advised that the Puerto
Rican Justice Department has
-7-
commenced an investigation into the competitive situation in the
Puerto Rican film exhibition industry. However, the pace of
antitrust litigation in Puerto Rico moves so slowly and we will,
in all probability, not receive assistance within a time frame
that would justify our continued investment in Puerto Rico.
Even if we are successful in disposing of our Puerto Rico
assets, we intend to pursue our antitrust litigation in an
attempt to recoup some portion of the losses we have sustained
in Puerto Rico. We can give no assurance that we will be
successful in exiting the Puerto Rican market or that we will
prevail in the course of our litigation.
Puerto Rico is not a major component of our business from either
an asset value or cash flow point of view. We currently carry
our Puerto Rico assets on our books at approximately $1,988,000.
On a gross revenue basis, Puerto Rico accounted for
approximately $12,932,000 or 12.6 percent of gross revenues
for 2004. Puerto Rico required approximately $214,000 in cash to
sustain its operations in 2004.
Certain Historic Investments and Businesses
We continue to wind up our historic railroad-related activities,
including the sale or other disposal of our residual real estate
interests. We currently own approximately 250 acres of land
previously used in connection with our railroad-related
activities, most of which is located in Delaware and
Pennsylvania. Insofar as we are aware, this land is of marginal
value. It is currently carried on our books at approximately
$2,073,000.
We also own a 95,752 square foot office building with an
associated 378-space parking garage and a 50-space parking lot
in Glendale, California (the Glendale Building). The
Glendale Building was originally owned by Citadel and served as
the executive headquarters for Fidelity, at the time Citadel
owned Fidelity. The building is currently fully leased to Disney
Enterprises, Inc. and to Fidelitys corporate successor,
Cal National Bank. The building is currently under contract to
be sold for $21 million. While no assurances can be given,
we currently intend to use the proceeds of that sale to acquire
the fee interest, the ground lease interest and the building in
which we rent space for our Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 on
3rd Avenue in Manhattan.
In 1997, Citadel acquired a 40% general partnership
interest in three agricultural partnerships (the
Agricultural Partnerships), and an
80% membership interest in the farming company, Big 4
Farming, LLC (Big 4 Farming), which managed and
farmed the properties owned by the Agricultural Partnerships.
The Agricultural Partnerships owned approximately
1,600 acres of property in Kern County California,
approximately 1,100 acres of which were improved with
citrus orchards (Big 4 Ranch). Following the
Consolidation, we decided to dispose of our interest in the
Big 4 Ranch and to focus our investments on our cinema and
real estate businesses. In July 2002, the Agricultural
Partnerships reconveyed their interests in the Big 4 Ranch
to the original owner of the ranch in consideration of the
satisfaction of all liabilities under the purchase money
mortgage encumbering the ranch.
In 1998, Citadel acquired approximately 11.6% of the outstanding
shares interest in a Southern California based medical device
manufacturer, Gish Biomedical, Inc. (Gish). From
time to time, Citadel purchased additional Gish shares. We began
liquidating our investment in Gish in 2002 and as of
April 30, 2003, we had completely divested our investment.
Our Focus Moving Forward
We consider ourselves to be principally a cinema exhibition
company with a strong focus on the development and holding of
real estate assets. While we will expand our cinema operations
where good value presents itself, we do not intend to chase
deals or to grow for growths sake. In 2004, we acquired
ten existing cinemas (including three fee interests),
representing 49 screens, in Australia and New Zealand. In
addition, we opened two new cinemas with 15 screens, in
Australia and our Berkeley Cinemas joint venture opened one new
cinema with 8 screens, in New Zealand. In addition, we
added one cinema with 5 screens in the United States under
a management contract arrangement. While no assurances can be
given as to the future operations of these new cinemas, we
underwrote the purchase of the ten existing cinemas in
anticipation of a cash-on-cash return in excess of 20%. We
underwrote the newly opened cinemas in anticipation of a
cash-on-cash return in excess of 25%.
-8-
We will continue to focus on our real estate. Currently, either
directly or through joint venture interests, we own the fee
interest in ten of our cinemas. We have long-term leases on
another three cinemas that permit a change of use of the
property. In addition, we own:
|
|
|
|
|
the fee interest in all of our live theater complexes (three of
which are located in Manhattan and one of which is located in
Chicago); |
|
|
|
three in-fill suburban development sites in Australia (including
a 50-acre parcel in suburban Melbourne); |
|
|
|
additional land for development contiguous to our Auburn and
Wellington ETRCs (95,530 and 37,674-square feet,
respectively); |
|
|
|
a 95,752 square foot office building in Glendale,
California (currently under contract to be sold); and |
|
|
|
various miscellaneous land holdings related to our historic
railroad activities, comprising over 400 acres. |
We are under contract to purchase the fee interest underlying
our Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 in Manhattan for
$12.2 million, and have exercised our option to purchase,
at cost, a 25% membership interest in the limited liability
company that is developing an approximately 100,000 square
foot mixed use condominium project on 57th Street just
below 3rd Avenue, known as Place 57. We have, in essence, a
right of first refusal to convert our membership interest into
the ownership of the retail component of that project.
We believe that we can build stockholder value not only through
the operation and controlled growth of our cinema businesses,
but also through the appreciation of our real estate holdings
and the sale or development of our properties as dictated by
their best economic use. In 2003, we sold our interest in a four
screen cinema in Manhattan to permit the redevelopment of that
property. In 2004, we sold our interest in the Sutton Cinema,
but, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, are participating
in the redevelopment of that property as the holder of a
25% membership interest in the limited liability company
formed to develop the property. In the first quarter of 2005, we
entered into a purchase and sale agreement to sell our Glendale
Building, with the intent of reinvesting the proceeds of that
sale in the real property underlying our Cinemas 1,
2 & 3 on 3rd Avenue in Manhattan in so called
Section 1031 Exchange.
We anticipate that a significant focus in 2005 will be the
construction of an approximately 100,000-square ETRC on our
Newmarket property, the finalization of plans for a
150,000-square foot expansion to our Wellington ETRC, the
completion of a development plan for an ETRC on our Moonee Ponds
property, and the completion of a master plan and rezoning for
our Burwood property.
Burwood will be a major project for us, and it is likely that
master planning will take some period of time. It is, in our
view, unlikely that material construction will take place at the
site (other than demolition work) prior to 2006. Burwood was
recently designated as a major activity center in
Victoria, a designation that is intended to give government
authorities and ourselves considerable flexibility in developing
the property to a level of density that would not otherwise be
available to us. We believe that this designation has
significantly enhanced the economic value of our Burwood
Property. At the present time there are 430,000 people
resident within five miles of the site, and approximately 70,000
people pass by the site every day. The site is well serviced
both by fixed rail public transit and by arterial surface
streets.
Our Financing Structure and Sources
We currently use a combination of lines of credit and fixed-rate
first mortgage debt to finance our assets and operations.
Typically, we have used local currency financing with respect to
our international activities. We have sought to limit our
exposure to specific assets, and generally have not provided
parent company
-9-
guarantees (other than guarantees secured solely by the
securities of the borrower on the loan in question). As of
December 31, 2004, the borrowings available to us are
summarized as follows:
|
|
|
1. Domestic Based Borrowings: |
|
|
|
|
|
$10,188,000 non-recourse fixed rate first mortgage loan secured
by our Glendale office building. |
|
|
|
$3,325,000 non-recourse fixed rate first mortgage loan secured
by our Union Square property, located at
100 E. 17th Street, New York, New York. |
|
|
|
$2,153,000 LIBOR based first mortgage loan secured by our Royal
George Theater property, located in Chicago, Illinois. |
|
|
|
2. Australian Based Borrowings: |
|
|
|
|
|
$39.3 million (AUS$55.0 million) credit facility with
the Bank of Western Australia, Ltd through our Australian
subsidiary, Reading Entertainment, Australia Pty, Limited (the
Australia Credit Facility). This credit facility
replaces our prior facility with that lender in the amount of
$21.4 million (AUS$30.0 million), expires on
January 1, 2009 and provides for interest-only payments
until June 30, 2006. Our Australian Corporate Credit
Facility is secured by substantially all of our cinema assets in
Australia, but has not been guaranteed by any company other than
several of our wholly owned Australian subsidiaries. As of
December 31, 2004, we have drawn down $24.9 million
(AUS$32.3 million) on our Australian Corporate Credit
Facility with an additional reduction of the overall facility of
$1.9 million (AUS$2.7 million) for bank guarantees. At
December 31, 2004, the variable interest rate on this
credit facility was 6.48%. The credit facility includes a number
of affirmative and negative covenants designed to protect the
Banks security interests. The most restrictive covenant of
the facility is a limitation on the total amount that we are
able to drawdown based on the total assets that are securing the
loan. Our Australian Corporate Credit Facility provides for
floating interest rates based on the BBSY bid rate, but requires
that not less than 50% of the loan be swapped into fixed rate
obligations. The facility allowed us to utilize the old swap
that was in place for our previous facility, at 6.70%, through
its term, and to swap up to 50% of the maximum credit facility
immediately. As a result, at December 31, 2004, the
floating rate portion at 6.48% was $3.7 million
(AUS$4.8 million); the old swap at 6.70% was notionally
$10.2 million (AUS$13.3 million); and the new swap, at
7.44% was notionally $10.9 million (AUS$14.3 million).
The old swap fully expires on December 31, 2007, at which
time the full swap amount will be held under the new swap, which
expires on December 31, 2008. All interest rates above
include a 1.00% interest rate margin. |
|
|
|
$25.2 million (AUS$32.7 million) construction loan
with the Bank of Western Australia, Ltd through our Australian
subsidiary Newmarket Properties Pty, Ltd. (the Newmarket
Loan). This loan is being used to finance the construction
of our approximately 100,000 square foot shopping center,
currently under construction in Newmarket, Queensland, Australia
and is generally without recourse to our assets other than the
Newmarket construction project and the various Australian based
cinema assets which also secure our Australian Corporate Credit
Facility. Our Newmarket Loan has not been guaranteed by any
entity other than several of our Australian subsidiaries. The
construction portion of our Newmarket Loan converts to a term
loan on completion of the construction and is interest only
during the construction period and for the remaining years of
the term loan expiring on January 1, 2009. Our Newmarket
Loan provides for floating rate interest and includes usual and
customary affirmative and negative covenants designed to protect
the banks security interest. The most restrictive covenant
of the facility is a limitation on the total amount that we are
able to drawdown based on the total assets that are securing the
loan. Minimum debt service coverage and maximum leveraging ratio
are the same as described above. While our |
-10-
|
|
|
|
|
Newmarket Loan provides for a floating rate of interest, it
requires not less than 75% of the loan to be swapped into fixed
rate obligations. At December 31, 2004, the fixed rate
portion under the interest rate swap was at 7.18%. The current
swap continues until May 31, 2006. As of December 31,
2004, we had not as yet drawn down on the loan. All interest
rates above include a 1.00% interest rate margin. |
|
|
|
In accordance with SFAS No. 133, we marked our
Australian interest rate swap instruments to market resulting in
$91,000 (AUS$118,000) increase to interest expense during 2004
and an $80,000 (AUS$106,000) decrease in interest expense in
2003. |
3. New Zealand Based Borrowings:
|
|
|
|
|
During 2004, we replaced our existing $20.9 million
(NZ$31.3 million) credit facility with a $35.5 million
(NZ$50.0 million) credit facility with Westpac Banking
Corporation. The facility is secured by substantially all of our
New Zealand assets, but has not been guaranteed by any entity
other than several of our New Zealand subsidiaries. The facility
expires on November 23, 2009 and provides for payment of
interest only through November 23, 2006. The credit
facility has been fully drawn in order to repay the replaced
facility and to finance our previously disclosed acquisition of
six cinemas (27 screens) and three underlying fee interests
in New Zealand. The facility includes various affirmative and
negative covenants designed to protect the banks security,
limits capital expenditures and the repatriation of funds out of
New Zealand without the approval of the bank. The most
restrictive covenant of the facility is the restriction of
transferring funds from subsidiary to parent. Interest on the
facility is a floating rate. At December 31, 2004 that rate
was 8.25% (which includes a 1.45% interest rate margin) and the
amount outstanding was $35.5 million (NZ$50.0 million). |
|
|
|
We are the 50% co-owners with Everard Entertainment Ltd of the
assets comprising three unincorporated joint ventures in New
Zealand, referred to in this annual report as the New Zealand
JVs. We are 50% liable for three bank loans aggregating
$10,685,000 (NZ$14,996,000) which are secured by a first
mortgage over the land and building assets of the three joint
ventures. However, as we do not consolidate the accounts of the
NZ JVs, the bank loans discussed above are not reflected in
the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2004. These
loans are without recourse to any assets other than our
interests in these three joint ventures. |
|
|
|
In 2000, we entered into a transaction with a related party
designed to give us (i) operating control, through an
operating lease, of the City Cinemas theater chain in Manhattan,
and (ii) the right to enjoy any appreciation in the
underlying real estate assets, though a fixed price option to
purchase these cinemas on an all or nothing basis in 2010. Two
of the cinemas included in that chain the Murray
Hill Cinema and the Sutton Cinema have now been sold
for redevelopment, under terms that we believe preserve this
basic structure and which will, if we exercise our purchase
option, give us the future benefit of any appreciation realized
in those assets during the time they were under our operation
and control. |
|
|
|
In July 2000, we acquired from Sutton Hill Capital, LLC
(SHC) the Manhattan based City Cinemas circuit in a
transaction structured as a 10 year operating lease (the
City Cinemas Operating Lease) with options either to
extend the lease for an additional 10 year term or,
alternatively, to purchase the improvements and certain of the
real estate assets underlying that lease (the City Cinemas
Purchase Option). We paid an option fee of $5,000,000,
which will be applied against the purchase price if we elected
to exercise the City Cinemas Purchase Option. The aggregate
exercise price of the City Cinemas Purchase Option was
originally $48,000,000, and rent was calculated to provide an
8.25% yield to SHC (subject to an annual modified cost of
living adjustment) on the difference between the exercise price
and the $5,000,000 option fee. Incident to that |
-11-
|
|
|
transaction, we agreed to lend to SHC (the City Cinemas
Standby Credit Facility) up to $28,000,000, beginning in
July 2007, all due and payable in December 2010 (the
principal balance and accrued interest on any such loan was
likewise to be applied against the option exercise price, in the
event the option was exercised). The interest rate on the City
Cinemas Standby Credit Facility was also fixed at 8.25%, subject
to the same modified cost of living adjustment used to calculate
rent under the City Cinemas Operating Lease. |
|
|
We have no legal obligation to exercise either the option to
extend the City Cinemas Operating Lease or the City Cinemas
Purchase Option. However, our recourse against SHC on the City
Cinemas Standby Credit Facility is limited to the assets of SHC
which consist of, generally speaking, only the assets subject to
the City Cinemas Purchase Option. In this annual report, we
refer to the transaction memorialized by the City Cinemas
Operating Lease, City Cinemas Purchase Option and City Cinemas
Standby Credit Agreement as the City Cinemas Transaction.
Because the City Cinemas Operating Lease is an operating lease
and since the City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility was, in our
view, adequately secured, no asset or liability was established
on our balance sheet at the time of the City Cinemas Transaction
other than the option fee, which has been deferred and is being
amortized over the 10 year period of the lease. |
|
|
SHC is indirectly owned by Messrs. James J. Cotter and
Michael Forman. Mr. Cotter is our Chairman, Chief Executive
Officer and controlling stockholder. Mr. Forman is a major
holder of our Class A Stock. As the transaction was a
related party transaction, it was reviewed and approved by a
committee of our Board of Directors comprised entirely of
independent directors. |
|
|
Since we entered into the City Cinemas Transaction, two of the
cinema properties involved in that transaction have been sold to
third parties for redevelopment: the Murray Hill Cinema and the
Sutton Cinema. These purchasers paid $10,000,000 and $18,000,000
respectively for these two properties, which included the cost
of acquiring the fee interest in these properties held by
Nationwide Theaters (an affiliate of SHC), the leasehold
interest held by SHC, and our rights under the City Cinemas
Operating Lease and the City Cinemas Purchase Option. Since we
believed that a sale of these properties at these prices was
more beneficial to us than continuing to operate them as
cinemas, and since the original City Cinemas Transaction did not
contemplate a piece-meal release of properties or give us the
right to exercise our City Cinemas Purchase Option either
(i) on a piece-meal basis or (ii) prior to July 2010,
we worked with SHC to devise a transaction that would allow us
to dispose of our collective interests in these properties while
preserving the fundamental benefits of the transaction for
ourselves and SHC. Included among the benefits to be preserved
by SHC was the deferral of any capital gains tax with respect to
the transfer of the remaining properties until 2010 and
assurances that the various properties involved in the City
Cinemas Transaction would only be acquired by us on an all
or none basis. Included among the benefits to be preserved
for us was the right to get the benefit of 100% of any
appreciation in the properties underlying the City Cinemas
Operating Lease between the date of that lease (July 2000) and
the date any such properties were sold, provided that we
ultimately exercised our purchase rights under the City Cinemas
Purchase Option. |
|
|
As a result of these negotiations and the sale of these two
properties, our rent under the City Cinemas Operating Lease has
been reduced by approximately $1,861,000 per annum, the
exercise price of the City Cinemas Purchase Option has been
reduced from $48,000,000 to $33,000,000, and our funding
obligation under the City Cinemas Standby Line of Credit has
been reduced from $28,000,000 to $13,000,000. In addition, we
received in consideration of the release of our interest in the
Murray Hill Cinema a cash payment of $500,000. In consideration
of the transfer of our interest in the Sutton Cinema we received
(i) a $13,000,000 purchase money promissory note (the
Sutton Purchase Money Note) |
-12-
|
|
|
secured by a first mortgage on the Sutton Cinema property (the
Sutton Purchase Money Mortgage), (ii) a right
to acquire up to a 25% interest in the special purpose
entity formed to redevelop the Sutton Cinema property for a
prorated capital contribution (the Sutton Reinvestment
Option) or to receive instead an in lieu fee of $650,000,
and (iii) the right to operate the Sutton Cinema until such
time as the Sutton Purchase Money Note was paid. The Sutton
Purchase Money Note was due and payable on October 21,
2005, and carried interest for the first year at 3.85%,
increasing in the second year to 8.25%. On September 14,
2004, the Sutton Purchase Money Note was prepaid in full and we
exercised our Sutton Reinvestment Option. |
|
|
In keeping with the all or nothing nature of our
rights under the City Cinemas Purchase Option, we agreed to use
the principal proceeds of the Sutton Purchase Money Promissory
Note to fund a portion of our remaining $13.0 million
obligation under the City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility. As of
December 31, 2004, we have funded $8.0 million of this
obligation. We anticipate that the remaining obligation will be
fully funded by July 2007. We have also agreed that the
principal amount of the City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility
will be forgiven if we do not exercise our purchase rights under
the City Cinemas Purchase Option. Accordingly, if we exercise
our rights under the City Cinemas Purchase Option to purchase
the remaining City Cinemas assets, we will be acquiring the
remaining assets subject to the City Cinemas Operating Lease for
an additional cash payment of $15,000,000, (offsetting against
the current $33,000,000 exercise price, the previously paid
$5,000,000 deposit and the $13,000,000 principal amount of the
City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility) and will receive, in
essence, the benefit of 100% of the appreciation in all of the
properties initially subject to the City Cinemas Operating Lease
between July 2000, and the date such properties were either
disposed of or acquired by us pursuant to the City Cinemas
Purchase Option. If we do not exercise our option to purchase,
then the City Cinemas Credit Facility will be forgiven, and we
will not get the benefit of such appreciation. The remaining
properties consist of the Village East Cinema, which is located
at the corner of 2nd Avenue and 11th Street in Manhattan,
on a 27 year land lease, and the Cinemas 1,
2 & 3. It is located on 3rd Avenue between E. 59th
and E. 60th Streets in Manhattan and likewise on a long term
ground lease. We are currently under contract to purchase the
Cinemas 1, 2, & 3 ground lease from another party
for $12.2 million. |
|
|
Since the Murray Hill Cinema sale transaction was structured as
a release of our leasehold interest in the Murray Hill Cinema,
we did not recognize any gain or loss for either book or tax
purposes, other than the $500,000 in lieu fee, which was
recognized as non-operating income. We likewise did not book any
gain or loss on the disposition of the Sutton Cinema for book
purposes. However, we did recognize gain in the amount of
approximately $13,000,000 for state and federal tax purposes,
which gain was offset against net operating losses.
Notwithstanding this offset, we were still liable for
alternative minimum tax on the transaction. That alternative
minimum tax will, however, be offset against our future tax
liabilities. In the event that we decide not to exercise our
City Cinemas Purchase Option, we would at that time recognize a
$13 million loss for tax purposes. |
|
|
Following the release of our leasehold interest in the Murray
Hill Cinema and disposition of the Sutton Cinema in 2003 we
accelerated the amortization of the option fee in the City
Cinemas Purchase Option agreement by $890,000. In addition, in
October 2003 we recorded our loan commitment under the City
Cinemas Standby Credit Facility as a payable in our long-term
debt on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. As a result of having
funded $8.0 million of this obligation during 2004, the
remaining balance recorded as long-term debt is
$5.0 million. |
-13-
Each of the above modification transactions involved was
reviewed by a committee of the independent directors of the
Board of Directors with the assistance of outside counsel. In
each case, the independent directors of the applicable committee
have found the transaction to be fair and in the best interests
of Reading and its public stockholders. The material documents
memorializing these transactions with SHC have been previously
filed as exhibits to this annual report.
Reflecting the disposition of the Murray Hill Cinema and the
Sutton Cinema and the amendments to date with respect to the
City Cinemas Transaction, we are currently paying SHC rent of
$1,686,000 per year on a triple net basis. For the years
ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, rent expense to SHC was
$2,386,000 and $2,674,000, respectively. We have funded
$8,000,000 of our remaining $13,000,000 obligation under the
City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility (which currently earns
interest at 8.98%, reduced our rent obligation under the City
Cinemas Operating Lease to $1,686,000 per year for the
Village East Cinema and the Cinemas 1, 2 & 3.
Every $1,000,000 in increased funding under the City Cinemas
Standby Credit Facility currently will result in an
approximately $90,000 annual effective reduction in that rent
obligation). We also have the option to purchase in July 2010
the remaining assets under the City Cinemas Operating Agreement
(SHCs long term leasehold interests in the Village East
Cinema and the Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 in Manhattan and
the improvements comprising these two cinemas) for an additional
payment of $15,000,000 (plus whatever unfunded balance remains
with respect to our funding obligation under the City Cinemas
Standby Credit Facility).
At December 31, 2004, we had assets valued for balance
sheet purposes at approximately $230,227,000 and no indebtedness
other than previously discussed. Our indebtedness, other than
the obligation to pay rent under the City Cinemas Operating
Lease and to make the loan under the related City Cinema Standby
Credit Facility, is tied to specific assets or to specific
groups of assets. Included in the book value of assets at
December 31, 2004, were:
|
|
|
|
|
property and equipment with an aggregate book value of
approximately $133,660,000; and |
|
|
|
property held for development with an aggregate net book value
of approximately $27,346,000. |
The combined net assets of our three New Zealand unincorporated
joint ventures at December 31, 2004, which are not included
in Readings Consolidated Balance Sheet, were approximately
$16.0 million (NZ$22.4 million) including property and
equipment valued for book purposes at $12.1 million
(NZ$17.0 million).
A General Description of Our Business
We are primarily engaged in:
|
|
|
|
|
the development, ownership and operation of multiplex cinemas in
the U.S., Australia, New Zealand and Puerto Rico; |
|
|
|
the development, ownership and operation of cinema-based
ETRCs in Australia and New Zealand; and |
|
|
|
the development, ownership and operation of commercial real
estate in the U.S., Australia and New Zealand as a business that
has been historically ancillary to our cinema exhibition
business. |
In the future, we intend to focus on cinema exhibition, ETRC
development and management, and commercial real estate
development and management in Australia and New Zealand and, to
a lesser extent, on cinema exhibition and real estate in the
United States. We intend to move out of the Puerto Rican cinema
market, to the extent feasible.
-14-
During 2004, we opened two new cinemas (15 screens) and
acquired four existing cinemas (22 screens) in Australia.
In New Zealand we acquired six existing cinemas
(27 screens) and through one of our Berkeley Cinemas joint
ventures, opened one new cinema (8 screens). In addition,
one of our Berkeley Cinemas joint ventures entered into a
management contract to manage one additional cinema (five
screens). We currently anticipate opening an additional one
cinema with 8 screens in Australia in 2005. By comparison,
we opened only one new cinema in the United States (a five
screen managed cinema) and no new cinemas in Puerto Rico during
2004 and do not currently anticipate opening or acquiring any
additional cinemas in these countries during 2005.
We anticipate that, from time to time, we will engage directly
or indirectly in the development of properties initially
acquired in connection with our cinema business, but which
ultimately have greater value with alternative uses. To date, we
have developed three cinema-based ETRCs. We are currently
working on the development of three more cinema based ETRCs at
locations in Australia, and on the development of an
approximately 150,000 square foot expansion of our
Wellington, New Zealand ETRC.
We currently own three undeveloped properties in the suburbs of
Melbourne and Brisbane, acquired during 1996 and 1997 as
possible cinema-based ETRC sites. Due to a variety of factors,
the development of these sites has taken longer than we
originally anticipated. However, all three of these sites are
now moving forward. Construction has begun on our
190,000 square foot parcel in Newmarket (a suburb of
Brisbane). We are in the master planning stage of the
development of our 50-acre parcel in Burwood (a suburb of
Melbourne) which was recently designated as a major
activity center by the Victorian State Government. We are
in the plan design phase for our 124,754 square foot site
in Moonee Ponds (also a suburb of Melbourne).
It is likely, given the level of cinema market saturation in
Australia and New Zealand, that in the future an increasing
amount of our time, energy and financial resources will be
focused on the real estate aspects of our business.
Our Pacific Rim Cinema Operations (Australia and New
Zealand)
We currently own or operate 18 cinemas consisting of
128 screens in Australia, and seven cinemas with
37 screens in New Zealand. We also own 50% unincorporated
joint venture interests in five cinemas, consisting of
29 screens, in New Zealand. During 2003, we acquired a 33%
joint venture interest in an unincorporated 16-screen cinema in
the Brisbane area of Australia.
We commenced activities in Australia in mid-1995, conducting
business in Australia through our wholly owned subsidiary,
Reading Entertainment Australia Pty. Limited (REA
and, collectively with its consolidated subsidiaries,
Reading Australia).
We commenced operations in New Zealand in 1997, conducting
operations in New Zealand through our wholly owned affiliate,
Reading New Zealand Limited (RNZ and collectively
with its consolidated subsidiaries, Reading New
Zealand).
Our Australian and New Zealand cinemas derive approximately 74%
and 75% of their revenues from box office receipts,
respectively. Ticket prices vary by location, and provide for
reduced rates for senior citizens and children. Box office
receipts are reported net of state and local sales or service
taxes. Show times and features are placed in advertisements in
local newspapers with the costs of such advertisements paid by
the exhibitor. Film distributors may advertise certain feature
films and pay the cost of such advertising. Film rental costs
average approximately 44% of box office revenues in Australia
and 45% of box office revenues in New Zealand.
Concession sales account for approximately 22% of our total
revenues in Australia and New Zealand. Concession products
primarily include popcorn, candy and soda; although certain of
Readings Australia and New Zealand cinemas have licenses
for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. During
2004, we
-15-
realized a gross margin on concession sales of approximately 77%
and 67% in Australia and New Zealand, respectively.
Screen advertising and other revenues contributed approximately
2% and 4% of our total 2004 and 2003 revenues in Australia and
New Zealand. During 2002, Val Morgan, the largest purveyor of
screen advertising in Australia, was near bankruptcy.
Ultimately, the company was acquired by a group of our
competitors (Village, Hoyts and Greater Union), and is now owned
by Hoyts Cinemas. Although our screen advertising revenues
remained relatively constant as a percentage of revenue in 2003
and 2002, as a result of Val Morgans financial distress,
our film advertising revenues decreased in 2004. See
Competition below. Other sources of revenue include
theater rentals for meetings, conferences, special film
exhibitions and vending machine receipts or rentals.
|
|
|
Entertainment-Themed Retail Center Development |
We are engaged through Reading Australia and Reading New Zealand
in the development of ETRCs that typically consist of a
multiplex cinema, complementary restaurant and retail
facilities, and convenient parking on land that we own or
control. In December 1999, we opened the cinema portion of our
first ETRC in Australia. Located in Perth, the ETRC includes a
10-screen cinema and approximately 19,138 square feet of
restaurant and retail space. We opened the multiplex cinema
component of our second ETRC in September 2000. That ETRC,
located in the Sydney suburb of Auburn, near the site of the
Sydney Olympic Village, includes a 10-screen cinema,
approximately 59,169 square feet of retail space and
approximately 287,730 square feet of subterranean parking
garage. The Auburn site also includes approximately
95,530 square feet of raw land, available for expansion of
the ETRC. In March 2002, we opened our Wellington ETRC,
comprised of a 10-screen cinema, approximately
37,383 square feet of restaurant and retail space and 1,086
parking spaces located in an adjacent nine level parking garage.
The Wellington site also includes approximately
37,674 square feet of raw land, available for expansion of
the ETRC. We are presently in the design phase of a plan to
develop an additional 150,000 square feet or retail space
(including a multiplex art cinema) on this land.
|
|
|
Our Ongoing Entertainment-Themed Retail Center
Projects |
We are currently in the construction phase of our approximately
100,000 square foot ETRC located on our approximately
190,000 square foot site in Newmarket.
We are working on the second phase of our Wellington ETRC,
anticipated to consist of approximately 150,000 square feet
of retail space and a multi-screen art and specialty cinema on
land we currently own. Plans are being prepared, and
conversations with potential tenants are ongoing. We are also in
the planning stages of a proposed combination ETRC/ residential
development for our 124,754 square foot Moonee Ponds site.
We hope to complete the planning process for both of these
projects during the course of this year.
We are in the initial master planning and entitlement phase of
our 50 acre Burwood project. It is currently anticipated
that the project will include entertainment, retail, office and
residential components. We hope to have completed the initial
master planning and entitlement phase for the site before the
end of this year.
Two of our cinemas, consisting of 11 screens and located in
country towns, are owned by Australia Country Cinemas Pty,
Limited (ACC), a company owned 75% by Reading
Australia and 25% by a company owned by an individual familiar
with the market for cinemas in country towns. ACC has a limited
right of first refusal to develop any cinema sites identified by
Reading Australia that are located in country towns.
One of our cinemas, a 5-screen facility in Melbourne, is owned
by a joint venture in which we have a 66.6% unincorporated joint
venture interest with the original owner.
Five of our cinemas, consisting of 29 screens; in New
Zealand are held in 50/50 unincorporated joint ventures with an
experienced cinema owner and operator. Two of the joint venture
cinemas are fee owned
-16-
properties and three are leased. Since these joint ventures are
unincorporated joint ventures, we own direct undivided interests
in the fees or the leases, equipment and business comprising the
joint ventures assets.
In 2003, we acquired a 33% unincorporated joint venture interest
in a 16-screen multiplex cinema located in a suburb of Brisbane,
and operated under the Birch Carroll & Coyle name.
Since this is an unincorporated joint venture, we hold our 33%
interest directly as an undivided interest in the lease,
equipment and business comprising this cinema asset.
We own a 50% membership interest in Angelika Film Center, LLC,
which holds the lease to the approximately 17,500 square
foot Angelika Film Center & Café in the Soho
district of Manhattan. We also hold the management rights with
respect to this asset.
|
|
|
Certain Real Estate Development Risk Factors |
At the present time, our activities in Australia and New Zealand
are in material part speculative real estate development
activities. In each case other than the 50-acre Burwood site and
the 190,000 square foot Newmarket site, we expect that we
will be our own anchor tenant. Nevertheless, the success of our
real estate business depends upon a number of variables and is
subject to a number of risks, some of which are outside of our
control. The Burwood site is sufficiently large that even though
we intend to develop a modern multiplex cinema, it will only be
one of several anchors for the overall project. Similarly, in
the case of Newmarket, we have already contracted with a major
grocery store operator and a major pub operator to serve as
anchors for the project.
The real estate variables and risks that we are likely to
confront include, without limitation:
|
|
|
|
|
construction risks, such as weather, unknown and unknowable site
conditions, and the availability and cost of materials and labor; |
|
|
|
leasing risk with respect to ancillary space being constructed
in connection with the ETRC in certain cases such
ancillary space constitutes a substantial portion of the net
leasable area of a particular ETRC; |
|
|
|
political risk, such as the possible change in midstream of
existing zoning or development laws to accommodate competitive
interests at Burwood; and |
|
|
|
financing risks, such as interest rate risk, the risk of
investing during times of currency exchange rate instability,
and the difficulties of acquiring construction financing. |
In light of these risks, no assurances can be given that we will
be able to accomplish our real estate business objectives in
Australia and/or New Zealand. Furthermore, even if those
objectives are eventually achieved the realization of our
objectives may require a longer period of time and a greater
level of developmental costs than we currently anticipate.
Our employees manage Reading Australias wholly owned and
consolidated cinemas and Reading New Zealands wholly owned
cinema. Our five New Zealand joint venture cinemas are operated
by various joint ventures in which Reading New Zealand is a 50%
joint venture partner. Our employees are actively involved in
the management of these joint ventures, and provide the
accounting, purchasing and accounts payable support for one of
these joint ventures. The 16-screen Brisbane joint venture
cinema is operated under the supervision of a management
committee over which each of the joint ventures holds certain
veto rights and is managed by Birch Carroll & Coyle.
|
|
|
Background Information Concerning Australia |
Australia is a self-governing and fully independent member of
the Commonwealth of Nations. The constitution resembles that of
the United States in that it creates a federal form of
government, under which the powers of the central government are
specified and all residual powers are left to the states. The
country is
-17-
organized into five mainland states (New South Wales,
Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia),
one island state (Tasmania) and two territories (Australian
Capital Territory and the Northern Territory).
The ceremonial supreme executive is the British monarch,
represented by the governor-general and in each of the six
states by a governor. These officials are appointed by the
British monarch, but appointments are nearly always recommended
by the Australian government. True executive power rests with
the prime minister, the leader of the majority party in the
House of Representatives. The legislature is bicameral, with a
Senate and a House of Representatives, and the ministers are
appointed by the prime minister from the membership of the House
and the Senate. The organization of the state government is
similar to that of the central government. Each state has an
appointed governor, an elected premier and a legislature.
Australia is the sixth largest country in the world in landmass
with a population of approximately 20 million people. This
population is concentrated in a few coastal urban areas, with
approximately 6.5 million in the greater Sydney area,
5.0 million in the greater Melbourne area, 2.0 million
in the Brisbane area, 2.0 million in Perth and
1.5 million in Adelaide. Australia is one of the richest
countries in the world in terms of natural resources per capita
and one of the most economically developed countries in the
world, although vast areas of the interior, known as the
Outback, remain all but uninhabited. The principal
language is English, and the largest part of the population
traces its origin to Britain and Europe, although an increasing
portion of the population has emigrated from the Far East.
Australian taste in film has historically been similar to that
of American audiences.
Internal trade is dominated by the two most populous states, New
South Wales (mainly Sydney) and Victoria (mainly Melbourne).
Together these two states account for a majority of all
wholesale trade and a significant percentage of retail sales. At
the present time, Australias principal trading partners
are the United States and Japan.
Australia does not restrict the flow of currency into the
country from the U.S. or out of Australia to the United States.
Also, subject to certain review procedures, U.S. companies
are typically permitted to operate businesses and to own real
estate. On July 1, 2000, Australia implemented a goods and
services tax (GST) on all goods and services at a
consistent rate of 10%. We do not believe that the GST has had a
significant impact on our business.
|
|
|
Background Information Concerning New Zealand |
New Zealand is also a self-governing member of the Commonwealth
of Nations. It is comprised of two large islands, and numerous
small islands, with a total land area of approximately
104,500 square miles. The country has a population of
approximately 4.0 million people, most of who are of
European descent and the principal language is English.
Wellington, with a population of approximately 350,000, is the
capital and Auckland, with a population of approximately
1.2 million, is the largest city. Most of the population
lives in urban areas.
New Zealand is a prosperous country with a high standard of
social services. The national economy is largely dependent upon
the export of raw and processed foods, timber and wool.
Principally a trading nation, New Zealand exports about 25% of
its gross national product. In the past (particularly before the
United Kingdom entered the Common Market in 1973), New
Zealands marketing focused on a small number of countries,
principally the United Kingdom. Currently, only approximately 5%
of New Zealands trade is with the United Kingdom. Japan
and Australia are New Zealands principal trading partners.
No country currently accounts for more than 20% of New
Zealands exports; however, its economy remains sensitive
to fluctuations and demand for its principal exports.
Like Australia, New Zealand has a largely ceremonial
governor-general, appointed by the Queen of England. However,
the executive branch is run by a prime minister- typically the
leader of the majority party in Parliament and
appointed ministers (typically chosen from the members of
Parliament). The Parliament is elected by universal adult
suffrage using a mixed member proportional system. Under this
system, each voter casts two votes at the federal level, one for
a local representative and one for a party. Fifty percent of the
-18-
120 seats in Parliament are determined by the direct
election of local representatives, and the remaining fifty
percent are elected based upon the number of votes garnered by
the parties. The Prime Minister and his cabinet serve so long as
they retain the confidence of the Parliament.
With the exception of special excise taxes on tobacco, liquor,
petroleum products and motor vehicles the only general sales tax
is a GST imposed on all such services at the consistent rate of
12.5%. In effect, by a series of refunds, GST is only paid by
the end-user of the goods or services in question. Resident
companies pay income tax at a rate of 33%; however, dividend
imputation credits generally prevent double taxation of company
profits. There are no restrictions on repatriation of capital or
profits, but some payments to overseas parties are subject to
withholding tax. There is no capital gains tax, and there are
tax treaties with many countries, including the United States.
The laws for monitoring and approving significant overseas
investment into New Zealand reflect the countrys generally
receptive attitude towards such investment and the generally
facilitating nature of the countrys foreign investment
policies. One hundred percent overseas ownership can be approved
in nearly all industry sectors, including motion picture
exhibition and distribution. A review process is also applicable
to certain land transactions and the purchase of businesses or
assets having a value of NZ$10,000 or more.
Films exhibited in Australia and New Zealand are licensed under
agreements with major film distributors and several local
distributors who distribute specialized films. Film exhibitors
are provided with an opportunity to view films prior to
negotiating with the film distributor the commercial terms
applicable to its release. Films are licensed on a film-by-film,
theater-by-theater basis. Reading Australia and Reading New
Zealand license films from all film distributors as appropriate
to each of our cinema location. Generally, film payment terms
are based upon various formulas that provide for payments based
upon a specified percentage of box office receipts.
The film exhibition market in both Australia and New Zealand is
highly concentrated and, in certain cases, vertically
integrated. The principal exhibitors in Australia and New
Zealand include a joint venture of Greater Union and Village
Roadshow Limited (GUV) with approximately 454 screens;
Village Roadshow Limited (Village) with
approximately 95 screens in Australia and through a joint
venture with Sky Casinos, 74 screens in New Zealand; Birch
Carroll & Coyle (a subsidiary of Greater Union) with
approximately 153 screens in Australia and Hoyts Cinemas
(Hoyts) with approximately 356 screens in
Australia and 44 screens in New Zealand. These figures
understate in certain respects the degree of concentration in
Australia and New Zealand. Typically, Village, Greater Union and
Hoyts (the Major Exhibitors) own the newer multiplex
and mega-plex cinemas, while the independent exhibitors
typically have older and smaller cinemas. Accordingly, we
believe it likely that the Major Exhibitors may control upwards
of 75% of the total cinema box office in Australia and New
Zealand. By comparison, we believe that our cinemas represent
only approximately 6% of the total box office for Australia and
only approximately 16% of the total box office for New Zealand
(assuming that all of 10 existing cinemas we acquired in
Australia and New Zealand during 2004 were owned by us for the
entire year).
The Major Exhibitors have over the past five years built a
number of new multiplexes as joint venture partners or under
shared facility arrangements, and have historically not engaged
in head-to-head competition, except in the downtown areas of
Sydney and Melbourne. In Sydney, the Major Exhibitors have
entered into an agreement under which they share a redeveloped
17-screen cinema in the George Street entertainment district. In
other markets, two or more of the Major Exhibitors have formed
joint ventures to own and operate new multiplex cinemas.
Accordingly, there are significant business interrelations
between Australias three principal film exhibition
companies.
In 2003, we acquired a 33% unincorporated joint venture interest
in an existing 16-screen cinema located in suburban Brisbane
which is currently owned in principal part by Village and Birch
Carroll & Coyle. This marks our first joint venture
arrangement with any of the Major Exhibitors.
-19-
Greater Union is the owner of Birch Carroll & Coyle.
Generally speaking, all new multiplex cinema projects announced
by Village are being jointly developed by a joint venture
comprised of Greater Union and Village. These companies have
substantial capital resources. Village had a publicly reported
consolidated net worth of approximately $848 million
(AUS$948.7 million) at June 30, 2004. The Greater
Union organization does not separately publish financial
reports, but its parent, Amalgamated Holdings, had a publicly
reported consolidated net worth of approximately
$257.3 million (AUS$370.1 million) at June 30,
2004. Hoyts does not separately publish financial reports. Hoyts
is currently owned 50% by Western Australia Newspapers and 50%
by Publishing and Brand Costing, a company controlled by
Mr. Kerry Packer. Mr. Packer is considered one of the
wealthiest men in Australia with a net worth estimated at
$5.0 billion (AUS$6.5 billion).
The industry is also somewhat vertically integrated in that
Roadshow Film Distributors which serves as a distributor of film
in Australia and New Zealand for Warner Brothers and New Line
Cinema. Films produced or distributed by the majority of the
local international independent producers are also distributed
by Roadshow Film Distributors. Hoyts has also begun involvement
in film production and distribution.
In our view, the principal competitive restraint on the
development of our business in Australia and New Zealand is the
limited availability of good sites for future development. We
already have access to substantially all first run film on
competitive terms at all of our cinemas. However, our
competitors and certain major commercial real estate interests
have historically utilized land use development laws and
regulations in Australia to prevent or delay our construction of
freestanding cinemas in new entertainment oriented complexes,
particularly where those complexes are located outside of an
established central business district or shopping center
development.
In December 2002, the Major Exhibitors acquired Val Morgan, the
principal lessee of screen advertising space in Australia and
New Zealand. During 2003 and 2002, we received approximately
$1,339,000 (AUS$1,681,000 and NZ$396,000) and $1,254,000
(AUS$1,942,000 and NZ$308,000) respectively from Val Morgan for
screen advertising. Notwithstanding concerns expressed by us and
other independent exhibitors to the Australian Consumer and
Competition Commission (the ACCC) that such an
arrangement would give the Major Exhibitors an unfair
competitive advantage in the area of screen advertising, the
ACCC ultimately approved the acquisition due to concerns that,
but for the intervention of the Major Exhibitors, Val Morgan
would fail. In 2004, Hoyts bought out the interests of Village
and Greater Union in Val Morgan. Our contract with Val Morgan
expired on July 1, 2003 and was renewed for Australia
through September 2004 and has subsequently been renewed through
September 2008. Our contract for New Zealand does not expire
until March 2009. However, this New Zealand contract does not
pertain to our Berkeley Cinemas or to the six cinemas we
acquired from third parties in 2004. Under the terms approved by
the ACCC, future net revenues are to be split 50/50 between Val
Morgan and us for the advertising shown at our cinemas. However,
we have no control over Val Morgans costs. In light of the
fact that Val Morgan was unable to operate profitably under its
prior contracts with exhibitors, we believe that future revenues
from screen advertising will continue to decrease and may
ultimately be materially less, than the screen advertising
revenue realized in 2003 and 2002. In 2004, we received
approximately $1,149,000 (AUS$1,084,000 and NZ$416,000). The
impact of the decline in screen advertising revenues is being
mitigated to a certain extent at our parent company level due to
the strengthening of the Australian and New Zealand dollars
compared to the U.S. dollar in recent periods and a partial
year of screen advertising revenue generated at our Movieland
cinemas.
Generally speaking, we do not engage in currency hedging.
Rather, to the extent possible, we operate our Australian and
New Zealand operations on a self-funding basis. Other than the
capitalization of existing debt from time to time, no funds have
been contributed from our U.S. operations to our Australia
or New Zealand operations since 2001. The book value, stated in
U.S. dollars, of our net assets in Australia and New
Zealand,
-20-
(assets less third party liabilities and without intercompany
debt), at December 31, 2004 are as follows (dollars in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Assets | |
|
|
| |
Reading Australia
|
|
$ |
111,602,000 |
|
Reading New Zealand
|
|
|
56,759,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
168,361,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
We believe that our asset bases in Australia and New Zealand
should provide a sufficient capital base to support our current
borrowing needs in those markets.
Virtually all of our operating costs in Australia and New
Zealand are denominated in the respective currencies of these
two countries. Our concessions are purchased locally, and our
film rental is calculated as a percentage of box office
receipts. We have also attempted to keep our general and
administrative costs localized, although in recent periods, we
have begun concentrating more of our financial reporting,
control and analysis functions in our Los Angeles corporate
headquarters.
At the present time, the Australian and New Zealand dollars are
trading at the upper half of their historic 25-year range
vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar. Set forth below is a chart
of the exchange ratios between these three currencies over the
past ten years:
Major films are generally released to coincide with the school
holiday periods, particularly the summer holidays. Accordingly,
our Australian and New Zealand operations typically record
greater revenues and earnings during the first half of the
calendar year.
Reading Australia has 29 full time executive and administrative
employees and approximately 867 cinema and property employees.
None of our Australia based employees are unionized. Reading New
Zealand currently has approximately 375 cinema and property
level employees. Our various New Zealand joint ventures have 5
full time executive and administrative employees and
approximately 100 cinema employees.
-21-
On November 1, 2004, we entered into a collective agreement
with the employees of our Courtenay Central complex which has an
18 month term. This agreement defines the terms of
engagement of our employees and is consistent with other
industry agreements. Notwithstanding the unionization effort in
New Zealand, we believe our relations with our employees to be
generally good.
Our Domestic Cinemas
We currently operate 56 screens in nine cinemas in the
United States (including two managed cinema with
9 screens). Our domestic cinema operations engage in the
exhibition of mainstream general release film in our
conventional cinemas, such as the Cinemas 1,
2 & 3, the Village East Theater and the East 86th
Street Cinema in Manhattan and the Manville 12 in Manville, New
Jersey. We also engage in the exhibition of art and specialty
film at our art cinemas such as the Angelika Film Centers in
Manhattan, Dallas, Houston and Plano. While we will consider
acquisition and development opportunities in the United States,
we are not currently actively seeking such opportunities, and
have no plans to acquire or develop cinemas in 2005.
All of our domestic cinemas are leased, other than the East 86th
Street Cinema in Manhattan and the Plano Angelika which are
operated pursuant to management contracts. Our Angelika cinema
in Manhattan is owned by a limited liability company owned 50%
by us and 50% by a subsidiary of National Auto Credit, but it is
under our management. The Manville 12 is leased pursuant to a
ground lease through April 2024 (with various renewal rights
through 2049) which allows the property to be used, at our
discretion, for other retail uses.
In recent years, the domestic cinema exhibition industry has
gone through major retrenchment and consolidation, creating
considerable uncertainty as to the direction of the domestic
film exhibition industry, and our role in that industry. Several
major cinema exhibition companies have gone through bankruptcy
over the past five years, or have been otherwise financially
restructured. Regal Cinemas emerged from bankruptcy and combined
with Edwards and United Artists (which also went through
bankruptcy) to create a circuit that has now grown to
6,273 screens, in 558 cinemas. Loews was recapitalized and
grown to a circuit of 2,176 screens in 200 cinemas.
Landmark Theaters, the largest art and specialty film exhibitor
in the United States, has also emerged from bankruptcy and is
now owned by a private company controlled by Mark Cuban (an
individual with a reported personal net worth of
$1.3 billion.) These companies, having used bankruptcy to
restructure their debt and to rid themselves of burdensome
leases and in some cases to consolidate, are now much stronger
competitors than they were just a few years ago.
A significant number of older conventional screens have, as a
result of this consolidation process, been taken out of the
market. We estimate that the total domestic screen count has
decreased from 37,396 in 2000 to 36,179 in 2004. Industry
analysts project further consolidation in the industry, as
players such as Cablevision seek to divest their domestic cinema
exhibition assets. Accordingly, while we believe that recent
developments may in some ways have aided the overall health of
the domestic cinema exhibition industry, there remains
considerable uncertainty as to the impact of this consolidation
trend on us and our domestic cinema exhibition business, as we
are forced to compete with these stronger and reinvigorated
competitors and the significant market share commanded by these
competitors.
As discussed in greater detail below under the heading
Competition, we commenced antitrust litigation last year
against, among others, Regal, Loews, Columbia, Disney, Fox, MGM,
Paramount and Universal, in an effort to stop Regal from, in
essence, preventing the distribution defendants from providing
first run film to our Village East cinema in Manhattan. Warner
Bros, New Line and Miramax were not named as defendants, since
they have continued to supply first run film to our cinema. A
motion to dismiss brought by the defendants based on a claim
that our complaint failed to state a cause of action, was
rejected by the Federal District Court as to the principal
counts of our complaint, and the litigation has moved into the
discovery stage. This litigation has been and is likely to
continue to be costly, and no assurances can be given that we
will be successful in our claims. Also, in retaliation for
bringing this lawsuit, Fox and Universal refused to supply our
domestic cinemas following our commencement of litigation in
2003, until settlement was recently reached with those
distributors. During 2003 and 2004, we incurred costs and
expenses related to the litigation
-22-
of $1,135,000 and $1,771,000 respectively. We have, however, now
reached settlement with Disney, DreamWorks, Fox, MGM, Universal
and Loews on terms that we believe to be beneficial to our
Company. We are currently pursuing our claims against Regal,
Columbia and Paramount.
There is also considerable uncertainty as to the future of
digital exhibition and in-the-home entertainment alternatives.
In the case of digital exhibition, there is currently
considerable discussion within the industry as to the benefits
and detriments of moving from conventional film projection to
digital projection technology. There are issues:
|
|
|
|
|
as to when it will be available on an economically attractive
bases; |
|
|
|
as to who will pay for the conversion from conventional to
digital technology between exhibitors and distributors; |
|
|
|
as to what the impact will be on film licensing expense; and |
|
|
|
as to how to deal with security and potential pirating issues if
film is distributed in a digital format. |
In the case of in-the-home entertainment alternatives, the
industry is faced with the significant leaps achieved in recent
periods in both the quality and affordability of in-the-home
entertainment systems and in the accessibility to entertainment
programming through cable, satellite and DVD distribution
channels. These are issues common to both our domestic and
international cinema operations.
While no assurances can be given, it may be that the
reorganization and restructuring of the domestic cinema
exhibition market will produce opportunities for us to grow our
art and specialty circuit by acquiring, on favorable terms,
rights to operate cinemas no longer seen as suitable or
competitive as conventional first run film venues, or for other
reasons, no longer attractive to other exhibitors. However, the
revitalization of Landmark with the acquisition of that company
last year by Mark Cuban may present us with new hurdles and new
challenges. Also, the owners of large modern multiplex cinemas
are more and more seeking out the higher grossing art product to
fill their screens, thus reducing the ability of older art
specialty cinemas to attract such films. This can materially
adversely affect the viability of these specialty theaters,
since they often need these high grossing art and specialty
films in order to survive. In any event, we do not intend to
aggressively pursue domestic expansion opportunities simply to
buy market share, and if attractive opportunities do not become
available, we will continue to focus on the operation of our
existing cinemas and the exploitation of the real estate
elements underlying those cinemas.
Our domestic cinemas derive approximately 62% of their revenues
from box office receipts. Ticket prices vary by location, and
provide for reduced rates for senior citizens and children.
Box office receipts are reported net of state and local
sales or service taxes. Show times and features are placed in
advertisements in local newspapers and Reading pays the costs of
such advertisements. Film distributors may also advertise
certain feature films and those costs are generally paid by
distributors. Film rental expense represented approximately 40%
of box office receipts for 2004.
Concession sales account for approximately 17% of total
revenues. Concession products primarily include popcorn, candy
and soda, but Readings art cinemas typically offer a wider
variety of concession offerings. Our Angelika cinemas in
Manhattan, Dallas, Houston and Plano include café
facilities, and the operations in Dallas, Houston and Plano are
licensed to sell alcoholic beverages. Our domestic cinemas
achieved a gross margin on concession sales of approximately 79%
for 2004.
Screen advertising and other revenues contribute approximately
4% of total revenues. Other sources of revenue include revenues
from theater rentals for meetings, conferences, special film
exhibitions and vending machine receipts or rentals.
Film product is available from a variety of sources ranging from
the major film distributors such as Columbia, Disney, Buena
Vista, DreamWorks, Fox, MGM, Warner Bros and Universal, to a
variety of smaller independent film distributors such as
Miramax. The major film distributors dominate the market for
-23-
mainstream conventional films. Similarly, most art and specialty
films come from the art and specialty divisions of these major
distributors, such as Foxs Searchlight and Disneys
Miramax. Generally speaking, film payment terms are based upon
an agreed upon percentage of box office receipts. In 2004,
however, our access to film was adversely affected by the
decision by Fox, Fox Searchlight and Universal to not distribute
film to us domestically during the pendency of our antitrust
litigation against them. As our claims against them have now
been settled, we are once again able to access their film
product.
In recent periods we have seen an unusually high percentage of
films with truncated exhibition runs, which adversely impacts
the margins available to exhibitors.
Until recently, the surplus of screens currently available to
distributors had eroded the bargaining power of the exhibitors
and that bargaining power has been on the side of the
distributors. However, with the emergence of the mega circuits,
it appears that the balance of power may be somewhat shifting,
but not to the benefit of the smaller independent circuits such
as ourselves. Indeed, as discussed in greater detail below, we
believe that in certain situations, our access to first-run film
has been adversely affected by the market power of exhibitors
such as Regal and Loews.
The principal factor in the success or failure of a particular
cinema is access to popular film products. 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 and quality of the various cinemas. In
many markets, the number of prints in distribution is less than
the number of exhibitors seeking that film for that market, and
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.
Accordingly, 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 we can supply to distributors. Moreover, as a result
of the dramatic and recent consolidation of screens into the
hands of a few very large and powerful exhibitors such as Regal
and Loews, these mega exhibition companies are in a position to
offer distributors access to many more screens in major markets
than can we. Accordingly, distributors may decide to give
preferences 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, New Zealand
and Puerto Rico where typically every multiplex cinema has
access to all of the film currently in distribution, regardless
of the ownership of that multiplex.
On March 18, 2003, we filed a complaint against Oaktree
Capital Management LLC, Onex Corporation, Regal Entertainment
Group, United Artists Theatre Company, United Artists Theatre
Circuit, Inc., Loews Cineplex Entertainment Corporation,
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., the Walt Disney Company,
Universal Studios, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation,
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distribution Company, Fox Entertainment
Group, Inc., DreamWorks LLC, Stephen Kaplan and Bruce Karsh in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The suit alleges, among other things, violations by
the defendants of various sections of the Sherman and Clayton
Acts, (commonly referred to as the antitrust laws) and New York
state law relating to their concerted efforts to deny first-run
industry anticipated top grossing commercial films to
plaintiffs Village East Theatre. The complaint seeks,
among other things, damages, an injunction barring the
distributor defendants from refusing to license said films to
the Village East Theatre and from granting licenses to said
films to defendants Regal and Loews that prevent the Village
East Theater from exhibiting said films simultaneously with
defendants Regals and Loews theaters. The principal
allegations of our complaint have been determined by the
District Court to state a claim for relief, and the
Defendants claims to the contrary have been rejected. We
are now in the discovery stages. Costs to date, and going
forward, have been substantial, but we intend to continue to
aggressively pursue our claims. Naturally, no assurances can be
given that we will be successful. We have now reached settlement
terms with all defendants other than Regal, Columbia and
Paramount.
-24-
In addition, the competitive situation facing Reading is
uncertain given the ongoing development of in-the-home
entertainment alternatives such as DVD, cable and satellite
distribution of films, and the increasing quality and declining
cost of in-the-home entertainment components.
Traditionally, the exhibition of mainstream commercial films has
been somewhat seasonal, with most of the revenues being
generated over the summer and Christmas holiday seasons.
However, with the increasing number of releases, this
seasonality is becoming less of a factor. The exhibition of art
and specialty films has historically been less seasonal than the
exhibition of mainstream commercial films.
All of our domestic cinemas are managed by officers and
employees of Reading. Angelika Film Center, LLC (the owner of
the Angelika Film Center & Café in the Soho
district of New York), is owned by us on a 50/50 basis with a
subsidiary of National Auto Credit, Inc (NAC).
However, we manage that theater pursuant to a management
contract. Furthermore, the operating agreement of Angelika Film
Center, LLC provides that, in the event of deadlock our Chairman
will cast the deciding vote.
At December 31, 2004 we employed approximately 246
individuals to operate our domestic cinemas and to attend to our
real property operations. On January 31, 2003, we
renegotiated our collective bargaining agreement with the
projectionist union with respect to our Manhattan cinemas and
this agreement continues until January 31, 2006. Our
principal executive and administrative offices are located in
Los Angeles, California. Approximately 3 executives and 14 other
employees are located at our executive offices in Los Angeles
and Manhattan. We believe our relations with our employees to be
good.
Puerto Rico (CineVista)
Acquired by us in 1994, CineVista currently operates
48 screens in six leased facilities in Puerto Rico. We do
not presently anticipate material expansion of this circuit, and
would like to exit this market if a suitable buyer can be found.
Over the past couple of years, we have had conversations with a
number of interested parties. However, none of these discussions
to date has resulted in a transaction that makes sense to us.
While we continue to have discussions with interested parties,
we can give no assurances that any agreement will be reached, or
if reached, that all conditions to closing will be satisfied and
the transaction closed.
In Puerto Rico, our concentration has been on multiplex cinemas
located on leasehold properties, and the exhibition of
conventional film product. All of CineVistas theaters are
modern multi-screen facilities.
CineVista derives approximately 67% of its revenues from box
office receipts. Ticket prices vary by location, and provide for
reduced rates for senior citizens and children. Box office
receipts are reported net of a 10% excise tax imposed by Puerto
Rico. Show times and features are placed in advertisements in
local newspapers with the costs of such advertisements paid by
CineVista. Film distributors may supplementary advertise certain
feature films with the costs generally paid by distributors.
Film rental averaged approximately 45% of box office receipts
for 2004.
Concession sales account for approximately 27% of total
revenues. Concession products primarily include popcorn, candy
and soda. Screen advertising and other revenues contribute
approximately 6% of total revenues. Other sources of revenue
include revenues from theater rentals for meetings, conferences,
special film exhibitions and vending machine receipts or rentals.
-25-
|
|
|
Background Information about Puerto Rico and the Puerto
Rican Cinema Market |
Puerto Rico is a self-governing Commonwealth of the United
States with a population of approximately 3.8 million
people. Puerto Rico exercises control over internal affairs
similar to states of the United States; however, the
relationship with the United States Federal Government is
different than that of a state. Residents of Puerto Rico are
citizens of the United States, but do not vote in national
elections and, with certain exceptions, do not pay federal
income taxes. Income taxes are paid instead under a system
established by the Commonwealth. The United States mainland is
Puerto Ricos largest trading partner.
During the last several years, Puerto Rico has undergone
significant retail shopping center development. During this
period, the number of multiplex theaters has increased
substantially. Our principal competitor, Caribbean Cinemas, a
privately owned company, has opened 14 complexes adding
approximately 133 screens since the beginning of 1996, and
is expected to continue to open theaters competitive with those
of CineVista. These new screens have adversely affected our
current operations. In some cases, these cinemas have been
located within a few miles of our cinemas in Puerto Rico. Since
1994, this competitors share of the Puerto Rico box office
has increased from 48% to 81%. We believe that the Puerto Rico
market is currently over-built, and that there will be few, if
any, opportunities in the near to medium term that would be
attractive to Reading.
Films are licensed under agreements with major film distributors
and several local distributors specializing in films of special
interest to residents of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico regulations
generally require that film exhibitors be provided with an
opportunity to view films prior to submitting bids, that film
distributors provide advance notice of films that will be
provided to the market, and are generally designed to preclude
anticompetitive practices. Films are licensed on a film-by-film,
theater-by-theater basis. Generally, film payment terms provide
for payment to film distributors under various formulas,
providing for payments based upon a percentage of gross box
office receipts. Historically, we have not had major difficulty
in obtaining first run film. However, we can give no assurances
that this trend will continue given the market dominance of
Caribbean Cinemas with approximately 81% of the market. Also,
while Puerto Rican law prohibits exhibitors from also being in
the distribution business, exhibitors such as Caribbean Cinemas
could go into the distribution of film, to the extent that no
company chooses to distribute a particular film in Puerto Rico.
Given the market dominance of Caribbean Cinemas, we can give no
assurances that the major distributors will continue to maintain
film distribution operations in Puerto Rico.
We believe there are approximately 39 first-run movie theaters
in daily operation with approximately 300 screens in Puerto
Rico. Based upon number of screens, box office revenues and
number of theaters, we are the second largest exhibitor in
Puerto Rico, with the two largest exhibitors accounting for over
99% of the box office revenues recorded in 2004, measured by
theaters in daily operation. Competition among the theater
exhibitors exists not only for theater patrons within certain
geographic areas, but also for the licensing of films and the
development of new theater sites. The number of sites suitable
for multiplex cinemas is limited, but our principal competitor
is expected to continue to open theaters that are competitive
with ours. Caribbean Cinemas currently operates 28 cinemas with
242 screens in Puerto Rico representing approximately 81%
of the total box office generated in that country.
In Puerto Rico, our strategy has been to build generally higher
quality cinemas, with larger seats, more leg room and better
sound than those constructed by our principal competitor, and to
seek out and build in either well established retail centers
with adequate parking on-site or in connection with the
development of new retail centers being developed by experienced
and well financed developers. Our principal competitor appears
to have adopted a strategy of market dominance, building cinemas
in areas which, in our view, are already over-screened, and
offering rents which, again in our view, cannot provide an
adequate return on capital for the cinema operator.
-26-
In 2000, Caribbean opened a state-of-the-art multiplex cinema in
the Plaza Las Americas (the Plaza) the largest
shopping center in Puerto Rico. This was particularly injurious
to our competitive position in Puerto Rico. Prior to the opening
of this cinema, our cinema complex at the Plaza was our top
grossing cinema in Puerto Rico. We believe that when the owner
of the Plaza and Caribbean Cinemas entered into this lease with
respect to the cinema, they were in violation of agreements
reached between CineVista and the owner of the Plaza, and that
the Plaza and Caribbean Cinemas exercised monopoly power. We
have commenced separate litigation against the owners of the
Plaza and Caribbean Cinemas for, among other things, breach of
contract, tortuous interference and various trade practice
violations. However, this litigation is proceeding slowly, in
part due to the fact that the number of law firms in Puerto Rico
who can take a position adverse to both the ownership of the
Plaza and the ownership of Caribbean Cinemas and who have the
experience to prosecute an antitrust case, is very limited.
We are advised that the Justice Department for the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico has commenced an investigation into the film
exhibition industry in Puerto Rico, and we have been called upon
the provide certain information. We do not believe that we are
the target of that investigation, and are hopeful that it may
assist us in establishing our antitrust claims against Caribbean
Cinemas. However, as the investigation appears to be in its
early stages, no assurances in this regard can be given.
Most major films are released to coincide with the summer
months, when schools are closed or the winter holiday seasons.
Accordingly, we have historically recorded greater revenues and
earnings during the second half of the calendar year.
We have approximately 137 employees in Puerto Rico, 9 of whom
are employed under the terms of a collective bargaining
agreement. The collective bargaining agreement expired in May
2004. Because of our ongoing efforts to sell the Puerto Rico
operations, the union and we have agreed to defer discussions of
an updated contract until such time that we either sell the
operations or determine to keep it. If we keep the operations,
we will work with the union on a new collective bargaining
agreement. In any case, we believe our relations with our
employees in Puerto Rico are good.
Our Real Estate Activities
While we report our real estate as a separate segment, it is
operated as an integral portion of our overall business. Since
our entry into the cinema exhibition business, our real estate
activities have principally been in support of that business.
Accordingly, in this Annual Report, consistent with our practice
in prior periods, we have described our real estate activities
as an integrated portion of our cinema operating and development
activities. We do, however, now have 3 executives who are
principally engaged in the real estate aspects of our business
as this area has become an increasingly important part of our
operations. This will be particularly true once the entitlements
phase of our Burwood project has been completed and the leasing,
design, and build-out phases begin.
-27-
Our current real estate holdings are described in detail in
Item 2, Properties, below. At December 31, 2004, our
principal wholly owned fee income generating real estate assets
with their percentage leased are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Square Footage of | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improvements | |
|
Percentage | |
|
|
Property(1) |
|
(Rental/Entertainment) | |
|
Leased | |
|
Gross Book Value | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In U.S. dollars) | |
Auburn
|
|
|
59,169/ 56,693 |
|
|
|
91 |
% |
|
$ |
26,419,713 |
|
|
100 Paramatta Road
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auburn, NSW, Australia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Belmont
|
|
|
19,138/40,687 |
|
|
|
83 |
% |
|
$ |
11,688,263 |
|
|
Knutsford Ave and Fulham St
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Belmont, WA, Australia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brand Blvd
|
|
|
95,752/0 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
$ |
8,351,724 |
|
|
600 N. Brand Blvd
Glendale, CA, USA |
|
Plus a 128,537 square foot parking structure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Courtenay Central
|
|
|
37,383/65,768 |
|
|
|
86 |
% |
|
$ |
32,866,243 |
|
|
100 Courtenay Place
Wellington, New Zealand |
|
Plus a 400,000 square foot parking structure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Invercargill Cinema
|
|
|
7,158/19,784 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
$ |
2,857,694 |
|
|
29 Doe Street
Invercargill, New Zealand |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maitland Cinema
|
|
|
1,550/20,860 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
$ |
1,943,062 |
|
|
Ken Tubman Drive
Maitland, NSW, Australia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minetta Lane Theatre
|
|
|
0/9,212 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
$ |
4,116,691 |
|
|
18-22 Minetta Lane
Manhattan, NY, USA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Napier Cinema
|
|
|
6,480/17,018 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
$ |
3,690,000 |
|
|
154 Station Street
Napier, New Zealand |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newmarket(2)
|
|
|
103,821/0 |
|
|
|
71 |
% |
|
$ |
26,711,685 |
(3) |
|
Newmarket, QLD, Australia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orpheum Theatre
|
|
|
0/5,146 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
$ |
1,541,768 |
|
|
126 2nd Street
Manhattan, NY, USA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Royal George
|
|
|
5,055/41,748 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
$ |
2,856,930 |
|
|
1633 N. Halsted Street
Chicago, IL, USA |
|
Plus 21,456 square feet of parking |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rotorua Cinema
|
|
|
0/18,783 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
$ |
2,572,125 |
|
|
1281 Eruora Street
Rotorua, New Zealand |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Union Square Theatre
|
|
|
21,125/ 16,825 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
$ |
8,252,586 |
|
|
100 E. 17th Street
Manhattan, NY, USA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
A number of our properties include entertainment components
rented to one or more of our subsidiaries. The rentable area and
percentaged leased numbers are net of such entertainment
components. Book value, however, includes the entire investment
in the property, including any cinema fit-out. Rental
information is as of January 31, 2005. Book value
information is as of December 31, 2004. |
|
(2) |
The retail components of this project are currently under
construction. The cinema component is still in the design phase. |
|
(3) |
Estimated cost to complete project. |
-28-
In addition, in certain cases we have long term lease which we
view more akin to real estate investments than cinema leases.
These interests are described in the following chart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Square Footage | |
|
|
|
|
Property(1) |
|
(Rental/Entertainment) | |
|
Percentage Leased | |
|
Gross Book Value | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In U.S. dollars) | |
Manville
|
|
|
0/ 63,257 |
|
|
|
Owner Occupied |
|
|
$ |
1,535,587 |
|
Village East
|
|
|
2,404/ 33,099 |
|
|
|
100% |
|
|
$ |
464,018 |
|
Waurn Ponds
|
|
|
5,791/51,904 |
|
|
|
100% |
|
|
$ |
5,800,163 |
|
|
|
(1) |
A number of our properties include entertainment components
rented to one or more of our subsidiaries. The rentable area and
percentaged leased numbers are net of such entertainment
components. Book value, however, includes the entire investment
in the property, including any cinema fit-out. Rental
information is as of January 31, 2005. Book value
information is as of December 31, 2004. |
|
|
|
Live Theaters (Liberty Theaters) |
Included among our real estate holdings are four Off
Broadway style live theaters, operated through our Liberty
Theaters subsidiary. We lease theater auditoriums to the
producers of Off Broadway theatrical productions and
provide various box office and concession services. The terms of
our leases are, naturally, principally dependent upon the
commercial success of our tenants. STOMP has been playing at our
Orpheum Theater for many years. 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
three single auditorium theaters in Manhattan:
|
|
|
|
|
the Minetta Lane (399 seats); |
|
|
|
the Orpheum (364 seats); and |
|
|
|
the Union Square (499 seats). |
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). We own the
fee interest in each of these theaters. Two of the properties,
the Union Square and the Royal George, have ancillary retail and
office space.
We are basically in the business of leasing theatre space, and
accordingly we do not typically invest in plays. However, we may
from time to time participate as a minority investor in order to
facilitate the production of a play at one of our facilities,
and do from time to time rent space on a basis that allows us to
share in a productions revenues or profits. Revenues, expenses
and profits are reported as apart of the real estate segment of
our business.
Our current real estate development projects are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Our Burwood site is comprised of 50 acres of raw land,
previously used as a brickworks and quarry, and currently zoned
for extractive industries. Located in the Burwood
suburb of Melbourne, it was last year designated as a
major activity centre by the Victoria government,
hopefully paving the way for its redevelopment as a multi-use
suburban in-fill site. We currently anticipate that the site
will be rezoned to permit development as a mixed use project
with entertainment, retail, office and residential components. |
|
|
|
The site is the largest undeveloped parcel of land in the
major activity center and the largest undeveloped
parcel of land in any major activity center in
Victoria. Approximately 430,000 people live within five
miles of the site, which is well served by both public transit
and surface streets. We estimate that approximately
70,000 people pass by the site each day. |
-29-
|
|
|
|
|
We are currently in the initial master planning and entitlements
phase. We currently anticipate that we will have completed this
phase by the end of this year, and that we will be able to
obtain specific building permits and to commence actual site
work early in 2006. It is our hope and expectation to kick off
the development with a major cinema based entertainment center. |
|
|
|
We anticipate that the project will be built in phases, over a
significant period of years. The initial phase, however, will
likely be an ETRC, as this is the area of development and
construction with which we are most familiar. |
|
|
|
We do not currently have any funding in place for the
development, and are paying for current master planning
activities out of cash flow and working capital. |
|
|
|
Our original cost basis in the site is approximately $4,173,000
(AUD$5,250,000). The property was originally acquired in 1996,
but was revalued upward in connection with the Consolidation in
2001, which was treated as a purchase for accounting purposes.
This revaluation was made prior to the designation of the site
as a major activity center in 2004. The property is
currently on our books for $16.6 million
(AUS$21.5 million). |
|
|
|
|
|
Our Newmarket site is comprised of approximately
190,000 square feet of land, located in a suburb of
Brisbane. We are currently in the construction phase of the
development. |
|
|
|
While we currently intend to develop the property as an ETRC, we
are still working on the design and layout of the cinema
portion. Currently, the project is anchored by a major
supermarket and a major pub operator. |
|
|
|
As of January 31, 2005 we had pre-leased approximately
82,906 square feet (71%) of the non-cinema space in the
centre. |
|
|
|
We are financing construction through a $23.3 million
(AUD$32.7 million) construction loan with an Australian
bank. |
|
|
|
We originally acquired approximately 176,500 square feet of
the property in 1998, for a purchase price of $4.2 million
(AUD$6.9 million), acquiring an additional approximately
13,400 square feet in 2004, for a purchase price of
$1.2 million (AUD$1.5 million). At December 31,
2004 (before drawdown under the construction loan) our
investment in the property was $8.0 million
(AUD$10.4 million). |
|
|
|
|
|
Courtenay Central Phase II, Wellington, New Zealand: |
|
|
|
|
|
We are currently the owner operator of an approximately
103,000 square foot ETRC in Wellington, New Zealand, known
as Courtenay Central. The existing ETRC consists of a ten screen
cinema and approximately 37,400 square feet of retail
space. The property also includes a separate 9 level
parking structure, with approximately 1,086 parking spaces.
During 2004, approximately 3.5 million people went through
the center. |
|
|
|
We are in the design phase and in discussions with potential
tenants with respect to an approximately 150,000 Phase II
expansion to the centre, to be constructed on the approximately
38,000 square foot parcel adjacent to the existing centre.
It is anticipated that the expansion will include an art
specialty cinema and several major retail users, and will be
fully integrated into the existing center. |
|
|
|
We anticipate completing lease negotiations with the principal
tenants and completing project design by the end of this year. |
|
|
|
No financing is currently in place with respect to
Phase II, and current work is being funded from working
capital and cash flow. |
-30-
|
|
|
|
|
Moonee Ponds, Victoria: |
|
|
|
|
|
Our Moonee Ponds site is located in suburban Melbourne and
currently consists of approximately 125,000 square feet of
raw land. |
|
|
|
We are currently working on a plan for the mixed use development
of the site for cinema and residential purposes. The site, like
our Burwood site, is located in a major activity
centre. |
|
|
|
We acquired the property in April 1997, for a purchase price of
$4.9 million (AUS$6.4 million) and currently carry the
property on our books at $5.7 million
(AUS$7.4 million). |
|
|
|
|
|
57th Street, Manhattan, New York: |
|
|
|
|
|
We have a 25% non-managing membership interest in the
single purpose limited liability company formed to develop the
site located at 205-209 E. 57th Street. |
|
|
|
The property is being redeveloped as an approximately
100,000 square foot residential condominium project with
ground floor retail and is currently being marketed under the
name Place 57. |
|
|
|
The project is being financed with a combination construction
and mezzanine finance, totaling approximately $80,602,000. The
remainder of the funds required has been supplied by the members
of the limited liability company. The financing is without
recourse to the members. |
|
|
|
Construction at the site commenced in September of 2004. |
|
|
|
We have retained a right of first offer with respect to the
ground retail component of the project. |
Other Assets and Investments
In addition to our entertainment properties and certain land
held for development in Australia and New Zealand, we own a
95,752 square foot office building in Glendale, California
that is fully leased to Disney Enterprises, Inc. and
Cal National Bank. In addition, we own over 400 acres
of real estate, previously used in Readings historic
railroad operations, and located principally in Delaware and
Pennsylvania. On January 28, 2004, we entered into an
agreement for the sale of the Glendale Building for
$21 million. While the due diligence period has
expired, the sale remains contingent upon the approval by our
lender of the assumption of the loan by our buyer. As the loan
is non-recourse in nature, we believe it likely that the
assumption will be approved. However, no assurances in this
regard can be given.
While Reading has been in the cinema exhibition business since
1994, Citadel did not own exhibition properties until 2000.
Prior to its determination in 2000 to enter the cinema and live
theater exhibition businesses, Citadel made investments in 1997
in agriculture and in 1998 in healthcare. We disposed of our
agricultural assets in July 2002 and liquidated our healthcare
interests in 2003.
In December 1997, we acquired a partnership interest in certain
agricultural partnerships, and a membership interest in
Big 4 Farming, the limited liability company formed to farm
the properties owned by the agricultural partnerships. The
agricultural partnerships owned approximately 1,600 acres
of land in the Kern County, California, approximately
1,100 acres of which was improved with citrus orchards.
These properties are commonly known in the Kern County area as
the Big 4 Ranch.
In large part due to the lasting effects of a freeze in late
1998, which wiped out most of the citrus crop in Kern County,
and to competition from imported fruit, the agricultural
partnerships did not perform well. In September 2000, we wrote
down the carrying value of its investment in the agricultural
partnerships and in Big 4 Farming to $0, and in July 2002
the agricultural partnerships reconveyed their interests in the
Big 4 Ranch to the original owner of that property in
satisfaction of the purchase money mortgage held by that
original owner.
-31-
In 1998, we invested approximately $1,000,000 to acquire
approximately 11.6% of the outstanding stock of Gish Biomedical,
Inc. (Gish). Following our initial investment, we
increased our holdings to approximately 16.3% of the outstanding
stock. Gish is in the business of manufacturing medical devices,
focusing principally on devices used in open-heart surgery. We
liquidated this investment in 2003.
Financial Information Relating to Industry Segments and
Foreign and Domestic Operations
See Note 21 to the notes to the consolidated financial
statements Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10K
for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the 2003
Annual Report).
Executive and Administrative Offices
We lease approximately 7,480 square feet of office space in
Los Angeles and approximately 6,458 square feet of office
space in Melbourne, Australia, for administrative office
purposes.
Entertainment Properties
We lease approximately 938,000 square feet of completed
cinema space in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and
Puerto Rico as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate Range of | |
|
|
Aggregate | |
|
Remaining Lease Terms | |
|
|
Square Footage | |
|
(Including Renewals) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
United States
|
|
|
204,425 |
|
|
|
5 42 years |
|
Australia
|
|
|
493,418 |
|
|
|
29 40 years |
|
New Zealand
|
|
|
60,066 |
|
|
|
5 10 years |
|
Puerto Rico
|
|
|
180,024 |
|
|
|
3 40 years |
|
In Australia, we own approximately 3,188,934 square feet of
land at six locations plus one strata title estate consisting of
22,410 square feet. Substantially all of this land is
located in the greater metropolitan areas of Brisbane,
Melbourne, Perth and Sydney, including the 50-acre Burwood site
in suburban Melbourne.
In New Zealand, we own a 151,803 square foot site, which
includes an existing 400,000 square foot, nine level
parking structure in the heart of Wellington, the capital of New
Zealand. All but 37,674 square feet of the Wellington site
has been developed as an ETRC which incorporates the existing
parking garage. The remaining land is currently leased and is
slated for development as phase two of our Wellington ETRC. We
anticipate that development on that site will begin in 2005. In
addition, we own the fee interests underlying three of our
cinemas, which properties include approximately
13,638 square feet of ancillary retail space.
In the United States, we own approximately 131,164 square
feet of improved real estate comprised of four live theater
buildings which include approximately 20,508 square feet of
leasable space.
We also hold real estate through several unincorporated joint
ventures and one majority-owned subsidiary, as described below:
|
|
|
|
|
In Australia, we own a 66% unincorporated joint venture interest
in a leased 5-screen multiplex cinema in Melbourne and a 75%
interest in a subsidiary company that leases two cinemas with
eleven screens in two Australian country towns. In 2003, we
acquired a 33% unincorporated joint venture interest in a
16-screen leasehold cinema in a suburb of Brisbane. |
-32-
|
|
|
|
|
In New Zealand we own a 50% unincorporated joint venture
interest in two fee properties and three leasehold properties,
totaling approximately 135,000 square feet in the Auckland
and Christchurch areas. The two fee parcels are improved with
cinema/restaurant complexes. |
|
|
|
In the United States, we own a 50% membership interest in
Angelika Film Center, LLC, which holds the lease to the
approximately 17,500 square foot Angelika Film
Center & Café in the Soho district of Manhattan.
We also hold the management rights with respect to this asset. |
ETRC Development Properties
In December 1995, we acquired a 50-acre site in Burwood, a
suburban area within the Melbourne metropolitan area, initially
as a potential ETRC location. In late 2003, that site was
designated as a major activity center by the
Victorian State Government. We anticipate that this designation
will give us greater flexibility to develop the property, and to
develop it more densely and with a greater variety of uses than
would otherwise be the case. We anticipate beginning the master
planning phase of the development of the property in 2005.
We are currently the owner operator of an approximately
103,000 square foot ETRC in Wellington, New Zealand, known
as Courtenay Central. The existing ETRC consists of a ten screen
cinema with approximately 37,400 square feet of retail
space and a separate 9 level parking structure. We are in the
design phase and in discussions with potential tenants with
respect to an approximately 150,000 Phase II expansion to
the centre, to be constructed on the approximately
38,000 square foot parcel adjacent to the existing center.
We anticipate completing lease negotiations with the principal
tenants and completing project design by the end of this year.
We own an approximately 190,000 square foot parcel in
Newmarket, a suburban of Brisbane. On December 1, 2004 we
began construction of the retail portion of an approximately
100,000 square foot shopping center at that site. While it
is our intention to add a cinema component to the center, we are
still working on the various design aspects of the cinema.
We own an approximately 124,728 square foot parcel in
Moonee Ponds, a suburb of Melbourne. We are currently in the
planning phase for an ETRC at this location.
Non Entertainment Properties
Readings domestic non-entertainment properties are
described below:
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial Property: We own a 95,752 square foot 6
level office building, located on a 1.06 acre square foot
parcel, with a 2 level parking structure, located in Glendale
California. This property is fully leased to Disney Enterprises,
Inc. (87%) and California National Bank (13%). These leases
expire in February 2007 and May 2005, respectively. The property
is under contract to be sold for $21 million. |
|
|
|
Railroad Properties: When our railroad assets were
conveyed to Conrail, we retained fee ownership of approximately
700 parcels and rights-of-way located throughout Pennsylvania,
Delaware, and New Jersey. We now own fee interest in 11 parcels
comprising over 250 acres. These acres consist primarily of
vacant land and buildings, some of which are leased to third
parties. |
|
|
|
Administrative Properties: We own a residential
condominium in Los Angeles that is used by our Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer when he is in Los Angeles. |
|
|
Item 3 |
Legal Proceedings |
Tax Audit
The Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) has completed
its audits of the tax return of RDGE for its tax year ended
December 31, 1996 and the tax return of CRG for its tax
year ended June 30, 1997. With respect
-33-
to both of these companies, the principal focus of these audits
was the treatment of the contribution by RDGE to our wholly
owned subsidiary, Reading Australia, and thereafter the
subsequent repurchase by Stater Bros. Inc. from Reading
Australia of certain preferred stock in Stater Bros. Inc. (the
Stater Stock) received by RDGE from CRG as a part of
a private placement of securities by RDGE which closed in
October 1996.
By letters dated November 9, 2001, the IRS issued reports
of examination proposing changes to the tax returns of RDGE and
CRG for the years in question (the Examination
Reports). The Examination Report for each of RDGE and CRG
proposed that the gains on the disposition by RDGE of Stater
Stock, reported as taxable on the RDGE return, should be
allocated to CRG. As reported, the gain resulted in no
additional tax to RDGE inasmuch as the gain was entirely offset
by a net operating loss carry forward of RDGE. This proposed
change would result in an additional tax liability for CRG of
approximately $21,850,000 plus interest of approximately
$11,000,000 as of December 31, 2004. In addition, this
proposal would result in California tax liability of
approximately $5,500,000 plus interest of approximately
$3,000,000 as of December 31, 2004. Accordingly, this
proposed change represented, as at the end of 2004, an exposure
of approximately $41,500,000. Moreover, California has recently
enacted amnesty provisions imposing additional
liability on taxpayers who are determined to have materially
underreported their taxable income. While these provisions have
been criticized by a number of corporate taxpayers to the extent
that they apply to tax liabilities that are being contested in
good faith, no assurances can be given that these new provisions
will be applied in a manner that would mitigate the impact on
such taxpayers. Accordingly, these provisions may cause an
additional $4,000,000 exposure to CRG, for a total exposure of
approximately $45,500,000.
In early February 2005, we had a mediation conference with the
IRS concerning this proposed change. The mediation was conducted
by two mediators, one of whom was selected by the taxpayer from
the private sector and one of whom was an employee of the IRS.
In connection with this mediation, we and the IRS each prepared
written submissions to the mediators setting forth our
respective cases. In its written submission, the IRS noted that
it had offered to settle its claims against us at 30% of the
proposed change, and reiterated this offer at the mediation.
This offer constituted, in effect, an offer to settle for a
payment of $5,500,000 federal tax, plus interest, for an
aggregate settlement amount of approximately $8,000,000. Based
on advice of counsel given after reviewing the materials
submitted by the IRS to the mediation panel, and the oral
presentation made by the IRS to the mediation panel and the
comments of the mediators (including the IRS mediator), we
determined not to accept this offer.
We anticipate that we will shortly receive a notice of
deficiency in the full amount of the IRSs proposed change,
and we intend to aggressively litigate this matter in the tax
court. While there are always risks in litigation, we believe
that a settlement at the level currently offered by the IRS
would substantially understate the strength of our position and
the likelihood that we would prevail in a trial of this matter.
Since these tax liabilities relate to time periods prior to the
Consolidation of CDL, RDGE, and CRG into Reading International,
Inc. and since RDGE and CRG continue to exist as wholly owned
subsidiaries of RII, it is expected that any adverse
determination would be limited in recourse to the assets of RDGE
or CRG, as the case may be, and not to the general assets of
RII. At the present time, the assets of these subsidiaries are
comprised principally of RII securities. Accordingly, we do not
anticipate, even if there were to be an adverse judgment in
favor of the IRS that the satisfaction of that judgment would
interfere with the internal operation or result in any levy upon
or loss of any of our material operating assets. The
satisfaction of any such adverse judgment would, however, result
in a material dilution to existing stockholder interests.
The IRS has also informally notified us that it intends to
disallow the gains booked by RDGE in 1997 as a consequence of
its acquisition certain computer equipment and sale of the
anticipated income stream from the lease of such equipment to
third parties. The result of such disallowance would be the loss
of the depreciation deductions that we took with respect to that
equipment in the years following 1997. Such disallowance would
have the effect of decreasing net operating losses but would not
result in any additional federal income tax for such years. We
have advised the IRS that we intend to appeal this
determination. In turn, such disallowance would increase our
state tax exposure for those years by approximately $170,000.
Since we offset the gain claimed in 1997 against then expiring
net operating losses, the only impact of the IRS position
at the federal
-34-
level would be the refund to us of approximately $440,000 plus
interest, representing the alternative minimum tax we paid to
the IRS with respect to that transaction.
Environmental and Asbestos Claims
The City of Philadelphia (the City) has asserted
that the North Viaduct property owned by a subsidiary of Reading
requires environmental decontamination and that such
subsidiarys share of any such remediation cost will
aggregate approximately $3,500,000. The City has also asserted
that we should demolish certain bridges and overpasses that
comprise a portion of the North Viaduct. We have in the recent
past had discussions with the City involving a possible
conveyance of the property. However, these discussions have not
been productive of any definitive offer or proposal from the
City. We have also recently received an offer for the property
from a firm specializing the in the acquisition and
redevelopment of so called brown fields sites,
indicating to us that the North Viaduct has value over and above
costs of remediation. Accordingly, we continue to believe that
our recorded remediation reserves related to the North Viaduct
are adequate.
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 which 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. 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 rail road 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. To date, we have only had one such
third party claim.
Whitehorse Center Litigation
On October 30, 2000, we commenced litigation in the Supreme
Court of Victoria at Melbourne, Commercial and Equity Division,
against our joint venture partner and the controlling
stockholders of our joint venture partner in the Whitehorse
Center. That action is entitled Reading Entertainment
Australia PTY, LTD vs. Burstone Victoria PTY, LTD and May Way
Khor and David Frederick Burr, and was brought to collect on
a promissory note (the K/ B Promissory Note)
evidencing a loan that we made to Ms. Khor and
Mr. Burr and that was guaranteed by Burstone Victoria PTY,
LTD (Burstone). The defendants asserted certain
set-offs and counterclaims, alleging, in essence, that we
breached our alleged obligations to proceed with the development
of the Whitehorse Shopping Center, causing the defendants
substantial damages. Following trial, the trial court determined
that we had breached certain obligations owed to WPG (the joint
venture in which we own a 50% interest) but not any obligations
owed to Ms. Khor, Mr. Burr or Burstone. Accordingly,
due to a variety of factors, we have no direct liability to
Ms. Khor, Mr. Burr or Burstone. Furthermore, it
appears that any recovery that Ms. Khor, Mr. Burr
and/or Burstone may obtain through WPG will be significantly
less than their liability to us on the loan. Accordingly, it
appears that the net result, in the view of the trial court, is
a net liability from Ms. Khor and Mr. Burr to us,
before the assessment of attorneys fees.
Australia follows the so called English Rule that
the prevailing party in an action is entitled to recoup
attorneys fees. However, since (i) both parties to
some extent prevailed in their claims, (ii) a number of the
defenses and claims raised by Ms. Khor and Mr. Burr
were struck down by the court or ultimately conceded at trial by
Ms. Khor and Mr. Burr, and (iii) the standard for
assessment of attorneys fees is different in an action on a
promissory note providing for the assessment of attorneys fees
(as did the K/ B Promissory Note), in which case the court will
typically assess attorneys fees at 100% of the amount billed,
and the assessment of the amount of legal fees in the absence of
such a contractual obligation, in which case the court will
typically assess attorneys fees at approximately 66% of the
amount billed, the amount of attorneys that Ms, Khor and
-35-
Mr. Burr will be responsible to us for and the amount of
legal fees that we will be responsible to Ms. Khor and
Mr. Burr is uncertain, and currently awaits determination
of this issue by the Trial Court.
We have retained a senior Queens Counsel to conduct an
independent review of the evidence submitted at trial and the
trial courts opinion, and have been advice of such
counsel, that in his opinion the trial court erred in a number
of critical aspects, and that we should have no liability to WPG
or any of the Burstone parties. Accordingly, we intend to appeal
that part of the trial courts determination. Since
Ms. Khor and Mr. Burr do not contest their liability
under the K/ B Promissory Note, and since we are advised that
there is no right on the part of Ms, Khor and Mr. Burr to
set off against their liability on the K/ B Promissory Note
their judgment against us pending appeal, we currently intend to
pursue collection of the principal and interest owed on the K/ B
Promissory, and to pursue an appeal of the trial courts
decision against us on the repudiation and damages issues.
Other Claims
We are not a party to any other pending legal proceedings or
environmental action which we believe could have a material
adverse effect on its financial position.
|
|
Item 4 |
Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders |
At our 2004 Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on
November 12, 2004, the stockholders voted on the following
proposals:
|
|
|
|
|
By the following vote, our eight directors were reelected to
serve on the Board of Directors until the 2005 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Election of Directors |
|
For | |
|
Withheld | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
James J. Cotter
|
|
|
1,551,138 |
|
|
|
200,045 |
|
Eric Barr
|
|
|
1,734,881 |
|
|
|
16,302 |
|
James J. Cotter, Jr.
|
|
|
1,551,138 |
|
|
|
200,045 |
|
Margaret Cotter
|
|
|
1,551,138 |
|
|
|
200,045 |
|
Edward L. Kane
|
|
|
1,551,138 |
|
|
|
200,045 |
|
Gerard P. Laheney
|
|
|
1,734,881 |
|
|
|
16,302 |
|
William D. Gould
|
|
|
1,551,138 |
|
|
|
200,045 |
|
Alfred Villaseñor, Jr.
|
|
|
1,734,881 |
|
|
|
16,302 |
|
-36-
PART II
|
|
Item 5 |
Market for Registrants Common Equity and Related
Stockholder Matters |
Market Information
Reading International, Inc., a Nevada corporation
(RII and collectively with our consolidated
subsidiaries and corporate predecessors, the
Company, Reading and we,
us, or our), was incorporated in 1999
and, following the consummation of a consolidation transaction
on December 31, 2001 (the Consolidation), is
now the owner of the consolidated businesses and assets of
Reading Entertainment, Inc. (RDGE), Craig
Corporation (CRG), and Citadel Holding Corporation
(CDL). Until the consolidation of CDL, RDGE and CRG
on December 31, 2001, our common stock was listed and
quoted on the American Stock Exchange (AMEX) under
the symbols CDL.A and CDL.B. Following the consolidation, we
changed our name to RII. Effective January 2, 2002, our
common stock traded on the American Stock Exchange under the
symbols RDI.A and RDI.B. In March 2004, we changed our nonvoting
stock symbol from RDI.A to RDI.
The following table sets forth the high and low closing prices
of the RDI and RDI.B common stock for each of the quarters in
2004 and 2003 as reported by AMEX.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class A Nonvoting |
|
Class B Voting |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
Common Stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High |
|
Low |
|
High |
|
Low |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
$8.8000 |
|
$7.5500 |
|
$8.5000 |
|
$7.5000 |
|
Third Quarter
|
|
$8.3100 |
|
$7.4500 |
|
$8.3000 |
|
$7.4500 |
|
Second Quarter
|
|
$8.7000 |
|
$6.1800 |
|
$8.3500 |
|
$6.2000 |
|
First Quarter
|
|
$6.8500 |
|
$5.7000 |
|
$6.7000 |
|
$5.8500 |
2003:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
$6.5000 |
|
$5.5200 |
|
$6.1000 |
|
$5.7500 |
|
Third Quarter
|
|
$6.2000 |
|
$4.3500 |
|
$6.0500 |
|
$1.9000 |
|
Second Quarter
|
|
$6.2900 |
|
$3.9500 |
|
$6.0000 |
|
$1.4000 |
|
First Quarter
|
|
$4.3900 |
|
$3.7500 |
|
$4.1000 |
|
$1.3000 |
Holders of Record
The number of holders of record of our Class A and
Class B Stock at March 25, 2005 was approximately
3,500 and 800, respectively. On March 25, 2005, the closing
price per share of our Class A Stock was $7.21, and the
closing price per share of our Class B Stock was $7.36.
Dividends on Common Stock
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.
-37-
|
|
Item 6 |
Selected Financial Data |
The table below sets forth certain historical financial data
regarding RII. 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, 2004 (the
2004 Annual Report), and the related notes to the
consolidated financial statements (dollars in thousands, except
per share amounts).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At or for the Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Revenue
|
|
$ |
102,982 |
|
|
$ |
93,739 |
|
|
$ |
86,486 |
|
|
$ |
23,744 |
|
|
$ |
7,384 |
|
Operating loss
|
|
$ |
(5,952 |
) |
|
$ |
(5,340 |
) |
|
$ |
(5,977 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,382 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,055 |
) |
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(8,463 |
) |
|
$ |
(5,928 |
) |
|
$ |
(7,954 |
) |
|
$ |
(4,572 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,542 |
) |
Basic loss per share
|
|
$ |
(0.39 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.27 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.36 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.21 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.47 |
) |
Diluted loss per share
|
|
$ |
(0.39 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.27 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.36 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.21 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.47 |
) |
|
Other Information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares outstanding
|
|
|
21,998,239 |
|
|
|
21,899,290 |
|
|
|
21,821,154 |
|
|
|
21,821,324 |
|
|
|
9,947,964 |
|
Weighted average shares and dilutive share equivalents
|
|
|
21,948,065 |
|
|
|
21,860,222 |
|
|
|
21,821,236 |
|
|
|
9,980,946 |
|
|
|
7,557,718 |
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
230,227 |
|
|
$ |
222,866 |
|
|
$ |
182,772 |
|
|
$ |
170,595 |
|
|
$ |
63,922 |
|
Total debt
|
|
$ |
83,252 |
|
|
$ |
71,145 |
|
|
$ |
48,121 |
|
|
$ |
37,490 |
|
|
$ |
15,221 |
|
Working capital
|
|
$ |
(5,808 |
) |
|
$ |
(154 |
) |
|
$ |
124 |
|
|
$ |
548 |
|
|
$ |
13,062 |
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
$ |
102,010 |
|
|
$ |
108,491 |
|
|
$ |
91,265 |
|
|
$ |
91,125 |
|
|
$ |
39,128 |
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
(3,500 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,794 |
) |
|
$ |
(5,172 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,425 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,928 |
) |
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
$ |
12,899 |
|
|
$ |
12,003 |
|
|
$ |
8,705 |
|
|
$ |
2,044 |
|
|
$ |
657 |
|
EBITDA
|
|
$ |
9,399 |
|
|
$ |
10,209 |
|
|
$ |
3,533 |
|
|
$ |
(1,381 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,271 |
) |
Debt to EBITDA
|
|
|
8.86 |
|
|
|
6.97 |
|
|
|
13.62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditure (including acquisitions)
|
|
$ |
33,180 |
|
|
$ |
5,809 |
|
|
$ |
10,437 |
|
|
$ |
10,325 |
|
|
$ |
10,773 |
|
Number of employees at 12/31
|
|
|
1,677 |
|
|
|
1,453 |
|
|
|
1,304 |
|
|
|
1,110 |
|
|
|
147 |
|
EBIT presented above is net loss adjusted for interest expense
(net of interest income) and income tax expense. EBITDA
presented above is net loss adjusted for interest expense (net
of interest income), income tax expense, and depreciation and
amortization expense.
The balance sheet data for 2004, 2003, 2002 and 2001 includes
assets, borrowings, and stockholders equity of CDL, RDGE
and CRG following the consolidation of the three companies on
December 31, 2001. The balance sheet data for 2000 includes
assets, borrowings, and stockholders equity of CDL only.
|
|
Item 7 |
Managements Discussions and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations |
The following review should be read in conjunction with the
consolidated financial statements and related notes included in
the 2004 Annual Report. Historical results and percentage
relationships do not necessarily indicate operating results for
any future periods.
Overview
RII, the surviving entity following the consolidation of RDGE,
CRG and CDL on December 31, 2001, is now the owner of the
consolidated businesses and assets of RDGE, CRG and CDL. Today,
our businesses consist primarily of:
|
|
|
|
|
the development, ownership and operation of multiplex cinemas in
the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Puerto
Rico; and |
-38-
|
|
|
|
|
the development, ownership and operation of retail and
commercial real estate in Australia, New Zealand and the United
States, including entertainment-themed retail centers
(ETRC) in Australia and New Zealand and live theater
assets in Manhattan and Chicago in the United States. |
We manage our worldwide cinema businesses under various
different brands:
|
|
|
|
|
in the US, under the Reading, Angelika Film Center and City
Cinemas brands; |
|
|
|
in Australia, under the Reading brand; |
|
|
|
in New Zealand, under the Reading and Berkeley Cinemas
brand; and |
|
|
|
in Puerto Rico, under the CineVista brand. |
We consider ourselves to be essentially a cinema exhibition
company with a strong focus on the development and holding of
real estate assets. We plan to continue to identify, develop and
acquire cinema and live theater properties, focusing primarily
on those opportunities where we can acquire either the fee
interest underlying the operating assets, or long-term leases,
which we believe provide flexibility with respect to the usage
of such leasehold assets. In the near term, we are focusing
principally on the operation of our existing cinema and live
theater assets and in the development of five parcels of
undeveloped real estate in Melbourne, Brisbane, and Sydney in
Australia and Wellington in New Zealand.
We look to take advantage of those opportunities that may
present themselves to strategically expand our existing cinema
circuits. However, we do not intend to reach out for cinema
assets or to grow simply for the sake of growing. Rather, we
intend to be disciplined in our approach to acquiring and
developing cinema assets.
We have, in the past, and may, in the future, dispose of, or put
to alternative use some or all of our interests in various
operating assets, in order to maximize the values of such
assets. Generally speaking, since the Consolidation, we have
disposed of our non-cinema and non-real estate related assets so
as to focus on our principal two businesses.
Our revenues have risen to above $100 million and our
EBITDA remains strong, however we have not yet been able to
translate this into a stronger bottom line result, for the
following reasons:
|
|
|
|
|
The results of our cinema operations in the US were unusually
poor, due to the cost of the anti-trust litigation and the
refusal of Fox and Universal to supply us with film product
while we were pursuing claims against them. Now that we have
achieved settlement with Fox and Universal, we expect that
things will return more to normal from a supply point of view; |
|
|
|
We have not yet fully integrated the Anderson and Movieland
circuits and have not yet realized the synergies that we
anticipate in 2005. Indeed, we have realized higher costs and
expenses as we have worked to integrate these cinemas into our
system; |
|
|
|
Our depreciation and amortization is increasing as we continue
to increase our asset base; and |
|
|
|
As we continue to grow, we continue to incur start-up costs
inherent in bringing new projects, whether cinema or real
estate, on line. We enjoyed unusual growth in 2004 and as a
result, these costs were higher than in prior years. This was
prominent last year given that our two newest cinemas did not
open until late December. We had only limited revenues cinemas
to offset their pre-opening costs. |
We have engaged in the following transactions which we believe
are consistent with our business plan:
|
|
|
|
1. |
Glendale Building: In January 2005, we entered into a
purchase and sale agreement providing for the sale of our office
building in Glendale, California for $21.0 million. Our
Glendale property is currently subject to a first mortgage in
the amount of approximately $10.2 million. The sale of the
property is subject to the buyer assuming this mortgage. As the
mortgage is non-recourse in nature, we believe it likely that
the assumption will be approved. However, no assurances can be
given in this regard. It is currently our intention to complete
a 1031 exchange of the Glendale property for
the fee, ground lease and building comprising the property. |
-39-
|
|
|
|
2. |
West Lakes and Rhodes: In December 2004 we completed the
fit outs of the two cinemas with a total of 15 screens. The
leases and development rights for the two cinemas were acquired
as part of the Anderson acquisition discussed below. |
|
|
3. |
Botany Downs: On December 24, 2004, we opened an
additional 8-screen cinema, this one located in a suburb of
Auckland, New Zealand and owned in an unincorporated joint
venture with our partner in the Berkeley Cinemas chain in New
Zealand. |
|
|
4. |
The Sutton Redevelopment Investment: On
September 14, 2004, we acquired for $2.3 million a
non-managing membership interest in
205-209 East 57th Street Associates, LLC a
limited liability company formed to redevelop our former cinema
site at 205 East 57th Street in Manhattan. Our membership
interest represents a 25% interest in the LLC, and was issued to
us by 205-209 East 57th Street Associates, LLC in
consideration of a capital contribution equal to 25% of its
total book capital, calculated after taking into account the
effect of our capital contribution. In December 2004, a capital
call of $2,877,000 was made to make up the shortfall in equity
resulting from higher than budgeted cost for the redevelopment
project. In order not to dilute our 25% interest we decided to
increase our capital contribution by $719,000 as requested and
will make this payment in the first quarter of 2005. |
|
|
5. |
The Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 Land Acquisition: On
August 4, 2004, we entered into an agreement to purchase
for $12 million the approximately 7,840 square-foot
fee interest underlying our current leasehold estate in the
Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 property located in Manhattan on
3rd Avenue between 58th Street and 59th Street. The
ownership of the Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 property is currently
divided into three components: the fee interest (which we now
have under contract to purchase); the ground lease and
improvements (which are owned by Sutton Hill Capital LLC but
which we, have an option to purchase as a part of a pool of
assets in 2010); and our current space lease which also runs
until 2010. We are currently in negotiations with Sutton Capital
to acquire immediately Sutton Capitals ground lease
interest in the property and its proprietary interest in the
building and other improvements on the land, and have agreed in
principal that, as a part of the transaction, Sutton Capital
will have an option to acquire at cost up to a 25% non-managing
membership interest in the limited liability company that we
have formed to take title to the property. These negotiations
are ongoing, and any potential transaction will ultimately be
subject to review and approval by the Conflicts Committee of our
Board of Directors. In connection with these negotiations, the
parties are also discussing an early acquisition of Sutton
Capitals interest in the Village East Cinema. As of
December 31, 2004, we had deposited earnest money totaling
$800,000 into escrow with respect to the purchase of the fee
interest. In January, the purchase price was increased to
$12.2 million and the deposit was increased to
$4.0 million in consideration of an extension of the
closing date to June 1, 2005. |
|
|
6. |
Movieland Cinemas Circuit: In August 2004, we closed a
series of agreements which, together, provided for the
acquisition of six existing New Zealand cinemas, representing
27 screens, and in the case of three of these locations,
the fee interests underlying such cinemas. Two of the locations
included ancillary retail and commercial tenants. We also
acquired the plans and permits for the development of an
additional two screens at each of two of the cinemas, for a
potential increase of 4 additional screens. |
|
|
|
We acquired the Movieland Circuit in New Zealand for
$7.2 million (NZ$10.7 million) representing a multiple
of approximately 5 times projected cash flow, the underlying fee
interests of three of the cinema properties for
$7.4 million (NZ$11.0 million) representing a
capitalization rate of approximately 9%. Although there was a
degree of overlapping ownership of these six cinemas and
although the purchase was negotiated as a package, these cinemas
were not in fact managed as a single circuit. We anticipate that
we will be able to significantly improve the cash flow from
these assets, once they are integrated with the remainder of our
cinema assets, and can enjoy the benefits of our greater
purchasing power and other economies of scale. |
|
|
The acquisition costs of these cinemas and fee interests
amounting to $14.6 million (NZ$21.8 million) was
funded by a combination of $13.3 million
(NZ$19.8 million) of working |
-40-
|
|
|
capital, $792,000 (NZ$1.2 million) in shares of our
Class A Common Stock (98,949 shares issued at
$8.00 per share (NZ$11.94, using a NZ$ to US$ exchange
ratio of $0.67)), and a $546,000 (NZ$784,000) purchase money
promissory note The working capital was funded through a
combination of cash of $5.4 million (NZ$8.1 million)
and a drawdown under of our new banking facility in New Zealand
of $8.3 million (NZ$12.3 million). The shares issued
includes a non-transferable option to put to us the Class A
Common Stock issued to them at a put price of NZ$11.94 at any
time during January 2006. The $546,000 (NZ$784,000) purchase
money promissory note has an interest rate of 5.50% and requires
that all principal and interest be paid in February 2006. |
|
|
With the closing of the Movieland acquisition and the opening of
a new 8 screen Berkeley joint venture cinema, (discussed
separately above) we now own directly seven cinemas representing
37 screens and own indirectly through our various Berkeley
joint ventures an additional five cinemas with 29 screens
in New Zealand. As previously mentioned, two of the newly
acquired cinemas have the capacity for 4 additional screens.
Completion of these expansion screens will increase our New
Zealand screen count to 70 screens in twelve cinemas plus a
5-plex cinema managed by one of our Berkeley joint ventures. By
comparison, our principal competitors in New Zealand, Hoyts and
Village/ Sky, own 50 screens, and 60 screens,
respectively. |
|
|
|
|
7. |
Anderson Cinema Circuit: On July 1, 2004, we
acquired most of the assets of the Australia based
Anderson Circuit for $5.7 million
(AUS$8.0 million) giving us four existing cinemas with
22 screens and agreements to lease with respect to two
additional cinemas (with an additional 15 screens) in two
facilities then under construction. Prior to selling the
circuit, the Andersons had encountered financial difficulties,
and substantially all of their cinema assets had been placed in
the hands of a receiver by their bank lender. Ultimately, as the
result of negotiations with the Andersons, certain other
stockholders, landlords and the bank, we were able to acquire
all but one of the cinemas that had historically comprised the
Anderson circuit and both of their projects (West Lakes and
Rhodes) then under development. |
|
|
|
The total acquisition costs of these cinemas, of
$5.7 million (AUS$8.0 million), excluding the cost of
the fit-out of the two development cinemas, were met from our
own funds in conjunction with a $3.4 million
(AUS$4.7 million) drawdown on the newly signed
$39.3 million (AUS$55.0 million) bank facility. As
part of this acquisition, several landlords required bank
guarantees, which increased our restricted cash by $296,000
(AUS$417,000) and reduced our total credit facility by
$1.9 million (AUS$2.7 million). The total fit-out cost
for the two development cinemas aggregated $3.8 million
(AUS$5.0 million) and was paid from our own funds. |
|
|
As ownership of the various cinemas in the circuit was divided
among a variety of entities and subject to the claims of a
variety of creditors, the acquisitions were ultimately
structured as the acquisition of (i) the shares of one
company, which owns as its sole asset the 10-screen leasehold
cinema at Epping (a suburb of Melbourne), (ii) agreements
to lease with respect to two leasehold cinemas opened in the
fourth quarter at Rhodes (8 screens) (a suburb of Sydney)
and West Lakes (7 screens) (a suburb of Adelaide), and
(iii) three existing leasehold cinemas at Colac
(2 screen), Melton (5 screens) and Sunbury
(5 screens) (all suburbs of Melbourne). |
|
|
|
|
8. |
Newmarket Property: We currently own an approximately
four-acre property located in the Newmarket area of Brisbane,
Australia, which we are developing as an approximately
100,000 square foot shopping center. On July 1, 2004,
we acquired an approximately 12,500 square foot parcel
adjacent to that development site for $1.0 million
(AUS$1.4 million). We anticipate that the addition of this
property will allow the addition of a complementary cinema
element to the project. On December 31, 2004, we entered
into a $25.2 million (AUS$32.7 million) construction
loan with the Bank of Western Australia, Ltd. This loan will be
used to fund the construction of the Newmarket site. |
|
|
9. |
Angelika Plano: We have been retained to
manage a new art cinema in Plano, Texas which is being operated
under our Angelika name and which commenced operations in
June 2004. |
-41-
|
|
|
|
10. |
CineVista Cinema: Negotiations for the sale of the Puerto
Rican circuit are ongoing, but have not progressed. No
assurances can be given that the sale will be consummated. As a
result, effective December 31, 2002, the Puerto Rican
circuit was no longer deemed to be an asset held for sale for
accounting purposes and was no longer presented as such at
December 31, 2004 or 2003, respectively. |
|
|
11. |
Christchurch: In September 2003, we opened an 8-screen
cinema in Christchurch, New Zealand (beneficially owned in an
unincorporated joint venture with our partner in the Berkeley
Cinemas chain in New Zealand). |
|
|
12. |
Mt. Gravatt: On May 15, 2003, we acquired, for
$2,178,000 (AUS$3,244,000), and the settlement of certain
litigation claims (i) an undivided 1/3rd interest in
the unincorporated joint venture that owns and operates the
16-screen multiplex cinema at the Mt. Gravatt shopping center in
suburban Brisbane, Australia and (ii) the right,
exercisable at any time prior to December 16, 2003, to sell
that interest back to the sellers for $4,960,000
(AUS$7,388,000), the Put Price. We have elected to
continue to hold our ownership interest in that cinema. In
addition, as a part of that settlement, we also received the
right to acquire at cost an undivided interest in an additional
multiplex cinema development opportunity. The extent of our
participation is subject to certain factors outside of our
control, but will not be less than a 1/3 interest nor greater
than a 1/2 interest. While the development is proceeding, it has
not yet reached the point of maturity where we are obliged to
make an election whether or not to participate, or as to the
extent of our participation. |
|
|
|
Our purchase of our undivided ownership interest in the Mt.
Gravatt cinema at the sellers undepreciated historic cost
of $2,178,000 (AUS$3,244,000) resulted in a one-time gain of
$2,259,000 (AUS$3,463,000), net of applicable expenses. The gain
was based on a fair market value for that unconsolidated joint
venture interest of $4,960,000 (AUS$7,388,000), as reflected by
the above described Put Price. In addition, we
received approximately $287,000 (AUS$430,000) in profit
distribution covering the period from December 18, 2002
(the agreed effective date of the parties settlement) to
May 15, 2003 (the date on which the settlement was
completed). We additionally booked the recovery of approximately
$518,000 in legal fees related to the litigation. As permitted
by SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations, the
proceeds were prorated and approximately $60,000 (AUS$92,000)
was recognized as income. The remainder was recorded as an
adjustment to the joint venture purchase price. |
|
|
|
|
13. |
Gish Biomedical: We began liquidating our investment in
Gish in 2003, and as of April 30, 2003 we had divested all
of our holdings. For the year ended December 31, 2002, the
Gish stock was carried as an available-for-sale security at
approximately $1,016,000 under the caption Investment in
Marketable Securities on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. |
|
|
14. |
Disposition of Agricultural Operations: In July 2002, we
effectively disposed of our agricultural investment when certain
agricultural partnerships in which we had an interest reconveyed
their interests in the Big 4 Ranch to the original owner of that
property in satisfaction of the purchase money mortgage held by
the original owner. We had previously written off our investment
in and advances made to these agricultural partnerships in
September 2000. |
|
|
15. |
Courtenay Central Opening: In March 2002, we opened our
Courtenay Central ETRC complex located in Wellington, New
Zealand. In addition to a 10-screen cinema, there is
approximately 37,383 square feet of restaurant and retail
space and a car park. As of December 31, 2004,
approximately 86% of the available restaurant and retail space
had been leased. We are now working on Phase II of that
project, a planned 150,000 square foot expansion including
approximately 110,000 square feet of retail and a multiplex
art specialty cinema. |
|
|
16. |
Sutton Hill Transaction: In 2000, we entered into a
transaction with a related party designed to give us
(i) operating control, through an operating lease, of the
City Cinemas theater chain in Manhattan, and (ii) the right
to enjoy any appreciation in the underlying real estate assets,
through a fixed price option to purchase these cinemas on an all
or nothing basis in 2010. Two of the cinemas included in that
chain the Murray Hill Cinema and the Sutton
Cinema have now been sold for redevelop- |
-42-
|
|
|
|
|
ment, under terms that we believe preserve this basic structure
and which will, if we exercise our purchase option, give us the
future benefit of any appreciation realized in those assets
during the time they were under our operation and control. |
|
|
|
In July 2000, we acquired from Sutton Hill Capital, LLC
(SHC) the Manhattan based City Cinemas circuit in a
transaction structured as a 10 year operating lease (the
City Cinemas Operating Lease) with options either to
extend the lease for an additional 10 year term or,
alternatively, to purchase the improvements and certain of the
real estate assets underlying that lease (the City Cinemas
Purchase Option). We paid an option fee of $5,000,000,
which will be applied against the purchase price if we elected
to exercise the City Cinemas Purchase Option. The aggregate
exercise price of the City Cinemas Purchase Option was
originally $48,000,000, and rent was calculated to provide an
8.25% yield to SHC (subject to an annual modified cost of living
adjustment) on the difference between the exercise price and the
$5,000,000 option fee. Incident to that transaction, we agreed
to lend to SHC (the City Cinemas Standby Credit
Facility) up to $28,000,000, beginning in July 2007, all
due and payable in December 2010 (the principal balance and
accrued interest on any such loan was likewise to be applied
against the option exercise price, in the event the option was
exercised). The interest rate on the City Cinemas Standby Credit
Facility was also fixed at 8.25%, subject to the same modified
cost of living adjustment used to calculate rent under the City
Cinemas Operating Lease. |
|
|
We have no legal obligation to exercise either the option to
extend the City Cinemas Operating Lease or the City Cinemas
Purchase Option. However, our recourse against SHC on the City
Cinemas Standby Credit Facility is limited to the assets of SHC
which consist of, generally speaking, only the assets subject to
the City Cinemas Purchase Option. In this annual report, we
refer to the transaction memorialized by the City Cinemas
Operating Lease, City Cinemas Purchase Option and City Cinemas
Standby Credit Agreement as the City Cinemas Transaction.
Because the City Cinemas Operating Lease is an operating lease
and since the City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility was, in our
view, adequately secured, no asset or liability was established
on our balance sheet at the time of the City Cinemas Transaction
other than the option fee, which has been deferred and is being
amortized over the 10 year period of the lease. |
|
|
SHC is indirectly owned by Messrs. James J. Cotter and
Michael Forman. Mr. Cotter is our Chairman, Chief Executive
Officer and controlling stockholder. Mr. Forman is a major
holder of our Class A Stock. As the transaction was a
related party transaction, it was reviewed and approved by a
committee of our Board of Directors comprised entirely of
independent directors. |
|
|
Since we entered into the City Cinemas Transaction, two of the
cinema properties involved in that transaction have been sold to
third parties for redevelopment: the Murray Hill Cinema and the
Sutton Cinema. These purchasers paid $10,000,000 and $18,000,000
respectively for these two properties, which included the cost
of acquiring the fee interest in these properties held by
Nationwide Theaters (an affiliate of SHC), the leasehold
interest held by SHC, and our rights under the City Cinemas
Operating Lease and the City Cinemas Purchase Option. Since we
believed that a sale of these properties at these prices was
more beneficial to us than continuing to operate them as
cinemas, and since the original City Cinemas Transaction did not
contemplate a piece-meal release of properties or give us the
right to exercise our City Cinemas Purchase Option either
(i) on a piece-meal basis or (ii) prior to July 2010,
we worked with SHC to devise a transaction that would allow us
to dispose of our collective interests in these properties while
preserving the fundamental benefits of the transaction for
ourselves and SHC. Included among the benefits to be preserved
by SHC was the deferral of any capital gains tax with respect to
the transfer of the remaining properties until 2010 and
assurances that the various properties involved in the City
Cinemas Transaction would only be acquired by us on an all
or none basis. Included among the benefits to be preserved
for us was the right to get the benefit of 100% of any
appreciation in the properties underlying the City Cinemas
Operating Lease between the date of that lease (July 2000) and
the date any such properties were sold, |
-43-
|
|
|
provided that we ultimately exercised our purchase rights under
the City Cinemas Purchase Option. |
|
|
As a result of these negotiations and the sale of these two
properties, our rent under the City Cinemas Operating Lease has
been reduced by approximately $1,861,000 per annum, the
exercise price of the City Cinemas Purchase Option has been
reduced from $48,000,000 to $33,000,000, and our funding
obligation under the City Cinemas Standby Line of Credit has
been reduced from $28,000,000 to $13,000,000. In addition, we
received in consideration of the release of our interest in the
Murray Hill Cinema a cash payment of $500,000. In consideration
of the transfer of our interest in the Sutton Cinema we received
(i) a $13,000,000 purchase money promissory note (the
Sutton Purchase Money Note) secured by a first mortgage on
the Sutton Cinema property (the Sutton Purchase Money
Mortgage), (ii) a right to acquire up to a 25%
interest in the special purpose entity formed to redevelop the
Sutton Cinema property for a prorated capital contribution (the
Sutton Reinvestment Option) or to receive instead an
in lieu fee of $650,000, and (iii) the right to operate the
Sutton Cinema until such time as the Sutton Purchase Money Note
was paid. The Sutton Purchase Money Note was due and payable on
October 21, 2005, and carried interest for the first year
at 3.85%, increasing in the second year to 8.25%. On
September 14, 2004, the Sutton Purchase Money Note was
prepaid in full and we exercised our Sutton Reinvestment Option. |
|
|
In keeping with the all or nothing nature of our
rights under the City Cinemas Purchase Option, we agreed to use
the principal proceeds of the Sutton Purchase Money Promissory
Note to fund a portion of our remaining $13.0 million
obligation under the City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility. As of
December 31, 2004, we have funded $8.0 million of this
obligation. We anticipate that the remaining obligation will be
fully funded by July 2007. We have also agreed that the
principal amount of the City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility
will be forgiven if we do not exercise our purchase rights under
the City Cinemas Purchase Option. Accordingly, if we exercise
our rights under the City Cinemas Purchase Option to purchase
the remaining City Cinemas assets, we will be acquiring the
remaining assets subject to the City Cinemas Operating Lease for
an additional cash payment of $15,000,000, (offsetting against
the current $33,000,000 exercise price, the previously paid
$5,000,000 deposit and the $13,000,000 principal amount of the
City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility) and will receive, in
essence, the benefit of 100% of the appreciation in all of the
properties initially subject to the City Cinemas Operating Lease
between July 2000, and the date such properties were either
disposed of or acquired by us pursuant to the City Cinemas
Purchase Option. If we do not exercise our option to purchase,
then the City Cinemas Credit Facility will be forgiven, and we
will not get the benefit of such appreciation. The remaining
properties consist of the Village East Cinema, which is located
at the corner of 2nd Avenue and 11th Street in
Manhattan, on a 27 year land lease, and the Cinemas 1,
2 & 3. It is located on 3rd Avenue between
E. 59th and E. 60th Streets in Manhattan and likewise
on a long term ground lease. We are currently under contract to
purchase the Cinemas 1, 2, & 3 ground lease from
another party for $12.2 million. |
|
|
Since the Murray Hill Cinema sale transaction was structured as
a release of our leasehold interest in the Murray Hill Cinema,
we did not recognize any gain or loss for either book or tax
purposes, other than the $500,000 in lieu fee, which was
recognized as non-operating income. We likewise did not book any
gain or loss on the disposition of the Sutton Cinema for book
purposes. However, we did recognize gain in the amount of
approximately $13,000,000 for state and federal tax purposes,
which gain was offset against net operating losses.
Notwithstanding this offset, we were still liable for
alternative minimum tax on the transaction. That alternative
minimum tax will, however, be offset against our future tax
liabilities. In the event that we decide not to exercise our
City Cinemas Purchase Option, we would at that time recognize a
$13 million loss for tax purposes. |
|
|
Following the release of our leasehold interest in the Murray
Hill Cinema and disposition of the Sutton Cinema in 2003 we
accelerated the amortization of the option fee in the City
Cinemas |
-44-
|
|
|
Purchase Option agreement by $890,000. In addition, in October
2003 we recorded our loan commitment under the City Cinemas
Standby Credit Facility as a payable in our long-term debt on
the Consolidated Balance Sheet. As a result of having funded
$8.0 million of this obligation during 2004, the remaining
balance recorded as long-term debt is $5.0 million. |
|
|
Each of the above modification transactions involved was
reviewed by a committee of the independent directors of the
Board of Directors with the assistance of outside counsel. In
each case, the independent directors of the applicable committee
have found the transaction to be fair and in the best interests
of Reading and its public stockholders. The material documents
memorializing these transactions with SHC have been previously
filed as exhibits to this annual report. |
|
|
Reflecting the disposition of the Murray Hill Cinema and the
Sutton Cinema and the amendments to date with respect to the
City Cinemas Transaction, we are currently paying SHC rent of
$1,686,000 per year on a triple net basis. For the years
ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, rent expense to SHC was
$2,386,000 and $2,674,000, respectively. We have funded
$8,000,000 of our remaining $13,000,000 obligation under the
City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility (which currently earns
interest at 8.98%, reduced our rent obligation under the City
Cinemas Operating Lease to $1,686,000 per year for the
Village East Cinema and the Cinemas 1, 2 & 3.
Every $1,000,000 in increased funding under the City Cinemas
Standby Credit Facility currently will result in an
approximately $90,000 annual effective reduction in that rent
obligation). We also have the option to purchase in July 2010
the remaining assets under the City Cinemas Operating Agreement
(SHCs long term leasehold interests in the Village East
Cinema and the Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 in Manhattan and the
improvements comprising these two cinemas) for an additional
payment of $15,000,000 (plus whatever unfunded balance remains
with respect to our funding obligation under the City Cinemas
Standby Credit Facility). |
Results of Operations
On January 01, 2002, we started reporting the operating
results of RDGE, CRG and CDL as one, under the name Reading
International, Inc. Fiscal 2004, 2003 and 2002 results fully
reflect the impact of the Consolidation.
We currently operate two operating segments: Cinema and Real
Estate. Our cinema segment includes the operations of our owned,
managed and unconsolidated joint venture cinemas. Our rental/
real estate segment includes the operating results of our
commercial real estate holdings, theater real estate and
ETRCs.
-45-
The tables below summarize the results of operations for our
principal business segments for the years ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 (dollars in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2004 |
|
Cinema | |
|
Real Estate | |
|
Corporate | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Revenue
|
|
$ |
87,257 |
|
|
$ |
15,725 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
102,982 |
|
Operating expense
|
|
|
72,476 |
|
|
|
7,321 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79,797 |
|
Depreciation & amortization
|
|
|
8,569 |
|
|
|
4,230 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
12,899 |
|
General & administrative expense
|
|
|
5,172 |
|
|
|
638 |
|
|
|
10,428 |
|
|
|
16,238 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
1,040 |
|
|
|
3,536 |
|
|
|
(10,528 |
) |
|
|
(5,952 |
) |
Other expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(720 |
) |
|
|
(745 |
) |
|
|
(1,465 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before tax
|
|
|
1,040 |
|
|
|
2,816 |
|
|
|
(11,273 |
) |
|
|
(7,417 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,046 |
|
|
|
1,046 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
1,040 |
|
|
$ |
2,816 |
|
|
$ |
(12,319 |
) |
|
$ |
(8,463 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
$ |
81,464 |
|
|
$ |
12,275 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
93,739 |
|
Operating expense
|
|
|
65,002 |
|
|
|
7,436 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72,438 |
|
Depreciation & amortization
|
|
|
7,517 |
|
|
|
4,301 |
|
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
12,003 |
|
General & administrative expense
|
|
|
4,782 |
|
|
|
1,017 |
|
|
|
8,839 |
|
|
|
14,638 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
4,163 |
|
|
|
(479 |
) |
|
|
(9,024 |
) |
|
|
(5,340 |
) |
Other income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before tax
|
|
|
4,163 |
|
|
|
(479 |
) |
|
|
(8,901 |
) |
|
|
(5,217 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
711 |
|
|
|
711 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
4,163 |
|
|
$ |
(479 |
) |
|
$ |
(9,612 |
) |
|
$ |
(5,928 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
$ |
75,717 |
|
|
$ |
10,683 |
|
|
$ |
86 |
|
|
$ |
86,486 |
|
Operating expense
|
|
|
62,845 |
|
|
|
6,482 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69,327 |
|
Depreciation & amortization
|
|
|
5,621 |
|
|
|
2,689 |
|
|
|
395 |
|
|
|
8,705 |
|
General & administrative expense
|
|
|
5,789 |
|
|
|
1,097 |
|
|
|
7,545 |
|
|
|
14,431 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
1,462 |
|
|
|
415 |
|
|
|
(7,854 |
) |
|
|
(5,977 |
) |
Other expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,971 |
) |
|
|
(1,971 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before tax
|
|
|
1,462 |
|
|
|
415 |
|
|
|
(9,825 |
) |
|
|
(7,948 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
1,462 |
|
|
$ |
415 |
|
|
$ |
(9,831 |
) |
|
$ |
(7,954 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As described above, one of our primary businesses consists of
the ownership and operation of cinemas. At December 31,
2004, we owned and operated, directly or indirectly through
consolidated joint ventures, 271 screens in 41 cinema
complexes. This compares to 202 screens in 28 cinemas in
December 31, 2003. We also had unconsolidated joint venture
interests in an additional 45 screens in 6 cinema complexes
and we operated, directly or indirectly, 14 screens in 3
cinema complexes in which we had no ownership interest.
-46-
Our cinema revenue consists of admissions, concessions and
advertising. The cinema operating expense consists of the costs
directly attributable to the operation of the cinemas including
employee-related, occupancy and operating costs and film rent
expense. Cinema revenue and expense fluctuates with the
availability of quality first-run films and the numbers of weeks
the first-run films stay in the market.
In 2004, we continued to face uncertainties in the domestic
cinema market because of the consolidations and financial
restructuring that have taken place over the last few years
among our competitors. We also continued antitrust litigation
against Regal and certain major U.S. film distributors in
an effort to stop Regal from preventing the distribution of top
grossing first-run film by these distributors to our Village
East Cinema. This has resulted in a significant increase in our
legal expenditures in 2004 and 2003. Our cinema results were
also negatively impacted by our antitrust lawsuits due to Fox
and Universal refusing to provide us with their film product in
the United States in retaliation for our legal action against
them. This was compounded by a general decrease in the number of
well received films in 2004 vs. 2003. We have, however, now
reached settlement with Disney, DreamWorks, Fox, MGM, Universal
and Loews on terms that we believe to be beneficial to our
Company and are back on service with Fox and Universal elsewhere
in the United States. We are currently pursuing our claims only
against Regal, Columbia and Paramount. The impact of the Fox/
Universal boycott in 2004 was much more significant than in 2003
due to the strength of the Fox and Universal product in 2004
compared to 2003. This is particularly true in the case of
Foxs art film arm Fox Searchlight
which brought to market in 2004 films such as
Sideways, Garden State and
Napoleon Dynamite.
In 2004, our cinema operations generated an operating profit,
primarily due to the continued positive results of our
Australian and New Zealand cinema operations. In addition, our
results in 2004 include 6 months of operations of the
Anderson circuit in Australia and 4 months of operation of
the Movieland circuit in New Zealand which are both discussed in
Note 6. Our Australian and New Zealand operations represent
a significant part of our overall business. As such, our
operations are subject to the effects of currency rate
fluctuation. The respective exchange rates of the
U.S. dollar to the Australian dollar at December 31,
2004 and 2003 were $0.7709 and $0.7520 respectively. The
respective exchange rates of the U.S. dollar to the New
Zealand dollar at December 31, 2004 and 2003 were $0.7125
and $0.6557, respectively. To date, from a net income
perspective, our operating results have not been significantly
affected by currency rate fluctuations.
Operating expense increased in 2004 compared to 2003 primarily
as a result of variable costs such as film rental and payroll
expenses that normally fluctuate in direct relation to the
increases or decreases in revenue. In 2004 however, there was an
added dynamic. In our domestic market the severe reduction in
revenue brought about by the lack of first-run product due to
the now resolved Fox/ Universal boycott, was not capable of
being fully adjusted for in the operating expense. All our
cinemas have a threshold limit of fixed costs that, in the short
term, cannot be adjusted in line with precipitous declines in
revenue. As we have now resolved our disputes with all but two
distributors Columbia and Paramount we
are optimistic that the supply issues that plagued us in 2004
will be significantly mitigated. In Australia and New Zealand
the Anderson and Movieland acquisitions, which in general
operated at lower margins than us, had not yet fully been
integrated into the Reading mode by year-end.
Depreciation and amortization expense increased in 2004 when
compared to 2003 due to:
|
|
|
|
|
increased domestic depreciation expense stemming from various
renovation/remodeling projects undertaken at the Angelika New
York and Village East cinemas; and |
|
|
|
increased depreciation and amortization expense related to our
acquisitions of the Movieland and Anderson circuits. |
General and administrative expense increased in 2004 when
compared to 2003. The increase in general and administrative
expenses is primarily related to the pre-opening expenses at our
two new cinemas in Australia that opened in December. As they
were only open for less than a month, their operating results
for 2004 were distorted by their inability to generate
sufficient earnings to offset these pre-opening expenses.
-47-
At December 31, 2003, we operated, directly or indirectly
through consolidated joint ventures, 200 screens in 28
cinema complexes and held unconsolidated joint venture interests
in an additional 37 screens in five cinema complexes. This
compares to 209 screens in 30 cinemas at December 31,
2002. During 2003, we closed two of our domestic cinemas and one
of our Puerto Rico cinemas. One of the domestic cinemas and the
Puerto Rico cinema were closed in light of competitive pressures
from new cinema development. The other domestic cinema was sold,
as its highest and best use was no longer for cinema purposes.
Our cinema segment included the operating results of both our
consolidated and unconsolidated joint venture interests. At
December 31, 2003, we managed 4 screens in one cinema
compared to 5 screens in two cinemas at December 31,
2002.
In 2003, we continued to face uncertainties in the domestic
cinema market flowing from the consolidation of our industry and
the financial restructuring, following bankruptcy, of some of
the largest exhibition companies in the United States. Our
operating results were also adversely effect by our antitrust
litigation against Regal, Loews and virtually all of the major
U.S. film distributors (other than Warner Bros. and
Miramax). This resulted in a significant increase in our legal
expenditures in 2003 over 2002 legal expenditures and a loss of
access to Fox and Universal film product in the United States,
due to their unwillingness to license films to us in the United
States so long as the litigation was ongoing. Our Australia and
New Zealand circuits did not experience the same types of
issues; however, our cinema results in Australia were adversely
affected by an industry wide reduction in the compensation paid
to exhibitors for screen advertising and our inability to renew,
on a comparable basis, the film advertising contract that
expired in July 2003, and by a similar decline in film
advertising revenue in New Zealand.
In Australia and New Zealand, we had a strong year both in terms
of attendance and box office receipts benefiting from a series
of well-received films throughout the year such as the
Pirates of the Caribbean, Matrix
Revolution, Elf, Mystic River and
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King.
Our cinema revenues consisted of admissions, concessions, and
advertising. The cinema expenses consisted of the costs directly
attributable to the operation of the cinemas including
employee-related, occupancy and operating costs, and
depreciation and film rent expense. Cinema revenues and expenses
fluctuated with the availability of quality first-run films and
the numbers of weeks the first-run films stay in the market.
In 2003, our cinema operations generated an operating profit,
primarily due to the continued positive results of our
Australian and New Zealand cinema operations. Our Australian and
New Zealand operations represented a significant part of our
overall business. As such, our operations were subject to the
effects of currency rate fluctuation. The respective exchange
rates of the U.S. dollar to the Australian dollar at
December 31, 2003 and 2002 were $0.7520 and $0.5625,
respectively. The respective exchange rates of the
U.S. dollar to the New Zealand dollar at December 31,
2003 and 2002 were $0.6557 and $0.5239, respectively.
We operated our Courtenay Central 10-plex for the full year of
2003 which contributed favorably to our operating results.
Domestically and in Puerto Rico, both our per screen revenue and
attendance increased when compared to 2002 despite the fact that
we operated fewer screens in 2003 due to the closure of cinemas
in Manhattan, Minneapolis and Puerto Rico, and despite the
impact of the Fox/Universal film boycott which began in March
2003.
Operating expenses increased 2003 compared to 2002 primarily as
a result of the variable costs such as film rental and payroll
expenses that fluctuate in direct relation to the increases in
revenue.
Depreciation and amortization expense increased in 2003 when
compared to 2002 due to:
|
|
|
|
|
accelerated amortization taken against the Option Fee in the
City Cinemas Purchase Option agreement; |
-48-
|
|
|
|
|
increased domestic depreciation expense stemming from various
renovation/remodeling projects undertaken at the Angelika New
York and Village East cinemas; and |
|
|
|
a full year of depreciation taken on the Wellington ETRC. |
General and administrative expense decreased in 2003 when
compared to the same periods in 2002 despite the revenue growth
in our business. Beneficial lease rent payments made to SHC
under the City Cinemas Operating Lease of approximately
$2,674,000 and $2,815,000 in 2003 and 2002, respectively, are
recorded as general and administrative expense of the Cinema
segment. As a result, the decrease in the general and
administration expense was primarily driven by:
|
|
|
|
|
the decrease in the beneficial lease rent payments; |
|
|
|
the credit of approximately $518,000 of reimbursed legal fees
resulting from the settlement and acquisition of a joint venture
(fully described in Note 6 to the consolidated financial
statements); |
|
|
|
the closure of the administrative office in Puerto Rico; offset
by |
|
|
|
litigation against one of our joint venture partners in
Australia relative to collection on a promissory note related to
our former investment in the Whitehorse center. |
As discussed above, our other major business segment is the
operation of real estate properties. These include our rental
generating real estate holdings which includes our rental live
theaters, and investments in several real estate holdings in
various stages of development.
|
|
|
Rental Real Estate Holdings |
For fiscal 2004, our rental generating real estate holdings
consisted of:
|
|
|
|
|
the Belmont, Perth ETRC, the Auburn, Sydney ETRC and the
Courtenay Central ETRC in Wellington, New Zealand; |
|
|
|
three single auditorium live theaters in Manhattan (Minetta
Lane, Orpheum, and Union Square) and a four auditorium live
theater complex in Chicago (The Royal George) and their
accompanying ancillary retail and commercial tenants; |
|
|
|
the ancillary retail and commercial tenants at some of our
cinema locations; |
|
|
|
an office building located in Glendale, California (which we are
under contract to sell in the first quarter of 2005); and |
|
|
|
certain domestic properties historically used in our railroad
operations (which were held for sale at December 31, 2004). |
During 2004, we acquired the following real property interests:
|
|
|
|
|
three fee parcels, incident to our acquisition of the Movieland
Circuit in New Zealand. These parcels included, in addition to
cinemas, expansion space for two of the cinemas and the
ancillary retail and commercial tenants at two of the locations; |
|
|
|
an approximately 13,000 square foot parcel next to our
Newmarket site. It is anticipated that the acquisition of this
fee interest will enable us to develop a cinema at that site, in
addition to the approximately 100,000 square foot shopping
center being constructed at that location as discussed below
under the caption Property Held for
Development; and |
|
|
|
the beneficial interest under an executory agreement to purchase
the fee interest in the land underlying our Cinemas 1,
2 & 3 property. |
-49-
Net income increased in 2004 for the real estate segment
compared to 2003, primarily due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
an increase in rental revenue at our Australia and New Zealand
ETRCs due to higher occupancy rates; |
|
|
|
an increase in rental revenue relating to the ancillary retail
and commercial tenants at two of our locations acquired in the
Movieland acquisition; |
|
|
|
renegotiation of rents at our Union Square property which
resulted in a $358,000 per annum increase; and |
|
|
|
a 2% decrease in dark-time (period when the live
theaters carry no productions) when compared to fiscal 2003 at
our rental live theaters. The rental live theaters
decrease in dark time was positively impacted by the continued
success of the production, Stomp, at our Orpheum Theater as well
as improved occupancy rates in our Royal George Theater (where a
production has been in our main stage for 31 weeks in 2004;
this stage had been dark for 49 weeks in 2003) and Minetta
Theater. |
|
|
|
Property Held for Development |
For fiscal 2004 our investments in real estate held for
development consisted of:
|
|
|
|
|
an approximately 50-acre property located in the Burwood area of
Melbourne, Australia (currently in the zoning and planning
stages for mixed use residential, retail, entertainment and
commercial purposes); |
|
|
|
an approximately three-acre property located in the Moonee Ponds
area of Melbourne, Australia (currently in the planning stages
as an ETRC); |
|
|
|
an approximately four-acre property located in the Newmarket
area of Brisbane, Australia (currently in the construction phase
for a multiplex cinema and an approximately 100,000 square
foot shopping center); |
|
|
|
an approximately two-acre property located adjacent to our
Auburn ETRC in the Auburn area of Sydney, Australia (currently
being held for development); |
|
|
|
an approximately one acre property located adjacent to the
Courtenay Central ETRC in Wellington, New Zealand (currently in
the design and governmental approval stages; negotiations are
ongoing with two anchor tenants with respect to development of
this approximately 150,000 square foot retail/entertainment
addition to our existing Courtenay Central ETRC in downtown
Wellington ); and |
|
|
|
a 25% interest in the redevelopment of our previously sold
Sutton Cinema site on 57th street near its intersection with
3rd Avenue. The property is being redeveloped as an
approximately 100,000 square foot residential condominium
project with ground floor retail. |
|
|
|
Rental Real Estate Holdings |
For fiscal 2003, our rental generating real estate holdings
consisted of:
|
|
|
|
|
the Belmont, Perth ETRC, the Auburn, Sydney ETRC and the
Courtenay Central ETRC in Wellington, New Zealand; |
|
|
|
three single auditorium live theaters in Manhattan (Minetta
Lane, Orpheum, and Union Square) and a four auditorium live
theater complex in Chicago (The Royal George) and their
accompanying ancillary retail and commercial tenants; |
|
|
|
the ancillary retail and commercial tenants at some of our
cinema locations; |
|
|
|
an office building located in Glendale, California; and |
-50-
|
|
|
|
|
certain domestic railroad-related properties (held for sale). |
Net loss increased in 2003 for the real estate segment compared
to 2002, primarily due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
a full year of depreciation expense in 2003 attributable to the
Courtenay Central ETRC, which opened in March 2002; |
|
|
|
the write off of certain legal and development costs relating to
the Whitehorse Center, an aborted development project in
Australia; which was offset by |
|
|
|
a 9% decrease in dark-time (period when the live
theaters carry no productions) for our live theater rentals when
compared to fiscal 2002. The live theaters operating
results were positively impacted by the continued success of the
production, Stomp, as well as a full year of revenue and the
high gross returns earned on the I Love You Youre Perfect,
Now Change production. In September 2003, the production of
Portraits opened at the Union Square Theater on
September 9, 2003 and closed on October 5, 2003. |
Property
Held for Development
For fiscal 2003 our investments in real estate held for
development consisted of:
|
|
|
|
|
an approximately 50-acre property located in the Burwood area of
Melbourne, Australia; |
|
|
|
an approximately three-acre property located in the Moonee Ponds
area of Melbourne, Australia; |
|
|
|
an approximately four-acre property located in the Newmarket
area of Brisbane, Australia; |
|
|
|
an approximately 12,500 square foot parcel adjacent to the
four-acre property located in the Newmarket area of Brisbane; |
|
|
|
an approximately two-acre property located adjacent to the
Auburn ETRC in the Auburn area of Sydney, Australia; and |
|
|
|
an approximately one acre property located adjacent to the
Courtenay Central ETRC in Wellington, New Zealand. |
Corporate expense/income includes expense and/or income that is
not directly attributable to other operating segments.
During 2004, the increase in General and Administrative expense
was primarily made up of:
|
|
|
|
|
costs for Sarbanes-Oxley implementation and the associated first
year audit costs of $520,000; |
|
|
|
duplicate salaries and severance payments relating to a major
change-over in executive personnel at our Australian operation
of approximately $540,000; and |
|
|
|
bank fees associated with financing activities that ultimately
were not consummated due to our decision to pursue alternate
financing opportunities amounted to approximately $165,000. |
Other expense/income is comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense/income; |
|
|
|
Gain/loss on sale of assets; |
|
|
|
equity income/loss; |
|
|
|
minority interest; and |
|
|
|
other miscellaneous income/loss items. |
-51-
During 2004, the decrease in other income was primarily made up
of:
|
|
|
|
|
net interest expense of $4,762,000 which was $531,000 higher
than 2003 because of higher debt and interest rates and an
$91,000 increase in interest related to marking our interest
swap instruments to market in accordance with
SFAS No. 133 Accounting for
Derivatives; and |
|
|
|
the absence in income to compensate for the $500,000 release of
option, recorded in 2003 with respect to the disposition of our
interest in the Murray Hill cinema and for the $2,259,000 also
recorded in 2003 with respect to the settlement of certain
litigation claims in Australia. |
This was offset in part by:
|
|
|
|
|
equity earnings from our affiliates of $1,680,000 which was
$1,092,000 higher than 2003 primarily due to a full year of
earnings from our Christchurch joint venture which opened in
September 2003 and a full year of earnings at our Mt. Gravatt
joint venture which effected earnings from May 2003; and |
|
|
|
$1,686,000 of realized exchange gain on monies transferred from
our Australian subsidiary to the US parent. |
Corporate expense/income includes expense and/or income that is
not directly attributable to other operating segments.
General and administrative expense decreased primarily due to
ongoing savings associated with the 2001 Consolidation,
including closure of the Puerto Rico administrative office and
the transfer of those responsibilities to the Los Angeles office.
Corporate other expense (income) is comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
interest (expense) income; |
|
|
|
gain (loss) on sale of assets; |
|
|
|
equity income (loss); |
|
|
|
minority interest; and |
|
|
|
other miscellaneous income and loss items. |
During 2003, other income included the following transactions:
|
|
|
|
|
the recording in June 2003 of a $2,259,000 one-time gain on the
settlement of two lawsuits involving antitrust and trade
practices as fully described in Note 6 to the consolidated
financial statements; |
|
|
|
the recognition of a $500,000 gain on the release of the Murray
Hill option in May 2003; and |
|
|
|
increased interest expense due to the completion of the
Wellington project in that interest could no longer be
capitalized and was expensed. |
Business Plan, Capital Resources and Liquidity of the
Company
Our business plan is to continue to identify, develop and
acquire cinema, live theater properties and other properties
that may be of an entertainment nature, focusing on those
opportunities where we can acquire either the fee interest
underlying such operating assets, or long-term leases, which
provide flexibility with respect to the usage of such leasehold
estates. We continue to focus our acquisitions and development
activities primarily in Australia and New Zealand as we believe
that there are currently better opportunities in these markets
than domestically. We actively continue to pursue efforts to
dispose of our interests in Puerto Rico and have already
disposed of all of our agricultural interests and assets, and
our investment in certain
-52-
marketable securities. We continue to close under-performing
cinema assets, or to sell those which have value as real estate
significantly in excess of their value as cinemas.
While we intend to maintain our entertainment focus, we may from
time to time acquire interests in non-entertainment real estate,
for example, our investment in the limited liability company
that is developing our former Sutton cinema site in Manhattan
into an approximately 100,000 square foot condominium known
as Place 57. We have not, in more than the past five
years, other than our investment in Place 57, which is
more in the nature of the redevelopment of one of our existing
properties than a new investment, acquired any property other
than entertainment properties or properties which we intended at
the time to develop, at least in part, for entertainment
purposes.
|
|
|
Liquidity and Capital Resources |
Our ability to generate sufficient cash flows from operating
activities in order to meet our obligations and commitments
drives our liquidity position. This is further affected by our
ability to obtain adequate, reasonable financing and/or to
convert non-performing or non-strategic assets into cash. We
cannot separate liquidity from capital resources in achieving
our long-term goals or in order to meet our debt servicing
requirements.
Currently, our liquidity needs arise mainly from:
|
|
|
|
|
working capital requirements; |
|
|
|
capital expenditures; and |
|
|
|
debt servicing requirements. |
Cash used in operating activities was $1.0 million in 2004
compared with $5.7 million provided by operations in 2003.
The change in cash from operating activities between 2004 and
2003 of $6.7 million is primarily due to:
|
|
|
|
|
approximately $1.6 million in reduced operating cash flows
from our cinemas predominately in the United States; |
|
|
|
a $1.7 million gain on foreign currency translation; |
|
|
|
an increase of $1.1 million in equity earnings of
unconsolidated investments; and |
|
|
|
in 2003, a disposal of our Gish stock which resulted in the
receipt of $1.0 million in cash proceeds. |
The increase in cash provided by operating activities between
2003 and 2002 of $2.5 million is primarily due to improved
cash flow from our cinema and theater operations and an increase
in deferred revenues and liabilities.
Cash used in investing activities was $15.8 million in 2004
compared to $3.7 million in 2003. The $12.1 million
increase in cash used in investing activities from 2004 to 2003
was primarily due to:
|
|
|
|
|
$20.0 million of business acquisition costs related to the
Anderson Circuit acquisition for $5.7 million
(AUS$8.0 million), to the Newmarket land purchase of
$1.0 million (AUS$1.4 million) and the Movieland
Circuit acquisition of $13.3 million (NZ$19.8 million); |
|
|
|
$3.8 million (AUS$5.0 million) related to the fit-outs
to our Westlake and Rhodes locations; |
|
|
|
$2.3 million of joint venture costs relating to our
investment in the Sutton redevelopment project with
205-209 E. 57th Street Associates, LLC; offset by |
|
|
|
$13.0 million receivable payment on the Sutton Promissory
Note. |
-53-
Cash used in investing activities decreased in 2003 compared to
2002 primarily due to lower capital investments in 2003. In
2003, we made capital investments on our Newmarket and Burwood
projects and improvements to our Angelika New York and Village
East cinemas. Also impacting investing activities was our
purchase of a
1/3rd interest
in a Mt. Gravatt joint venture for approximately $2,178,000
in connection with our 2003 legal settlement. Cash used in
investing was offset by the distributions we received from our
joint venture partners.
In 2002, we included $714,000 in recovery of debt previously
written off from the agricultural partnerships which will be
non-recurring in nature, since we have discontinued our
agricultural operations and disposed of our agricultural assets.
Cash provided by financing activities was $7.1 million in
2004 compared to $3.2 million used in financing activities
in 2003. The $10.3 million change was primarily due to:
|
|
|
|
|
$60.7 million of proceeds in borrowings primarily from our
new credit facilities in Australia of $24.9 million
(AUS$32.3 million) and in New Zealand of $35.5 million
(NZ$50.0 million) and |
|
|
|
$600,000 of lower distributions to minority interests; offset by |
|
|
|
$52.4 million of repayments on existing debt and
obligations. |
Cash used in financing activities was $3.2 million in 2003
compared to $3.6 million of cash provided by financing
activities for the same period in 2002. The decrease of
$6.8 million of cash provided by financing activities in
the year was primarily due to no further bank borrowing in
Australia in 2003 compared to 2002.
The following table provides information with respect to the
maturities and scheduled principal repayments of our secured
debt and lease obligations at December 31, 2004 (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
2007 | |
|
2008 | |
|
2009 | |
|
Thereafter | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Long-term debt
|
|
$ |
610 |
|
|
$ |
1,529 |
|
|
$ |
9,638 |
|
|
$ |
2,785 |
|
|
$ |
56,297 |
|
|
$ |
12,393 |
|
Lease obligations
|
|
|
13,601 |
|
|
|
13,739 |
|
|
|
13,923 |
|
|
|
13,173 |
|
|
|
12,797 |
|
|
|
98,966 |
|
Interest on long-term debt
|
|
|
5,886 |
|
|
|
5,826 |
|
|
|
5,695 |
|
|
|
5,485 |
|
|
|
3,639 |
|
|
|
445 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
20,097 |
|
|
$ |
21,094 |
|
|
$ |
29,256 |
|
|
$ |
21,443 |
|
|
$ |
72,733 |
|
|
$ |
111,804 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to the above, we have entered into the following
purchase commitments:
|
|
|
|
|
commitment to purchase for $12.2 million the fee interest
underlying our current leasehold estate in the Cinemas 1,
2, & 3 properties. |
|
|
|
put option valued at $175,000 (NZ$261,000) in relation to the
stock issued to the sellers of Movieland. |
|
|
|
commitment to make a capital contribution of $719,000 to 205-209
East 57th Street Associates, LLC relating to the Sutton
Redevelopment in the first quarter of 2005. |
Our cash position at December 31, 2004 was
$12.3 million compared to $21.7 million at
December 31, 2003. The majority of the $9.4 million
difference relates to the following transactions:
|
|
|
|
|
Cash used in the purchase of the Anderson circuit of
$5.7 million (AUS$8.0 million) and the related fit-out
costs of two new cinemas $3.8 million
(AUS$5.0 million) totaling $9.5 million
(AUS$13.0 million); |
|
|
|
Cash used in the purchase of the Movieland circuit and related
fee interests of $13.3 million (NZ$19.8 million); |
|
|
|
Cash of $1.0 million (AUS$1.4 million) paid for the
acquisition of land adjacent to our Newmarket property in
Brisbane, Australia; |
-54-
|
|
|
|
|
Cash of $1.4 million expended on the Newmarket development
project (an approximately 100,000 square foot shopping
center located in a suburb of Brisbane, Australia), to date; |
|
|
|
Cash of $800,000 deposited in connection with our acquisition of
the Cinemas 1, 2 and 3 fee interest in Manhattan; |
|
|
|
Cash of $2.3 million paid as our 25% ownership equity in
the redevelopment of the property located on 57th Street just
below 3rd Avenue in Manhattan as an approximately
100,000 square foot condominium complex; offset by |
|
|
|
Net borrowings increase of $21.2 million primarily from
increased borrowings in Australia and New Zealand. |
We believe that we have, or will have, sufficient borrowing
capacity under our new Australian bank loan facility and our new
New Zealand bank loan facility to recoup substantially all of
the working capital that we have invested in Australia and New
Zealand this year, if we so choose.
We have put into place several measures that are expected to
have or have already had a positive effect on our overall
liquidity, including:
|
|
|
|
|
On December 31, 2004 we entered into a $25.2 million
(AUS$32.7 million) construction loan with the Bank of
Western Australia, Ltd through our Australian subsidiary
Newmarket Properties Pty, Ltd. This loan is to be used to
finance the construction of our approximately
100,000 square foot shopping center, currently under
construction in Newmarket, Queensland, Australia; |
|
|
|
In December 2004, we concluded negotiations to move our Los
Angeles corporate headquarters out of downtown to the City of
Commerce, California, a suburb of Los Angeles, resulting in a
projected annual savings of approximately $100,000; |
|
|
|
On November 23, 2004, we replaced our existing
$20.9 million (NZ$31.3 million) New Zealand credit
facility with a $35.5 million (NZ$50.0 million) credit
facility providing us the funds to pay off the notes payable
related to the Movieland acquisition and providing additional
funds for current liquidity; |
|
|
|
On October 4, 2004 we entered into a $39.3 million
(AUS$55.0 million) credit facility with the Bank of Western
Australia, Ltd through our Australian subsidiary, Reading
Entertainment, Australia, Pty, Limited. This credit facility
replaces our prior facility with that lender in the amount of
$21.4 million (AUS$30 million), expires on
January 1, 2009 and provides for interest-only payments
until June 30, 2006. At December 31, 2004, we had
drawn down $24.9 million (AUS$32.3 million) and issued
guarantees of $1.9 million (AUS$2.7 million);
therefore, we have $15.4 million (AUS$20.0 million)
available to draw on for future liquidity; |
|
|
|
In January 2004, we concluded the consolidation of our worldwide
insurance coverage at an anticipated saving of approximately
$500,000 annually in insurance costs. In January 2005, this
policy has been renewed with an additional $100,000 savings; |
|
|
|
As more fully described in the 2003 Annual Report, on
October 22, 2003 we finalized the sale of our Sutton
Property located in Manhattan. Since we previously held the
Sutton Property pursuant to a master operating lease with option
to purchase, we expect the net economic effect of the sale will
be to reduce our annual net expense by approximately
$1.2 million after the first anniversary year of the sale.
During 2004, we realized savings of approximately
$966,000; and |
|
|
|
In the first quarter of 2003, as part of our ongoing drive to
reduce general and administrative expense and notwithstanding
our commitment to sell our Puerto Rico circuit, we consolidated
our Puerto Rican administrative support function into our
corporate office in Los Angeles, California. This consolidation
has resulted in an annual reduction to our general and
administrative expense of approximately $170,000. |
-55-
Potential uses for funds during 2005 that would reduce our
liquidity, other than those relating to working capital needs
and debt service requirements include:
|
|
|
|
|
the payment of tenant improvement incentives to lessees in
Australia and the US; |
|
|
|
equity funding for several new developments in Australia and New
Zealand; |
|
|
|
funding the balance of the purchase price of the underlying
ground lease of our Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 land
acquisition; and |
|
|
|
funding of the Whitehorse Litigation judgment. |
Based upon the current levels of the consolidated operations,
anticipated cost savings and future growth, we believe our cash
flow from operations, together with both the existing and
anticipated lines-of-credit and other sources of liquidity
(including future potential asset sales) will be adequate to
meet our anticipated requirements for interest payments and
other debt service obligations, working capital, capital
expenditures and other operating needs. There can be no
assurance, however, that the business will continue to generate
cash flow at or above current levels or that estimated cost
savings or growth can be achieved. Future operating performance
and our ability to service or refinance existing indebtedness
will be subject to future economic conditions and to financial
and other factors, such as access to first-run films, many of
which are beyond our control. If our cash flow from operations
and/or proceeds from anticipated borrowings should prove to be
insufficient to meet our funding needs, our current intention is
either:
|
|
|
|
|
to defer construction of projects currently slated for land
presently owned by us; |
|
|
|
to take on joint venture partners with respect to such
development projects; and/or |
|
|
|
to sell assets. |
|
|
|
Critical Accounting Policies |
The Securities and Exchange Commission defines critical
accounting policies as those that are, in managements
view, most important to the portrayal of the companys
financial condition and results of operations and the most
demanding in their calls on judgment. We believe our most
critical accounting policies relate to:
|
|
|
|
|
impairment of long-lived assets, including goodwill and
intangible assets; |
|
|
|
tax valuation allowance and obligations; and |
|
|
|
legal and environmental obligations. |
We review long-lived assets, including goodwill and intangibles,
for impairment as part of our annual budgeting process, in the
fourth quarter, and whenever events or changes in circumstances
indicate that the carrying amount of the asset may not be fully
recoverable. We review internal management reports on a monthly
basis as well as monitor current and potential future
competition in film markets for indications of potential
impairment. We evaluate our long-lived assets using historical
and projected data of cash flow as our primary indicator of
potential impairment and we take into consideration, the
seasonality of our business. If the sum of the estimated future
cash flows, undiscounted, were to be less than the carrying
amount of the asset, then an impairment would be recognized for
the amount by which the carrying value of the asset exceeds its
estimated fair value based on a discounted cash flow
calculation. Goodwill and intangible assets are evaluated on a
reporting unit basis which is basically our business segments.
The impairment evaluation is based on the present value of
estimated future cash flows of the segment plus the expected
terminal value. There are significant assumptions and estimates
used in determining the future cash flows and terminal value.
Accordingly, actual results could vary materially from such
estimates. We had no impairment losses indicated or recorded for
the year ended December 31, 2004.
We record our estimated future tax benefits and liabilities
arising from the temporary differences between the tax bases of
assets and liabilities and amounts reported in the accompanying
consolidated balance sheets, as well as operating loss carry
forwards. We estimate the recoverability of any tax assets
recorded on the
-56-
balance sheet and provide any necessary allowances as required.
As of December 31, 2004, we had recorded approximately
$52,413,000 of deferred tax assets related to the temporary
differences between the tax bases of assets and liabilities and
amounts reported in the accompanying consolidated balance
sheets, as well as operating loss carry forwards and tax credit
carry forwards. These deferred tax assets were fully offset by a
valuation allowance in the same amount, resulting in a net
deferred tax asset of zero. The recoverability of deferred tax
assets is dependent upon our ability to generate future taxable
income. There is no assurance that sufficient future taxable
income will be generated to benefit from our tax loss carry
forwards and tax credit carry forwards.
Due to our historical involvement in the railroad industry under
RDGE, we have a number of former employees of RDGE claiming
monetary compensation for hearing loss, black lung and other
asbestos related illness suffered as a result of their past
employment with RDGE. With respect to the personal injury
claims, our insurance carrier generally pays approximately 98%
of the claims and we do not believe that we have a significant
exposure. However, we can give no assurance that such
reimbursement will continue. In addition, we have an
environmental contamination dispute with the City of
Philadelphia that has been on going for some time. We intend to
vigorously defend our position as we believe a complete
disclosure about the property was made at the time we sold the
property: however, no assurances can be given that we will
prevail.
From time to time, we are involved with claims and lawsuits
arising in the ordinary course of our business which may include
contractual obligations; insurance claims; IRS claims;
employment matters; and anti-trust issues, among other matters
as fully discussed below under Litigation.
|
|
|
Financial Risk Management |
Our internally developed risk management procedure, seeks to
minimize the potentially negative effects of changes in foreign
exchange rates and interest rates on the results of operations.
Our primary exposure to fluctuations in the financial markets is
currently due to changes in foreign exchange rates between U.S
and Australia and New Zealand, and interest rates.
After the Consolidation on December 31, 2001, we began
recording unrealized foreign currency translation gains and
losses. As our operational focus continues to shift to Australia
and New Zealand, unrealized foreign currency translation gains
and losses could materially affect our financial position. We
currently manage our currency exposure by creating natural
hedges in Australia and New Zealand. This involves local country
sourcing of goods and services as well as borrowing in local
currencies.
Our exposure to interest rate risk arises out of our long-term
debt obligations. Consistent with our internally developed
guidelines, we seek to reduce the negative effects of changes in
interest rates by changing the character of the interest rate on
our long-term debt, converting a fixed rate into a variable rate
and vice versa. Our internal procedures allow us to enter into
derivative contracts on certain borrowing transactions to
achieve this goal. Our Australian credit facilities provide for
floating interest rates but require that not less than a certain
percentage of the loans be swapped into fixed rate obligations
using the following derivative contracts:
|
|
|
|
|
Our Australian Corporate Credit Facility provides for floating
interest rates, but requires that not less than 50% of the loan
be swapped into fixed rate obligations. The facility allowed us
to utilize the old swap that was in place from our previous
facility, at 6.70%, through its term, and to swap up to 50% of
the maximum credit facility immediately. As a result, at
December 31, 2004, the floating rate portion, at 6.48% was
$3.7 million (AUS$4.8 million); the old swap at 6.70%
was $10.2 million (AUS$13.3 million); and the new
swap, at 7.44% was $10.9 million (AUS$14.3 million).
The old swap expires fully on December 31, 2007, at which
time the full swap amount will be held under the new swap, which
expires on December 31, 2008. We believe the interest rate
and other terms of Our Australian Corporate Credit Facility to
be customary for loans of this type in Australia and
competitive. All interest rates above include a 1.00% interest
rate margin. |
|
|
|
The Australian construction/term facility of $25.2 million
(AUS$32.7 million) provides for a floating rate of
interest, but requires not less than 75% of the loan to be
swapped into fixed rate obligations. At |
-57-
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004, the fixed rate portion was at 7.18%. The
current swap continues until May 31, 2006. The construction
loan converts to a term loan on completion of the construction,
and is interest only during the construction period and for the
remaining years of the term loan expiring on January 1,
2009. All interest rates above include a 1.00% interest rate
margin. As of 12/31/2004 there was no drawdown on the facility. |
In accordance with SFAS No. 133, we marked our
Australian interest swap instruments to market resulting in
$91,000 (AUS$118,000) increase to interest expense during 2004
and an $80,000 (AUS$106,000) decrease in interest expense in
2003.
We continually monitor inflation and the effects of changing
prices. Inflation increases the cost of goods and services used.
Competitive conditions in many of our markets restrict our
ability to fully recover the higher costs of acquired goods and
services through price increases. We attempt to mitigate the
impact of inflation by implementing continuous process
improvement solutions to enhance productivity and efficiency
and, as a result, lower costs and operating expenses. In our
opinion, the effects of inflation have been managed
appropriately and as a result, have not had a material impact on
our operations and the resulting financial position or liquidity.
We are currently, and are from time to time, involved with
claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of our
business. Some examples of the types of claims are:
|
|
|
|
|
contractual obligations; |
|
|
|
insurance claims; |
|
|
|
IRS claims; |
|
|
|
employment matters; and |
|
|
|
anti-trust issues. |
Where we are the plaintiffs, we expense all legal fees on an
on-going basis and make no provision for any potential
settlement amounts until received. In Australia, the prevailing
party is entitled to recover its attorneys fees, which typically
works out to be approximately 60% of the amounts actually spent
where first class legal counsel is engaged at customary rates.
Where we are a plaintiff, we have likewise made no provision for
the liability for such attorneys in the event we were determined
not to be the prevailing party.
Where we are the defendants, we accrue for probable damages,
which may not be covered by insurance, as they become known and
can be reasonably estimated. In our opinion, any claims and
litigation in which we are currently involved are not reasonably
likely to have a material adverse effect on our business,
results of operations, financial position or liquidity. However,
we do not give any assurance as to the ultimate outcome of such
claims and litigation. The resolution of such claims and
litigation could be material to our operating results for any
particular period, depending on the level of income for such
period.
The Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) has completed
its audits of the tax return of RDGE for its tax year ended
December 31, 1996 and the tax return of CRG for its tax
year ended June 30, 1997. With respect to both of these
companies, the principal focus of these audits was the treatment
of the contribution by RDGE to our wholly owned subsidiary,
Reading Australia, and thereafter the subsequent repurchase by
Stater Bros. Inc. from Reading Australia of certain preferred
stock in Stater Bros. Inc. (the Stater Stock)
received by RDGE from CRG as a part of a private placement of
securities by RDGE which closed in October 1996.
By letters dated November 9, 2001, the IRS issued reports
of examination proposing changes to the tax returns of RDGE and
CRG for the years in question (the Examination
Reports). The Examination Report
-58-
for each of RDGE and CRG proposed that the gains on the
disposition by RDGE of Stater Stock, reported as taxable on the
RDGE return, should be allocated to CRG. As reported, the gain
resulted in no additional tax to RDGE inasmuch as the gain was
entirely offset by a net operating loss carry forward of RDGE.
This proposed change would result in an additional tax liability
for CRG of approximately $21,850,000 plus interest of
approximately $11,000,000 as of December 31, 2004. In
addition, this proposal would result in California tax liability
of approximately $5,500,000 plus interest of approximately
$3,000,000 as of December 31, 2004. Accordingly, this
proposed change represented, as at the end of 2004, an exposure
of approximately $41,500,000. Moreover, California has recently
enacted amnesty provisions imposing additional
liability on taxpayers who are determined to have materially
underreported their taxable income. While these provisions have
been criticized by a number of corporate taxpayers to the extent
that they apply to tax liabilities that are being contested in
good faith, no assurances can be given that these new provisions
will be applied in a manner that would mitigate the impact on
such taxpayers. Accordingly, these provisions may cause an
additional $4,000,000 exposure to CRG, for a total exposure of
approximately $45,500,000.
In early February 2005, we had a mediation conference with the
IRS concerning this proposed change. The mediation was conducted
by two mediators, one of whom was selected by the taxpayer from
the private sector and one of whom was an employee of the IRS.
In connection with this mediation, we and the IRS each prepared
written submissions to the mediators setting forth our
respective cases. In its written submission, the IRS noted that
it had offered to settle its claims against us at 30% of the
proposed change, and reiterated this offer at the medication.
This offer constituted, in effect, an offer to settle for a
payment of $5,500,000 federal tax, plus interest, for an
aggregate settlement amount of approximately $8,000,000. Based
on advice of counsel given after reviewing the materials
submitted by the IRS to the mediation panel, and the oral
presentation made by the IRS to the mediation panel and the
comments of the mediators (including the IRS mediator) we
determined not to accept this offer.
We anticipate that we will shortly receive a notice of
deficiency in the full amount of the IRSs proposed change,
and we intend to aggressively litigate this matter in the tax
court. While there are always risks in litigation, we believe
that a settlement at the level currently offered by the IRS
would substantially understate the strength of our position and
the likelihood that we would prevail in a trial of this matter.
Since these tax liabilities relate to time periods prior to the
Consolidation of CDL, RDGE, and CRG into Reading International,
Inc. and since RDGE and CRG continue to exist as wholly owned
subsidiaries of RII, it is expected that any adverse
determination would be limited in recourse to the assets of RDGE
or CRG, as the case may be, and not to the general assets of
RII. At the present time, the assets of these subsidiaries are
comprised principally of RII securities. Accordingly, we do not
anticipate, even if there were to be an adverse judgment in
favor of the IRS that the satisfaction of that judgment would
interfere with the internal operation or result in any levy upon
or loss of any of our material operating assets. The
satisfaction of any such adverse judgment would, however, result
in a material dilution to existing stockholder interests.
The IRS has also informally notified us that it intends to
disallow the gains booked by RDGE in 1997 as a consequence of
its acquisition certain computer equipment and sale of the
anticipated income stream from the lease of such equipment to
third parties. The result of such disallowance would be the loss
of the depreciation deductions that we took with respect to that
equipment in the years following 1997. Such disallowance would
have the effect of decreasing net operating losses but would not
result in any additional federal income tax for such years. We
have advised the IRS that we intend to appeal this
determination. In turn, such disallowance would increase our
state tax exposure for those years by approximately $170,000.
Since we offset the gain claimed in 1997 against then expiring
net operating losses, the only impact of the IRS position
at the federal level would be the refund to us of approximately
$440,000 plus interest, representing the alternative minimum tax
we paid to the IRS with respect to that transaction.
|
|
|
Environmental and Asbestos Claims |
The City of Philadelphia (the City) has asserted
that the North Viaduct property owned by a subsidiary of Reading
requires environmental decontamination and that such
subsidiarys share of any such remediation cost will
aggregate approximately $3,500,000. The City has also asserted
that we should demolish
-59-
certain bridges and overpasses that comprise a portion of the
North Viaduct. We have in the recent past had discussions with
the City involving a possible conveyance of the property.
However, these discussions have not produced any definitive
offer or proposal from the City. We have also recently received
an offer for the property from a firm specializing the in the
acquisition and redevelopment of so called brown
fields sites, indicating to us that the North Viaduct has
value over and above costs of remediation. Accordingly, we
continue to believe that our recorded remediation reserves
related to the North Viaduct are adequate.
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 which 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. 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 rail road 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. To date, we have only had one such
third party claim.
|
|
|
Whitehorse Center Litigation |
On October 30, 2000, we commenced litigation in the Supreme
Court of Victoria at Melbourne, Commercial and Equity Division,
against our joint venture partner and the controlling
stockholders of our joint venture partner in the Whitehorse
Center. That action is entitled Reading Entertainment
Australia PTY, LTD vs. Burstone Victoria PTY, LTD and May Way
Khor and David Frederick Burr, and was brought to collect on
a promissory note (the K/B Promissory Note)
evidencing a loan that we made to Ms. Khor and
Mr. Burr and that was guaranteed by Burstone Victoria PTY,
LTD (Burstone). The defendants asserted certain
set-offs and counterclaims, alleging, in essence, that we
breached our alleged obligations to proceed with the development
of the Whitehorse Shopping Center, causing the defendants
substantial damages. Following trial, the trial court determined
that we had breached certain obligations owed to WPG (the joint
venture in which we own a 50% interest) but not any obligations
owed to Ms. Khor, Mr. Burr or Burstone. Accordingly,
due to a variety of factors, we have no direct liability to
Ms. Khor, Mr. Burr or Burstone. Furthermore, it
appears that any recovery that Ms. Khor, Mr. Burr
and/or Burstone may obtain through WPG will be significantly
less than their liability to us on the loan. Accordingly, it
appears that the net result, in the view of the trial court, is
a net liability from Ms. Khor and Mr. Burr to us,
before the assessment of attorneys fees.
Australia follows the so called English Rule that
the prevailing party in an action is entitled to recoup
attorneys fees. However, since (i) both parties to
some extent prevailed in their claims, (ii) a number of the
defenses and claims raised by Ms. Khor and Mr. Burr
were struck down by the court or ultimately conceded at trial by
Ms. Khor and Mr. Burr, and (iii) the standard for
assessment of attorneys fees is different in an action on a
promissory note providing for the assessment of attorneys fees
(as did the K/ B Promissory Note), in which case the court will
typically assess attorneys fees at 100% of the amount billed,
and the assessment of the amount of legal fees in the absence of
such a contractual obligation, in which case the court will
typically assess attorneys fees at approximately 66% of the
amount billed, the amount of attorneys that Ms, Khor and
Mr. Burr will be responsible to us for and the amount of
legal fees that we will be responsible to Ms. Khor and
Mr. Burr is uncertain, and currently awaits determination
of this issue by the Trial Court.
We have retained a senior Queens Counsel to conduct an
independent review of the evidence submitted at trial and the
trial courts opinion, and have been advice of such
counsel, that in his opinion the trial court erred in a number
of critical aspects, and that we should have no liability to WPG
or any of the Burstone parties. Accordingly, we intend to appeal
that part of the trial courts determination. Since
Ms. Khor and Mr. Burr do not contest their liability
under the K/B Promissory Note, and since we are advised that
there is no right on the part of Ms, Khor and Mr. Burr to
set off against their liability on the K/B Promissory Note
-60-
their judgment against us pending appeal, we currently intend to
pursue collection of the principal and interest owed on the K/B
Promissory, and to pursue an appeal of the trial courts
decision against us on the repudiation and damages issues.
We are not a party to any other pending legal proceedings or
environmental action which we believe could have a material
adverse effect on our financial position.
|
|
|
Recent Accounting Pronouncements |
In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 153
Exchanges of Non-monetary Assets an amendment
of APB Opinion No. 29 which amends Opinion 29 to
eliminate the exception for non-monetary exchanges of similar
productive assets and replaces it with a general exception for
exchanges of non-monetary assets that do not have commercial
substance. A non-monetary exchange has commercial substance if
the future cash flows of the entity are expected to change
significantly as a result of the exchange. The provisions of
this Statement shall be effective for non-monetary asset
exchanges occurring in fiscal periods beginning after
June 15, 2005. The adoption of this statement is not
expected to have a material impact on our financial position or
results of operations.
In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123R
(revised 2004) Share-Based Payment which establishes
standards for the accounting for transactions in which an entity
exchanges its equity instruments for goods or services. It also
addresses transactions in which an entity incurs liabilities in
exchange for goods or services that are based on the fair value
of the entitys equity instruments or that may be settled
by the issuance of those equity instruments. This Statement
focuses primarily on accounting for transactions in which an
entity obtains employee services in share-based payment
transactions. This Statement does not change the accounting
guidance for share-based payment transactions with parties other
than employees provided in Statement 123 as originally
issued and EITF Issue No. 96-18, Accounting for
Equity Instruments That Are Issued to Other Than Employees for
Acquiring, or in Conjunction with Selling, Goods or
Services. This Statement does not address the accounting
for employee share ownership plans, which are subject to AICPA
Statement of Position 93-6, Employers Accounting for
Employee Stock Ownership Plans. This statement is effective
the beginning of the first interim or annual reporting period
that begins after June 15, 2005. The adoption of this
statement is not expected to have a material impact on our
financial position or results of operations.
In December 2003, the FASB issued Interpretation
(FIN) No. 46R Consolidation of Variable
Interest Entities an interpretation of ARB
No. 51(Issued 12/03). This Interpretation of Accounting
Research Bulletin No. 51, Consolidated Financial
Statements, which replaces FASB Interpretation No. 46,
Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, addresses
consolidation by business enterprises of variable interest
entities, which have one or more of the following
characteristics: (1) The equity investment at risk is not
sufficient to permit the entity to finance its activities
without additional subordinated financial support provided by
any parties, including the equity holders; (2) The equity
investors lack one or more of the following essential
characteristics of a controlling financial interest:
(a) the direct or indirect ability to make decisions about
the entitys activities through voting rights or similar
rights, (b) the obligation to absorb the expected losses of
the entity, or (c) the right to receive the expected
residual returns of the entity; or (3) The equity investors
have voting rights that are not proportionate to their economic
interests, and the activities of the entity involve or are
conducted on behalf of an investor with a disproportionately
small voting interest. As of December 31, 2003, we adopted
the provisions of this interpretation, which did not have a
material effect on our results of operations or financial
condition.
|
|
|
Cinema Exhibition General |
The film exhibition market in Australia and New Zealand is
highly concentrated. Typically, the Major Exhibitors own the
newer multiplex and mega-plex cinemas, while the independent
exhibitors typically have
-61-
older and smaller cinemas. Accordingly, we believe it likely
that the Major Exhibitors may control upwards of 75% of the
total cinema box office in Australia and New Zealand. Also, the
Major Exhibitors have in recent periods built a number of new
multiplexes as joint venture partners or under-shared facility
arrangements, and have historically not engaged in head-to-head
competition, except in the downtown areas of Sydney and
Melbourne.
In recent years, the domestic cinema exhibition industry has
gone through major retrenchment and consolidation, creating
considerable uncertainty as to the direction of the domestic
film exhibition industry, and our role in that industry. Several
major cinema exhibition companies have gone through bankruptcy
over the past five years, or have been otherwise financially
restructured. Regal Cinemas emerged from bankruptcy and combined
with Edwards and United Artists (which also went through
bankruptcy) to create a circuit that has now grown to
6,273 screens, in 558 cinemas. Loews was recapitalized and
grown to a circuit of 2,176 screens in 200 cinemas.
Landmark Theaters, the largest art and specialty film exhibitor
in the United States, has also emerged from bankruptcy and is
now owned by a private company controlled by Mark Cuban (an
individual with a reported personal net worth of
$1.3 billion.) These companies, having used bankruptcy to
restructure their debt and to rid themselves of burdensome
leases and in some cases to consolidate, are now much stronger
competitors than they were just a few years ago.
A significant number of older conventional screens have, as a
result of this consolidation process, been taken out of the
market. We estimate that the total domestic screen count has
decreased from 37,396 in 2000 to 36,179 in 2004. Industry
analysts project further consolidation in the industry, as
players such as Cablevision seek to divest their domestic cinema
exhibition assets. Accordingly, while we believe that recent
developments may in some ways have aided the overall health of
the domestic cinema exhibition industry, there remains
considerable uncertainty as to the impact of this consolidation
trend on us and our domestic cinema exhibition business, as we
are forced to compete with these stronger and reinvigorated
competitors and the significant market share commanded by these
competitors.
There is also considerable uncertainty as to the future of
digital exhibition and in-the-home entertainment alternatives.
In the case of digital exhibition, there is currently
considerable discussion within the industry as to the benefits
and detriments of moving from conventional film projection to
digital projection technology. There are issues as to when it
will be available on an economically attractive bases, as to
who, between the exhibitors and distributors, will pay for the
conversion from conventional to digital technology between
exhibitors and distributors, as to what the impact will be on
film licensing expense, and as to how to deal with security and
potential pirating issues if film is distributed in a digital
format. In the case of in-the-home entertainment alternatives,
the industry is faced with the significant leaps achieved in
recent periods in both the quality and affordability of
in-the-home entertainment systems and in the accessibility to
entertainment programming through cable, satellite and DVD
distribution channels. These are issues common to both our
domestic and international cinema operations.
|
|
|
Cinema Exhibition North America |
In North America, distributors may find it more commercially
appealing to deal with major exhibitors, rather than to deal
with independents like us, which tends to suppress supply
screens in a very limited number of markets. This competitive
disadvantage has increased significantly in recent periods with
the development of mega circuits like Regal and Loews, who are
able to offer distributors access to screens on a truly
nationwide basis, or on the other hand, to deny access if their
desires with respect to film supply are not satisfied.
With the restructuring and consolidation recently undertaken in
the industry, and the emergence of increasingly attractive
in-home entertainment alternatives, it is unclear what the
competitive future holds for our North American operations.
These recent consolidations in the industry have adversely
affected our ability to get film in certain domestic markets
where we compete against major exhibitors. We have been involved
in litigation against Regal, Loews, and certain of the major
film distributors in order to regain access to top-grossing
first-run film in the Union Square area of Manhattan. While we
have reached some settlements, litigation of this type is
-62-
expensive, and no assurances can be given that our efforts will
be successful. This litigation is ongoing and we can give you no
assurances that we will prevail.
We believe that the reorganization and restructuring of the
domestic cinema exhibition market may produce opportunities for
us to grow our art and specialty circuit by acquiring, on
favorable terms, rights to operate cinemas no longer seen as
suitable or competitive as conventional first run film venues,
or for other reasons no longer attractive to other exhibitors.
We cannot assure you that such opportunities will evolve and we
do not intend to aggressively pursue such opportunities. If such
opportunities do not become available, we will focus on the
operation of our existing cinemas and the exploitation of the
real estate elements underlying those cinemas.
|
|
|
Cinema Exhibition Australia/New Zealand |
The film exhibition industry in Australia and New Zealand is
somewhat vertically integrated in that one of the Major
Exhibitors, Roadshow Film Distributors, also serves as a
distributor of film in Australia and New Zealand for Warner
Bros. and New Line. Films produced or distributed by the
majority of the local international independent producers are
also distributed by Roadshow.
In December 2002, the Major Exhibitors acquired Val Morgan, the
principal lessee of screen advertising space in Australia and
New Zealand. During 2003 and 2002, we received approximately
$1,339,000 (AUS$1,681,000 and NZ$396,000) and $1,254,000
(AUS$1,942,000 and NZ$308,000) respectively from Val Morgan for
screen advertising. Notwithstanding concerns expressed by us and
other independent exhibitors to the Australian Consumer and
Competition Commission (the ACCC) that such an
arrangement would give the Major Exhibitors an unfair
competitive advantage in the area of screen advertising, the
ACCC ultimately approved the acquisition due to concerns that,
but for the intervention of the Major Exhibitors, Val Morgan
would fail. In 2004, Hoyts bought out the interests of Village
and Greater Union in Val Morgan. Our contract with Val Morgan
expired on July 1, 2003 and was renewed for Australia
through September 2004 and has subsequently been renewed through
September 2008. Our contract for New Zealand does not expire
until March 2009. However, this New Zealand contract does not
pertain to our Berkeley Cinemas or to the six cinemas we
acquired from third parties in 2004. Under the terms approved by
the ACCC, future net revenues are to be split 50/50 between Val
Morgan and us for the advertising shown at our cinemas. However,
we have no control over Val Morgans costs. In light of the
fact that Val Morgan was unable to operate profitably under its
prior contracts with exhibitors, we believe that future revenues
from screen advertising will continue to decrease and may
ultimately be materially less, than the screen advertising
revenue realized in 2003 and 2002. In 2004, we received
approximately $1,149,000 (AUS$1,084,000 and NZ$416,000). The
impact of the decline in screen advertising revenues is being
mitigated to a certain extent at our parent company level due to
the strengthening of the Australian and New Zealand dollars
compared to the U.S. dollar in recent periods and a partial
year of screen advertising revenue generated at our Movieland
cinemas.
|
|
|
Cinema Exhibition Puerto Rico |
Based upon number of screens, box office revenues and number of
theaters, we are the second largest exhibitor in Puerto Rico,
with the two largest exhibitors accounting for over 99% of the
box office revenues recorded in 2003, measured by theaters in
daily operation. Competition among the theater exhibitors exists
not only for theater patrons within certain geographic areas but
also for the licensing of films and the development of new
theater sites. The number of sites suitable for multiplex
cinemas is limited, but our principal competitor is expected to
continue to open theaters competitive with ours. Caribbean
Cinemas, our principal competitor, currently operates screens
representing approximately 81% of the total box office generated
in Puerto Rico. We expect our percentage of that market to go
down and our competitors percentage of that market to go
up, in light of recently opened screens.
-63-
We are subject to income taxation in several jurisdictions
throughout the world. Our effective tax rate and income tax
liabilities will be affected by a number of factors, such as:
|
|
|
|
|
the amount of taxable income in particular jurisdictions; |
|
|
|
the tax rates in particular jurisdictions; |
|
|
|
tax treaties between jurisdictions; |
|
|
|
the extent to which income is repatriated; and |
|
|
|
future changes in law. |
Generally, we file consolidated or combined tax returns in
jurisdictions that permit or require such filings. For
jurisdictions which do not permit such a filing, we may owe
income, franchise, or capital taxes even though, on an overall
basis, we may have incurred a net loss for the tax year.
Forward-Looking Statements
Our statements in this annual report 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 reflect our expectation after
having considered a variety of risks and uncertainties. However,
they 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 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 to differ
materially from those expressed in or underlying our
forward-looking statements are the following:
|
|
|
|
|
With respect to our cinema operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
The number and attractiveness to movie goers of the films
released in future periods; |
|
|
|
The amount of money spent by film distributors to promote their
motion pictures; |
|
|
|
The licensing fees and terms required by film distributors from
motion picture exhibitors in order to exhibit their films; |
|
|
|
The comparative attractiveness of motion pictures as a source of
entertainment and willingness and/or ability of consumers
(i) to spend their dollars on entertainment and
(ii) to spend their entertainment dollars on movies in an
outside the home environment; and |
|
|
|
The extent to which we encounter competition from other cinema
exhibitors, from other sources of outside of the home
entertainment, and from inside the home entertainment options,
such as home theaters and competitive film product
distribution technology such as, by way of example, cable,
satellite broadcast, DVD and VHS rentals and sales, and so
called movies on demand; |
|
|
|
|
|
With respect to our real estate development and operation
activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
The rental rates and capitalization rates applicable to the
markets in which we operate and the quality of properties that
we own; |
-64-
|
|
|
|
|
The extent to which we can obtain on a timely basis the various
land use approvals and entitlements needed to develop our
properties; |
|
|
|
The availability and cost of labor and materials; |
|
|
|
Competition for development sites and tenants; and |
|
|
|
The extent to which our cinemas can continue to serve as an
anchor tenant which will, in turn, be influenced by the same
factors as will influence generally the results of our cinema
operations; |
|
|
|
|
|
With respect to our operations generally as an international
company involved in both the development and operation of
cinemas and the development and operation of real estate; and
previously engaged for many years in the railroad business in
the United States: |
|
|
|
|
|
Our ongoing access to borrowed funds and capital and the
interest that must be paid on that debt and the returns that
must be paid on such capital; |
|
|
|
The relative values of the currency used in the countries in
which we operate; |
|
|
|
Changes in government regulation, including by way of example,
the costs resulting from the implementation of the requirements
of Sarbanes Oxley; |
|
|
|
Our labor relations and costs of labor (including future
government requirements with respect to pension liabilities,
disability insurance and health coverage, and vacations and
leave); |
|
|
|
Our exposure from time to time to legal claims and to
uninsurable risks such as those related to our historic railroad
operations, including potential environmental claims and health
related claims relating to alleged exposure to asbestos or other
substances now or in the future recognized as being possible
causes of cancer or other health related problems; |
|
|
|
Changes in future effective tax rates and the results of
currently ongoing and future potential audits by taxing
authorities having jurisdiction over our various
companies; and |
|
|
|
Changes in applicable accounting policies and practices. |
The above list is not necessarily exhaustive, as business is by
definition unpredictable and risky, and 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 and
fancy, 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, please understand that we undertake no obligation to
publicly update 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 pro forma information or
non-GAAP financial measures. In such case, a
reconciliation of this information to our GAAP financial
statements will be made available in connection with such
statements.
Item 7A Quantitative and Qualitative
Disclosure about Market Risk
The Securities and Exchange Commission requires that registrants
include information about potential effects of changes in
currency exchange and interest rates in their Form 10-K
filings. Several alternatives, all with some limitations, have
been offered. The following discussion is based on a sensitivity
analysis, which
-65-
models the effects of fluctuations in currency exchange rates
and interest rates. This analysis is constrained by several
factors, including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
It is based on a single point in time. |
|
|
|
It does not include the effects of other complex market
reactions that would arise from the changes modeled. |
Although the results of such an analysis may be useful as a
benchmark, they should not be viewed as forecasts.
At December 31, 2004, approximately 48% and 25% of our
assets (determined by the book value of such assets) were
invested in assets denominated in Australian dollars (Reading
Australia) and New Zealand dollars (Reading New Zealand),
respectively, including approximately $9,293,000 in cash and
cash equivalents. At December 31, 2003, approximately 46%
and 16% of our assets were invested in assets denominated in
Australian and New Zealand dollars, respectively, including
approximately $18,916,000 in cash and cash equivalents.
Our policy in Australia and New Zealand is to match revenue and
expenses, whenever possible, in local currencies. As a result, a
majority of our expenses in Australia and New Zealand have been
procured in local currencies. Due to the developing nature of
our operations in Australia and New Zealand, our revenue is not
yet significantly greater than our operating expense. The
resulting natural operating hedge has led to a negligible
foreign currency effect on our earnings. As we continue to
progress our acquisition and development activities in Australia
and New Zealand, we cannot assure you that the foreign currency
effect on our earnings will be insignificant in the future.
Our policy is to borrow in local currencies to finance the
development and construction of our entertainment complexes in
Australia and New Zealand whenever possible. As a result, the
borrowings in local currencies have provided somewhat of a
natural hedge against the foreign currency exchange exposure.
Even so, approximately 67% and 31% of our Australian and New
Zealand assets (based on book value), respectively, remain
subject to such exposure unless we elect to hedge our foreign
currency exchange between the U.S. and Australian and New
Zealand dollars. At the present time, we have no plan to hedge
such exposure.
Commencing in 2002, we also began recording unrealized foreign
currency translation gains or losses which could materially
affect our financial position. We have recorded an unrealized
foreign currency translation gain of approximately $32,386,000
and $31,196,000 as of December 31, 2004 and 2003,
respectively.
Historically, we maintained most of our cash and cash equivalent
balances in short-term money market instruments with original
maturities of six months or less. Some of our money market
investments may decline in value if interest rates increase. Due
to the short-term nature of such investments, a change of 1% in
short-term interest rates would not have a material effect on
our financial condition.
The majority of our U.S. bank loans have fixed interest
rates; however, one of our domestic loans has a variable
interest rate and a change of approximately 1% in short-term
interest rates would have resulted in approximately $22,000
increase or decrease in our 2004 interest expense.
While we have typically used fixed rate financing (secured by
first mortgages) in the U.S., fixed rate financing is typically
not available to corporate borrowers in Australia and New
Zealand. The majority of our Australian and New Zealand bank
loans have variable rates. The Australian facilities provide for
floating interest rates, but require that not less than a
certain percentage of the loans be swapped into fixed rate
obligations (see Financial Risk Management above). If we
consider the interest rate swaps, a 1% increase in short-term
interest rates would have resulted in approximately $502,000
increase in 2004 Australian and New Zealand interest expense
while a 1% decrease in short-term interest rates would have
resulted in approximately $498,000 decrease 2004 Australian and
New Zealand interest expense.
-66-
|
|
Item 8 |
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-67-
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Reading International, Inc.
Los Angeles, California:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Reading International, Inc., and subsidiaries (the
Company) as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and
the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders equity and cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 2004. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the
Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on the consolidated financial statements based on our
audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of
Reading International, Inc., and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2004, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, based on the
criteria established in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated
March 25, 2005 expressed an unqualified opinion on
managements assessment of the effectiveness of the
Companys internal control over financial reporting and an
unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Companys
internal control over financial reporting.
Deloitte & Touche
LLP
Los Angeles, California
March 25, 2005
-68-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
as of December 31, 2004 and 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(U.S. dollars in | |
|
|
thousands) | |
ASSETS |
Current Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
12,292 |
|
|
$ |
21,735 |
|
Receivables
|
|
|
7,145 |
|
|
|
4,787 |
|
Inventory
|
|
|
804 |
|
|
|
518 |
|
Investment in marketable securities, at cost
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
85 |
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
815 |
|
|
|
456 |
|
Prepaid and other current assets
|
|
|
3,185 |
|
|
|
2,161 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
24,270 |
|
|
|
29,742 |
|
Rental property, net
|
|
|
7,396 |
|
|
|
7,916 |
|
Property & equipment, net
|
|
|
133,660 |
|
|
|
122,546 |
|
Property held for development
|
|
|
27,346 |
|
|
|
24,364 |
|
Investment in unconsolidated joint ventures
|
|
|
7,352 |
|
|
|
3,407 |
|
Note receivable due from related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,000 |
|
Capitalized leasing costs
|
|
|
297 |
|
|
|
411 |
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
13,816 |
|
|
|
5,090 |
|
Intangible assets, net
|
|
|
11,957 |
|
|
|
12,248 |
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
4,133 |
|
|
|
4,142 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
230,227 |
|
|
$ |
222,866 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
Current Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
|
$ |
15,341 |
|
|
$ |
13,222 |
|
Film rent payable
|
|
|
4,144 |
|
|
|
4,489 |
|
Notes payable current portion
|
|
|
610 |
|
|
|
1,930 |
|
Income taxes payable
|
|
|
7,157 |
|
|
|
7,546 |
|
Deferred current revenue
|
|
|
2,227 |
|
|
|
1,561 |
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
599 |
|
|
|
1,148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
30,078 |
|
|
|
29,896 |
|
Notes payable long-term portion
|
|
|
82,642 |
|
|
|
69,215 |
|
Deferred non-current revenue
|
|
|
733 |
|
|
|
1,143 |
|
Other non-current liabilities
|
|
|
11,294 |
|
|
|
9,633 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
124,747 |
|
|
|
109,887 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies (Note 17)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest in consolidated affiliates
|
|
|
3,470 |
|
|
|
4,488 |
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class A Nonvoting Common Stock, par value $0.01,
100,000,000 shares authorized, 34,444,167 issued and
20,452,733 outstanding at December 31, 2004 and 33,858,310
issued and 19,866,876 outstanding at December 31, 2003
|
|
|
205 |
|
|
|
199 |
|
Class B Voting Common Stock, par value $0.01,
20,000,000 shares authorized, 2,198,761 issued and
1,545,506 outstanding at December 31, 2004 and 2,685,669
issued and 2,032,414 outstanding at December 31, 2003
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
Nonvoting Preferred Stock, par value $0.01, 12,000 shares
authorized and no outstanding shares at December 31, 2004
and 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
124,307 |
|
|
|
123,516 |
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(54,903 |
) |
|
|
(46,440 |
) |
Accumulated other comprehensive income
|
|
|
32,386 |
|
|
|
31,196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
102,010 |
|
|
|
108,491 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity
|
|
$ |
230,227 |
|
|
$ |
222,866 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
-69-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
for the Three Years Ended December 31, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(U.S. dollars in thousands, | |
|
|
except per share amounts) | |
Operating revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cinema
|
|
$ |
87,257 |
|
|
$ |
81,464 |
|
|
$ |
75,717 |
|
|
Real estate
|
|
|
15,725 |
|
|
|
12,275 |
|
|
|
10,683 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenue
|
|
|
102,982 |
|
|
|
93,739 |
|
|
|
86,486 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cinema
|
|
|
72,476 |
|
|
|
65,002 |
|
|
|
62,845 |
|
|
Real estate
|
|
|
7,321 |
|
|
|
7,436 |
|
|
|
6,482 |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
12,899 |
|
|
|
12,003 |
|
|
|
8,705 |
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
16,238 |
|
|
|
14,638 |
|
|
|
14,431 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expense
|
|
|
108,934 |
|
|
|
99,079 |
|
|
|
92,463 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating loss
|
|
|
(5,952 |
) |
|
|
(5,340 |
) |
|
|
(5,977 |
) |
Non-operating income (expense)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
845 |
|
|
|
808 |
|
|
|
512 |
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(4,762 |
) |
|
|
(4,231 |
) |
|
|
(3,288 |
) |
|
Earnings from investment advances to agricultural partnerships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,110 |
|
|
Net gain on sale of marketable securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
235 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) gain on sale of assets
|
|
|
(114 |
) |
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
998 |
|
|
|
2,824 |
|
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before minority interest, income tax expense and equity
earnings of unconsolidated investments
|
|
|
(8,985 |
) |
|
|
(5,556 |
) |
|
|
(7,698 |
) |
Minority interest
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
249 |
|
|
|
461 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes and equity earnings of
unconsolidated investments
|
|
|
(9,097 |
) |
|
|
(5,805 |
) |
|
|
(8,159 |
) |
Income tax expense
|
|
|
1,046 |
|
|
|
711 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before equity earnings
|
|
|
(10,143 |
) |
|
|
(6,516 |
) |
|
|
(8,165 |
) |
Equity earnings of unconsolidated investments
|
|
|
1,680 |
|
|
|
588 |
|
|
|
211 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(8,463 |
) |
|
$ |
(5,928 |
) |
|
$ |
(7,954 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted loss per share
|
|
$ |
(0.39 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.27 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.36 |
) |
Weighted average number of shares outstanding
|
|
|
21,948,065 |
|
|
|
21,860,222 |
|
|
|
21,821,236 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
-70-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
for the Three Years Ended December 31, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock | |
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Additional | |
|
|
|
Other | |
|
Total | |
|
|
Class A | |
|
Class A | |
|
Class B | |
|
Class B | |
|
Paid-In | |
|
Accumulated | |
|
Comprehensive | |
|
Stockholders | |
|
|
Shares | |
|
Par Value | |
|
Shares | |
|
Par Value | |
|
Capital | |
|
Deficit | |
|
Income/(Loss) | |
|
Equity | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(U.S. dollars in thousands) | |
At January 1, 2002
|
|
|
20,485 |
|
|
$ |
205 |
|
|
|
1,336 |
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
$ |
123,517 |
|
|
$ |
(32,558 |
) |
|
$ |
(52 |
) |
|
$ |
91,125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,954 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,954 |
) |
Other comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative foreign exchange rate adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,786 |
|
|
|
7,786 |
|
|
Unrealized gain on securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
308 |
|
|
|
308 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2002
|
|
|
20,485 |
|
|
$ |
205 |
|
|
|
1,336 |
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
$ |
123,517 |
|
|
$ |
(40,512 |
) |
|
$ |
8,042 |
|
|
$ |
91,265 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,928 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,928 |
) |
Other comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative foreign exchange rate adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,373 |
|
|
|
23,373 |
|
|
Unrealized loss on securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(219 |
) |
|
|
(219 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class A common stock received from stockholder in exchange
for Class B common stock
|
|
|
(618 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
696 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2003
|
|
|
19,867 |
|
|
$ |
199 |
|
|
|
2,032 |
|
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
123,516 |
|
|
$ |
(46,440 |
) |
|
$ |
31,196 |
|
|
$ |
108,491 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,463 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,463 |
) |
Other comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative foreign exchange rate adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,190 |
|
|
|
1,190 |
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,273 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class B common stock received from stockholder in exchange
for Class A common stock
|
|
|
487 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(487 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class A common stock issued
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
791 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
792 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2004
|
|
|
20,453 |
|
|
$ |
205 |
|
|
|
1,545 |
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
124,307 |
|
|
$ |
(54,903 |
) |
|
$ |
32,386 |
|
|
$ |
102,010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
-71-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
for the Three Years Ended December 31, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(U.S. dollars in thousands) | |
Operating Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(8,463 |
) |
|
$ |
(5,928 |
) |
|
$ |
(7,954 |
) |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by
operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
12,899 |
|
|
|
12,003 |
|
|
|
8,705 |
|
|
|
Gain on settlement of litigation
|
|
|
(1,375 |
) |
|
|
(2,259 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss (gain) on sale of assets, net
|
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
(148 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized gain on foreign currency translation
|
|
|
(1,686 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity earnings of unconsolidated investments
|
|
|
(1,680 |
) |
|
|
(588 |
) |
|
|
(211 |
) |
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
249 |
|
|
|
461 |
|
|
|
Earnings from investment advances to Agricultural Partnerships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,110 |
) |
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
213 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in receivables
|
|
|
(889 |
) |
|
|
(806 |
) |
|
|
(83 |
) |
|
|
|
(Increase) decrease in prepaid and other assets
|
|
|
(885 |
) |
|
|
1,702 |
|
|
|
(209 |
) |
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in payable and accrued liabilities
|
|
|
448 |
|
|
|
(1,626 |
) |
|
|
1,503 |
|
|
|
|
(Decrease) increase in film rent payable
|
|
|
(402 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
|
Increase in deferred revenues and other liabilities
|
|
|
778 |
|
|
|
2,899 |
|
|
|
1,498 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities
|
|
|
(1,029 |
) |
|
|
5,707 |
|
|
|
3,165 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from disposal of assets, net
|
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
932 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of property and equipment, net
|
|
|
(7,794 |
) |
|
|
(2,889 |
) |
|
|
(4,511 |
) |
|
Acquisitions of real estate and leasehold interests, net of cash
acquired
|
|
|
(20,031 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to property held for development
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(888 |
) |
|
|
(5,926 |
) |
|
Contributions to unconsolidated joint ventures
|
|
|
(2,290 |
) |
|
|
(2,032 |
) |
|
|
(85 |
) |
|
(Increase) decrease in restricted cash
|
|
|
(359 |
) |
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
194 |
|
|
Distributions from unconsolidated joint ventures
|
|
|
1,546 |
|
|
|
1,104 |
|
|
|
436 |
|
|
Repayment of loan receivable
|
|
|
13,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(15,771 |
) |
|
|
(3,708 |
) |
|
|
(9,892 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayments of debt
|
|
|
(52,439 |
) |
|
|
(1,431 |
) |
|
|
(4,958 |
) |
|
Distributions to minority interest
|
|
|
(1,137 |
) |
|
|
(1,789 |
) |
|
|
(328 |
) |
|
Proceeds from borrowings
|
|
|
60,681 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,130 |
|
|
Repayments from agricultural partnerships and joint ventures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
780 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
7,105 |
|
|
|
(3,220 |
) |
|
|
3,624 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(9,695 |
) |
|
|
(1,221 |
) |
|
|
(3,103 |
) |
Effect of exchange rate on cash
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
3,670 |
|
|
|
1,513 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
|
|
21,735 |
|
|
|
19,286 |
|
|
|
20,876 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
|
|
$ |
12,292 |
|
|
$ |
21,735 |
|
|
$ |
19,286 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Disclosures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid during the period for:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest on borrowings (net of $178,000 capitalized for property
under development in 2002)
|
|
$ |
4,634 |
|
|
$ |
3,938 |
|
|
$ |
3,307 |
|
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
$ |
312 |
|
|
$ |
524 |
|
|
$ |
18 |
|
Non-Cash Transactions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sale of Sutton Cinema (Note 4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock Issued for stock options exercised (Note 2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock Issued for acquisition (Note 18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock Exchanged (Note 18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
-72-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2004
|
|
Note 1 |
Nature of Business |
Reading International, Inc., a Nevada corporation
(RII and collectively with its consolidated
subsidiaries and corporate predecessors, the
Company, or Reading), was incorporated
in 1999 and, following the consummation of a consolidation
transaction on December 31, 2001 (the
Consolidation), is now the owner of the consolidated
businesses and assets of Reading Entertainment, Inc.
(RDGE), Craig Corporation (CRG), and
Citadel Holding Corporation (CDL). Our businesses
consist primarily of:
|
|
|
|
|
The development, ownership and operation of multiplex cinemas in
the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Puerto
Rico; and |
|
|
|
the development, ownership and operation of retail and
commercial real estate in Australia, New Zealand and the United
States, including entertainment-themed retail centers
(ETRC) in Australia and New Zealand and live theater
assets in Manhattan and Chicago in the United States. |
Note 2 Employee Stock Option Plans
The 1999 Stock Option Plan of CDL (1999 Stock Option
Plan) authorizes the grant of options to certain of our
employees and directors and our affiliate companies,
as defined in the 1999 Plan, at exercise prices not less than
the market price at the date of grant. Employees are eligible
for incentive stock options (ISOs) and
employees and directors are eligible for what are commonly known
as nonqualified options (NQOs).
Options may be granted for ten years from the date of the
plans adoption, and options granted under the 1999 Plan
expire ten years after the grant date unless extended. The
options are exercisable in installments, generally beginning one
year after the date of grant, except for shares granted to
directors which vest immediately.
The 1999 Stock Option Plan is administered by an Administrator
who determines the persons to whom the options should be
granted, sets the number and timing of any options granted, and
prescribes the rules and regulations applicable to the options.
Our Board of Directors has formed the Stock Option and
Compensation Committee, which is comprised entirely of
independent non-employee directors, to be the Administrator of
the 1999 Plan. Directors James J. Cotter, Jr., William D.
Gould, Gerard Laheney and Alfred Villaseñor Jr. served as
the members of the Stock Option and Compensation Committee in
Fiscal 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average | |
|
|
|
Weighted Average | |
|
|
Common Stock | |
|
Price of Options | |
|
Common Stock | |
|
Price of Exercisable | |
|
|
Options Outstanding | |
|
Outstanding | |
|
Exercisable Options | |
|
Options | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Class A | |
|
Class B | |
|
Class A | |
|
Class B | |
|
Class A | |
|
Class B | |
|
Class A | |
|
Class B | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Outstanding-December 31, 2001
|
|
|
405,250 |
|
|
|
1,231,470 |
|
|
$ |
5.40 |
|
|
$ |
8.10 |
|
|
|
303,650 |
|
|
|
1,231,470 |
|
|
$ |
5.81 |
|
|
$ |
7.53 |
|
|
Expired
|
|
|
(51,250 |
) |
|
|
(350,290 |
) |
|
$ |
5.24 |
|
|
$ |
11.20 |
|
|
|
(43,750 |
) |
|
|
(350,290 |
) |
|
$ |
5.24 |
|
|
$ |
11.20 |
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
1,105,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3.75 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
709,688 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3.75 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding-December 31, 2002
|
|
|
1,459,000 |
|
|
|
881,180 |
|
|
$ |
4.15 |
|
|
$ |
6.08 |
|
|
|
969,588 |
|
|
|
881,180 |
|
|
$ |
4.59 |
|
|
$ |
7.25 |
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(696,080 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
5.06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(696,080 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
5.06 |
|
|
Expired/ Forfeited
|
|
|
(151,800 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4.10 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
(151,800 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4.00 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
141,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4.01 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
35,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4.01 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding-December 31, 2003
|
|
|
1,448,200 |
|
|
|
185,100 |
|
|
$ |
4.09 |
|
|
$ |
9.90 |
|
|
|
853,038 |
|
|
|
185,100 |
|
|
$ |
4.75 |
|
|
$ |
9.90 |
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
7.80 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
7.80 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding-December 31, 2004
|
|
|
1,488,200 |
|
|
|
185,100 |
|
|
$ |
4.19 |
|
|
$ |
9.90 |
|
|
|
893,038 |
|
|
|
185,100 |
|
|
$ |
4.80 |
|
|
$ |
9.90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-73-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The weighted average remaining contractual life of all options
outstanding at December 31, 2004 was approximately
7.43 years.
The following table shows the range of exercise prices for
options outstanding as of December 31, 2004 and 2003:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number Outstanding at December 31, | |
|
|
| |
Class A Common Stock Range of Exercise Price |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
$ 2.00 to $ 4.99
|
|
|
1,331,850 |
|
|
|
1,331,850 |
|
|
|
1,181,800 |
|
$ 5.00 to $ 9.99
|
|
|
75,100 |
|
|
|
35,100 |
|
|
|
90,950 |
|
$10.00 to $11.00
|
|
|
81,250 |
|
|
|
81,250 |
|
|
|
186,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Outstanding
|
|
|
1,488,200 |
|
|
|
1,448,200 |
|
|
|
1,459,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number Outstanding at December 31, | |
|
|
| |
Class B Common Stock Range of Exercise Price |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
$ 2.00 to $ 4.99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ 5.00 to $ 9.99
|
|
|
35,100 |
|
|
|
35,100 |
|
|
|
713,630 |
|
$10.00 to $11.00
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
167,550 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Outstanding
|
|
|
185,100 |
|
|
|
185,100 |
|
|
|
881,180 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net earnings and earnings per share information
reflecting the fair value approach to valuing stock options and
the corresponding increase in compensation expense is required
by SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Employee Stock
Options for each year that we granted stock options. In
2004, we granted 40,000 options to purchase shares of
Class A Stock under the 1999 Stock Option Plans. These
options are all NQOs. In 2003, we granted 141,000 options
to purchase shares of Class A Stock and these are all
ISOs. In 2002, we granted options to
purchase 1,105,000 shares of Class A Stock. Of
the options granted in 2002, 975,000 were granted outside the
plan as NQOs and 130,000 were granted under the 1999 Stock
Option Plans and are ISOs. The fair value of the options
granted in 2004, 2003, and 2002 was estimated at the date of
grant using a Black-Scholes option-pricing model with the
following weighted average assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 |
|
2003 |
|
2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock option exercise price
|
|
$7.80 |
|
$4.01 |
|
$3.75 |
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
4.22% |
|
4.04% |
|
3.06% |
Expected dividend yield
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected option life
|
|
9.9 yrs |
|
9.9 yrs |
|
9.9 yrs |
Expected volatility
|
|
36.4% |
|
58.2% |
|
50.2% |
Weighted average fair value
|
|
$4.28 |
|
$2.83 |
|
$1.54 |
If the fair value of the options granted during a fiscal year
had been recognized as compensation expense on a straight-line
basis over the vesting period of the grant, stock-based
compensation costs would have
-74-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
impacted our after tax loss and net loss per common share for
the fiscal years ended at December 31, as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Pro forma net loss:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss after tax
|
|
$ |
(8,463 |
) |
|
$ |
(5,928 |
) |
|
$ |
(7,954 |
) |
|
Add: Stock-based compensation costs included in reported net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deduct: Stock-based compensation costs under SFAS 123
|
|
|
(358 |
) |
|
|
(287 |
) |
|
|
(1,330 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proforma net loss after tax
|
|
$ |
(8,821 |
) |
|
$ |
(6,215 |
) |
|
$ |
(9,284 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma basic net loss per common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net loss per common share-basic and diluted
|
|
$ |
(0.40 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.28 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.43 |
) |
|
Reported net loss per common share-basic and diluted
|
|
$ |
(0.39 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.27 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.36 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 3 |
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies |
The consolidated financial statements of RII and its
subsidiaries include the accounts of CDL, RDGE and CRG. Also
consolidated are Angelika Film Center LLC (AFC), in
which we own a 50% membership interest and whose only asset is
the Angelika Film Centre in Manhattan; Australia Country Cinemas
Pty, Limited (ACC), a company in which we own a 75%
interest, and whose only assets are our leasehold cinemas in
Townsville and Dubbo, Australia; and the Elsternwick Classic, an
unincorporated joint venture in which we own a 66.6% interest
and whose only asset is the Elsternwick Classic cinema in
Melbourne, Australia.
We have concluded that all other investment interests are
appropriately accounted for as investments in unconsolidated
joint ventures, and accordingly, our unconsolidated investments
in 20% to 50% owned companies are accounted for on the equity
method. These investment interests include our 33.3% undivided
interest in the unincorporated joint venture that owns the Mt.
Gravatt cinema in a suburb of Brisbane, Australia, and our 50%
undivided interest in the unincorporated joint ventures that own
the Reading Christchurch cinema and the four Berkeley cinemas in
the greater Auckland, New Zealand area.
Our consolidated financial statements have been prepared in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America (US GAAP).
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents |
We consider all highly liquid investments with original
maturities of three months or less to be cash equivalents.
Included in cash and cash equivalents at December 31, 2003
is approximately $9,733,000 of funds being held in institutional
money market mutual funds. At December 31, 2004 no funds
were being held in institutional money market mutual funds.
Our receivables balance is composed primarily of credit card
receivables, representing the purchase price of tickets or
coupon books sold at our various businesses. Sales charged on
customer credit cards are collected when the credit card
transactions are processed. The remaining receivables balance is
primarily made up of the goods and services tax
(GST) refund receivable from our Australian taxing
authorities and the
-75-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
management fee receivable from the managed cinemas. We have no
history of significant bad debt losses and believe our
receivables to be fully collectible.
Inventory is composed of concession goods used in theater
operations and is stated at the lower of cost (first-in,
first-out method) or net realizable value.
|
|
|
Investment in Marketable Securities |
Marketable securities at December 31, 2004 and 2003 consist
of U.S. corporate equity securities and are carried on a
cost basis. Realized gains and losses from the sale of
securities are determined on a specific identification basis.
A decline in the market value of a security below cost, that is
deemed to be other than temporary, results in a reduction in
carrying amount to fair market value. This impairment is charged
to earnings and a new cost basis for the security is
established. Dividend and interest income are recognized when
earned.
|
|
|
Fair Value of Financial Instruments |
The carrying amounts of our cash and cash equivalents,
restricted cash and accounts payable approximate fair value due
to their short-term maturities. The carrying amounts of our
variable-rate secured debt approximate fair value since the
interest rates on these instruments are equivalent to rates
currently offered to us. See Note 5 Fair Value
of Financial Instruments.
|
|
|
Derivative Financial Instruments |
In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments
and Hedging Activities, as subsequently amended by
SFAS No. 138, we carry all derivative financial
instruments on our Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value.
Derivatives are generally executed for interest rate management
purposes but are not designated as hedges in accordance with
SFAS No. 133 and SFAS No. 138. Therefore,
changes in market values are recognized in current earnings.
|
|
|
Property Held for Development |
Property held for development consists of land (including land
acquisition costs) initially acquired for the potential
development of multiplex cinemas and/or ETRCs. Property
held for development is carried at cost. At the time
construction of the related multiplex cinema, ETRC, or other
development commences, the property is transferred to
property and equipment and accounted for as
construction-in-progress.
Rental property consists of land and buildings. Property and
equipment consists of land, buildings, leasehold improvements,
fixtures and equipment. With the exception of land, property and
equipment is carried at cost and depreciated over the useful
lives of the related assets. In accordance with US GAAP, land is
not depreciated.
|
|
|
Construction-in-Progress and Property Development
Costs |
Construction-in-progress and property development costs are
comprised of direct costs associated with the development of
potential cinemas (whether for purchase or lease), the
development of ETRC locations or other improvements to real
property. Start-up costs (such as pre-opening cinema advertising
and training expense) and other costs not directly related to
the acquisition of long-term assets are expensed as incurred.
-76-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Amounts are carried at cost unless management decides that a
particular location will not be pursued to completion or if the
costs are no longer relevant to the proposed project. Costs
which have been previously capitalized but are deemed by
management to no longer be of value are expensed.
|
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization |
Depreciation and amortization are provided using the
straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the
assets. The estimated useful lives are generally as follows:
|
|
|
Building and building improvements
|
|
40 years |
Leasehold improvement
|
|
Shorter of the life of the lease or useful life of the
improvement |
Theater equipment
|
|
7 years |
Furniture and fixtures
|
|
5 10 years |
|
|
|
Deferred Leasing/ Financing Costs |
Direct costs incurred in connection with obtaining tenants
and/or financing are amortized over the respective term of the
lease or loan on a straight-line basis.
Costs of advertising are expensed as incurred. Advertising
expense for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 are
approximately $3,131,000 and $2,976,000, respectively.
Revenue from cinema ticket sales and concession sales are
recognized when sold. Revenue from gift certificate sales is
deferred and recognized when the certificates are redeemed.
Rental revenue is recognized on a straight-line basis in
accordance with SFAS No. 13 Accounting
for Leases.
|
|
|
General and Administrative Expenses |
For years ending December 31, 2004 and 2003, we booked
gains on the settlement of litigation related to our Village
lawsuit in Australia and our Village East lawsuit in the
U.S. of $1,375,000 and $518,000, respectively, as a
recovery of legal expenses included in general and
administrative expenses.
|
|
|
Translation of Non-U.S. Currency Amounts |
The financial statements and transactions of our Australian and
New Zealand cinema and real estate operations are reported in
the functional currencies, namely Australian and New Zealand
dollars, respectively, and are then translated into
U.S. dollars. Assets and liabilities of these operations
are denominated in functional currency and are then translated
at exchange rates in effect at the balance sheet date. Revenues
and expenses are translated at the average exchange rate for the
reporting period. Translation adjustments are reported in
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income, a component
of Stockholders Equity.
The carrying value of our Australian and New Zealand assets
fluctuates due to changes in the exchange rate between the
U.S. dollar and the Australian and New Zealand dollars. The
exchange rates of the U.S. dollar to the Australian dollar
were $0.7709 and $0.7520 as of December 31, 2004 and 2003,
respectively. The exchange rates of the U.S. dollar to the
New Zealand dollar were $0.7125 and $0.6557, as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
-77-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Basic earnings per share is calculated using the weighted
average number of shares of Class A and Class B Stock
outstanding during the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003,
and 2002, respectively. Diluted earnings per share is calculated
by dividing net earnings available to common stockholders by the
weighted average common shares outstanding plus the dilutive
effect of stock options. Stock options to purchase 1,488,200,
1,448,200, and 1,459,000 shares of Class A Common
Stock were outstanding at December 31, 2004, 2003, and
2002, respectively, at a weighted average exercise price of
$4.19, $4.09, and $4.15 per share, respectively. Stock
options to purchase 185,100, 185,100, and 881,180 shares of
Class B Common Stock were outstanding at December 31,
2004, 2003, and 2002, respectively, at a weighted average
exercise price of $9.90, $9.90, and $6.08 per share,
respectively. During the years ended December 31, 2004,
2003 and 2002, we recorded net losses and therefore the effect
of the stock options was anti-dilutive and accordingly excluded
from the earnings per share computation.
|
|
|
Accounting for the Impairment of Long Lived Assets |
We assess whether there has been an impairment in the value of
our long-lived assets whenever events or changes in
circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an asset may not
be recoverable. Recoverability of assets to be held and used is
measured by a comparison of the carrying amount to the future
net cash flows, undiscounted and without interest, expected to
be generated by the asset. If such assets are considered to be
impaired, the impairment to be recognized is measured by the
amount by which the carrying amount of the assets exceeds the
fair value of the assets. Assets to be disposed of are reported
at the lower of the carrying amount or fair value, less costs to
sell. We believe that no impairment in the net carrying values
of our investments in real estate and cinema leasehold interests
or in unconsolidated real estate entities has occurred for the
periods presented.
|
|
|
Goodwill and Intangible Assets |
In June 2001, SFAS No. 141, Business
Combinations, and SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and
Other Intangible Assets, were issued and are effective for
fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2001.
SFAS No. 141 requires that the purchase method of
accounting be used for all business combinations initiated or
completed after June 30, 2001. SFAS No. 142
requires that goodwill and intangible assets with indefinite
useful lives no longer be amortized, but instead, tested for
impairment at least annually in accordance with the provisions
of SFAS No. 142. As required by
SFAS No. 142, prior to conducting our goodwill
impairment analysis, we assess long-lived assets for impairment
in accordance with SFAS No. 144. We then perform the
impairment analysis at one level below the operating segment
level (see Note 10) as defined by SFAS No. 142.
This analysis requires management to make a series of critical
assumptions to: (1) evaluate whether any impairment exists;
and (2) measure the amount of impairment.
SFAS No. 142 requires that we estimate the fair value
of our reporting units as compared with their estimated book
value. If the estimated fair value of a reporting unit is less
than the estimated book value, then an impairment is deemed to
have occurred. In estimating the fair value of our reporting
units, we primarily use the income approach (which uses
forecasted, discounted cash flows to estimate the fair value of
the reporting unit).
|
|
|
Recent Accounting Pronouncements |
In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 153
Exchanges of Non-monetary Assets an amendment
of APB Opinion No. 29 which amends Opinion 29 to
eliminate the exception for non-monetary exchanges of similar
productive assets and replaces it with a general exception for
exchanges of non-monetary assets that do not have commercial
substance. A non-monetary exchange has commercial substance if
the future cash flows of the entity are expected to change
significantly as a result of the exchange. The provisions of
this Statement shall be effective for non-monetary asset
exchanges occurring in fiscal periods beginning
-78-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
after June 15, 2005. The adoption of this statement is not
expected to have a material impact on our financial position or
results of operations.
In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123R
(revised 2004) Share-Based Payment which establishes
standards for the accounting for transactions in which an entity
exchanges its equity instruments for goods or services. It also
addresses transactions in which an entity incurs liabilities in
exchange for goods or services that are based on the fair value
of the entitys equity instruments or that may be settled
by the issuance of those equity instruments. This Statement
focuses primarily on accounting for transactions in which an
entity obtains employee services in share-based payment
transactions. This Statement does not change the accounting
guidance for share-based payment transactions with parties other
than employees provided in Statement 123 as originally
issued and EITF Issue No. 96-18, Accounting for
Equity Instruments That Are Issued to Other Than Employees for
Acquiring, or in Conjunction with Selling, Goods or
Services. This Statement does not address the accounting
for employee share ownership plans, which are subject to AICPA
Statement of Position 93-6, Employers Accounting
for Employee Stock Ownership Plans. This statement is
effective the beginning of the first interim or annual reporting
period that begins after June 15, 2005. The adoption of
this statement is not expected to have a material impact on our
financial position or results of operations.
In December 2003, the FASB issued Interpretation
(FIN) No. 46R Consolidation of Variable
Interest Entities an interpretation of ARB
No. 51 (Issued 12/03). This Interpretation of
Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51, Consolidated
Financial Statements, which replaces FASB Interpretation
No. 46, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities,
addresses consolidation by business enterprises of variable
interest entities, which have one or more of the following
characteristics: (1) The equity investment at risk is not
sufficient to permit the entity to finance its activities
without additional subordinated financial support provided by
any parties, including the equity holders; (2) The equity
investors lack one or more of the following essential
characteristics of a controlling financial interest:
(a) the direct or indirect ability to make decisions about
the entitys activities through voting rights or similar
rights, (b) the obligation to absorb the expected losses of
the entity, or (c) the right to receive the expected
residual returns of the entity; or (3) The equity investors
have voting rights that are not proportionate to their economic
interests, and the activities of the entity involve or are
conducted on behalf of an investor with a disproportionately
small voting interest. As of December 31, 2003, we adopted
the provisions of this interpretation, which did not have a
material effect on our results of operations or financial
condition.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with US
GAAP requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect
the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of
contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial
statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses
during the reported period. Actual results could differ from
those estimates.
Certain reclassifications, which do not have an effect on net
income or on equity, have been made to the 2003 and 2002
financial statements to conform to the 2004 presentation.
|
|
Note 4 |
Related Parties and Transactions |
In 2000, we entered into a transaction with a related party
designed to give us (i) operating control, through an
operating lease, of the City Cinemas theater chain in Manhattan,
and (ii) the right to enjoy any appreciation in the
underlying real estate assets, though a fixed price option to
purchase these cinemas on an
-79-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
all or nothing basis in 2010. Two of the cinemas included in
that chain the Murray Hill Cinema and the Sutton
Cinema have now been sold for redevelopment, under
terms that we believe preserve this basic structure and which
will, if we exercise our purchase option, give us the future
benefit of any appreciation realized in those assets during the
time they were under our operation and control.
|
|
|
In July 2000, we acquired from Sutton Hill Capital, LLC
(SHC) the Manhattan based City Cinemas circuit in a
transaction structured as a 10 year operating lease (the
City Cinemas Operating Lease) with options either to
extend the lease for an additional 10 year term or,
alternatively, to purchase the improvements and certain of the
real estate assets underlying that lease (the City Cinemas
Purchase Option). We paid an option fee of $5,000,000,
which will be applied against the purchase price if we elected
to exercise the City Cinemas Purchase Option. The aggregate
exercise price of the City Cinemas Purchase Option was
originally $48,000,000, and rent was calculated to provide an
8.25% yield to SHC (subject to an annual modified cost of living
adjustment) on the difference between the exercise price and the
$5,000,000 option fee. Incident to that transaction, we agreed
to lend to SHC (the City Cinemas Standby Credit
Facility) up to $28,000,000, beginning in July 2007, all
due and payable in December 2010 (the principal balance and
accrued interest on any such loan was likewise to be applied
against the option exercise price, in the event the option was
exercised). The interest rate on the City Cinemas Standby Credit
Facility was also fixed at 8.25%, subject to the same modified
cost of living adjustment used to calculate rent under the City
Cinemas Operating Lease. |
|
|
We have no legal obligation to exercise either the option to
extend the City Cinemas Operating Lease or the City Cinemas
Purchase Option. However, our recourse against SHC on the City
Cinemas Standby Credit Facility is limited to the assets of SHC
which consist of, generally speaking, only the assets subject to
the City Cinemas Purchase Option. In this annual report, we
refer to the transaction memorialized by the City Cinemas
Operating Lease, City Cinemas Purchase Option and City Cinemas
Standby Credit Agreement as the City Cinemas Transaction.
Because the City Cinemas Operating Lease is an operating lease
and since the City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility was, in our
view, adequately secured, no asset or liability was established
on our balance sheet at the time of the City Cinemas Transaction
other than the option fee, which has been deferred and is being
amortized over the 10 year period of the lease. |
|
|
SHC is indirectly owned by Messrs. James J. Cotter and
Michael Forman. Mr. Cotter is our Chairman, Chief Executive
Officer and controlling stockholder. Mr. Forman is a major
holder of our Class A Stock. As the transaction was a
related party transaction, it was reviewed and approved by a
committee of our Board of Directors comprised entirely of
independent directors. |
|
|
Since we entered into the City Cinemas Transaction, two of the
cinema properties involved in that transaction have been sold to
third parties for redevelopment: the Murray Hill Cinema and the
Sutton Cinema. These purchasers paid $10,000,000 and $18,000,000
respectively for these two properties, which included the cost
of acquiring the fee interest in these properties held by
Nationwide Theaters (an affiliate of SHC), the leasehold
interest held by SHC, and our rights under the City Cinemas
Operating Lease and the City Cinemas Purchase Option. Since we
believed that a sale of these properties at these prices was
more beneficial to us than continuing to operate them as
cinemas, and since the original City Cinemas Transaction did not
contemplate a piece-meal release of properties or give us the
right to exercise our City Cinemas Purchase Option either
(i) on a piece-meal basis or (ii) prior to July 2010,
we worked with SHC to devise a transaction that would allow us
to dispose of our collective interests in these properties while
preserving the fundamental benefits of the transaction for
ourselves and SHC. Included among the benefits to be preserved
by SHC was the deferral of any capital gains tax with respect to
the transfer of the remaining properties until 2010 and
assurances that the various properties involved in the City
Cinemas Transaction would only be acquired by us on an all
or none basis. Included among the benefits to be preserved
for us was the right to get the benefit of 100% of any
appreciation in the properties underlying the City Cinemas
Operating Lease between the date of that lease (July 2000) and |
-80-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
the date any such properties were sold, provided that we
ultimately exercised our purchase rights under the City Cinemas
Purchase Option. |
|
|
As a result of these negotiations and the sale of these two
properties, our rent under the City Cinemas Operating Lease has
been reduced by approximately $1,861,000 per annum, the
exercise price of the City Cinemas Purchase Option has been
reduced from $48,000,000 to $33,000,000, and our funding
obligation under the City Cinemas Standby Line of Credit has
been reduced from $28,000,000 to $13,000,000. In addition, we
received in consideration of the release of our interest in the
Murray Hill Cinema a cash payment of $500,000. In consideration
of the transfer of our interest in the Sutton Cinema we received
(i) a $13,000,000 purchase money promissory note (the
Sutton Purchase Money Note) secured by a first mortgage on
the Sutton Cinema property (the Sutton Purchase Money
Mortgage), (ii) a right to acquire up to a 25%
interest in the special purpose entity formed to redevelop the
Sutton Cinema property for a prorated capital contribution (the
Sutton Reinvestment Option) or to receive instead an
in lieu fee of $650,000, and (iii) the right to operate the
Sutton Cinema until such time as the Sutton Purchase Money Note
was paid. The Sutton Purchase Money Note was due and payable on
October 21, 2005, and carried interest for the first year
at 3.85%, increasing in the second year to 8.25%. On
September 14, 2004, the Sutton Purchase Money Note was
prepaid in full and we exercised our Sutton Reinvestment Option. |
|
|
In keeping with the all or nothing nature of our
rights under the City Cinemas Purchase Option, we agreed to use
the principal proceeds of the Sutton Purchase Money Promissory
Note to fund a portion of our remaining $13.0 million
obligation under the City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility. As of
December 31, 2004, we have funded $8.0 million of this
obligation. We anticipate that the remaining obligation will be
fully funded by July 2007. We have also agreed that the
principal amount of the City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility
will be forgiven if we do not exercise our purchase rights under
the City Cinemas Purchase Option. Accordingly, if we exercise
our rights under the City Cinemas Purchase Option to purchase
the remaining City Cinemas assets, we will be acquiring the
remaining assets subject to the City Cinemas Operating Lease for
an additional cash payment of $15,000,000, (offsetting against
the current $33,000,000 exercise price, the previously paid
$5,000,000 deposit and the $13,000,000 principal amount of the
City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility) and will receive, in
essence, the benefit of 100% of the appreciation in all of the
properties initially subject to the City Cinemas Operating Lease
between July 2000, and the date such properties were either
disposed of or acquired by us pursuant to the City Cinemas
Purchase Option. If we do not exercise our option to purchase,
then the City Cinemas Credit Facility will be forgiven, and we
will not get the benefit of such appreciation. The remaining
properties consist of the Village East Cinema, which is located
at the corner of 2nd Avenue and 11th Street in Manhattan,
on a 27 year land lease, and the Cinemas 1,
2 & 3. It is located on 3rd Avenue between E. 59th
and E. 60th Streets in Manhattan and likewise on a long term
ground lease. We are currently under contract to purchase the
Cinemas 1, 2, & 3 ground lease from another party
for $12.2 million. |
|
|
Since the Murray Hill Cinema sale transaction was structured as
a release of our leasehold interest in the Murray Hill Cinema,
we did not recognize any gain or loss for either book or tax
purposes, other than the $500,000 in lieu fee, which was
recognized as non-operating income. We likewise did not book any
gain or loss on the disposition of the Sutton Cinema for book
purposes. However, we did recognize gain in the amount of
approximately $13,000,000 for state and federal tax purposes,
which gain was offset against net operating losses.
Notwithstanding this offset, we were still liable for
alternative minimum tax on the transaction. That alternative
minimum tax will, however, be offset against our future tax
liabilities. In the event that we decide not to exercise our
City Cinemas Purchase Option, we would at that time recognize a
$13 million loss for tax purposes. |
|
|
Following the release of our leasehold interest in the Murray
Hill Cinema and disposition of the Sutton Cinema in 2003 we
accelerated the amortization of the option fee in the City
Cinemas Purchase Option |
-81-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
agreement by $890,000. In addition, in October 2003 we recorded
our loan commitment under the City Cinemas Standby Credit
Facility as a payable in our long-term debt on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet. As a result of having funded $8.0 million of
this obligation during 2004, the remaining balance recorded as
long-term debt is $5.0 million. |
|
|
Each of the above modification transactions involved was
reviewed by a committee of the independent directors of the
Board of Directors with the assistance of outside counsel. In
each case, the independent directors of the applicable committee
have found the transaction to be fair and in the best interests
of Reading and its public stockholders. |
|
|
Reflecting the disposition of the Murray Hill Cinema and the
Sutton Cinema and the amendments to date with respect to the
City Cinemas Transaction, we are currently paying SHC rent of
$1,686,000 per year on a triple net basis. For the years
ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, rent expense to SHC was
$2,386,000 and $2,674,000, respectively. We have funded
$8,000,000 of our remaining $13,000,000 obligation under the
City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility (which currently earns
interest at 8.98%, reduced our rent obligation under the City
Cinemas Operating Lease to $1,686,000 per year for the
Village East Cinema and the Cinemas 1, 2 & 3.
Every $1,000,000 in increased funding under the City Cinemas
Standby Credit Facility currently will result in an
approximately $90,000 annual effective reduction in that rent
obligation). We also have the option to purchase in July 2010
the remaining assets under the City Cinemas Operating Agreement
(SHCs long term leasehold interests in the Village East
Cinema and the Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 in Manhattan and
the improvements comprising these two cinemas) for an additional
payment of $15,000,000 (plus whatever unfunded balance remains
with respect to our funding obligation under the City Cinemas
Standby Credit Facility). |
Pursuant to a Theater Management Agreement (the Management
Agreement), our live theater operations are managed by OBI
LLC (OBI Management), which is wholly owned by
Ms. Margaret Cotter who is the daughter of James J. Cotter
and a member of our Board of Directors.
The Management Agreement generally provides that we will pay OBI
Management a combination of fixed and incentive fees which
historically have equated to approximately 18% of the net cash
flow received by us from our live theaters in New York. Since
the fixed fees are applicable only during such periods as the
New York theaters are booked, OBI Management receives no
compensation with respect to a theater at any time when it is
not generating revenues for us. This arrangement provides an
incentive to OBI Management to keep the theaters booked with the
best available shows, and mitigates the negative cash flow that
would result from having an empty theater. In addition, OBI
Management manages our Royal George live theater complex in
Chicago on a fixed fee basis. In 2004, OBI Management earned
$419,000 (including $35,000 for managing the Royal George). In
2003, OBI Management earned $400,000 (including $35,000 for
managing the Royal George). In each year, we reimbursed travel
related expenses for OBI Management personnel with respect to
travel between New York City and Chicago in connection with the
management of the Royal George complex.
OBI Management conducts its operations from our office
facilities on a rent-free basis, and we share the cost of one
administrative employee of OBI Management. Other than these
expenses and travel-related expenses for OBI Management
personnel to travel to Chicago as referred to above, OBI
Management is responsible for all of its costs and expenses
related to the performance of its management functions. The
Management Agreement renews automatically each year unless
either party gives at least six months prior notice of its
determination to allow the Management Agreement to expire. In
addition, we may terminate the Management Agreement at any time
for cause.
-82-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
Live Theater Play Investment |
From time to time our officers and directors may invest in plays
that lease our live theaters. During 2004, an affiliate of
Mr. James J. Cotter and Michael Forman have a 25%
investment in the play, I Love You, Youre Perfect, Now
Change, playing in one of our auditoriums at our Royal
George theater. We similarly had a 25% investment in the play.
The play has earned for us $35,000 and $64,000 during the years
ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. This
investment received board approval from our Conflicts Committee
on August 12, 2002.
The play STOMP has been playing in our Orpheum Theater since
prior to the time we acquired the theater in 2001.
Messrs. James J. Cotter and Michael Forman own an
approximately 5% interest in that play, an interest that they
have held since prior to our acquisition of the theater.
|
|
|
Acquisition of the Angelika Film Center |
On September 1, 2000, we acquired from Messrs. James
J. Cotter and Michael Forman, a
1/6th
(16.7%) interest in AFC. The acquisition of the AFC interest was
accounted for as a purchase, in which we issued interest-bearing
notes to Messrs. Cotter and Forman, in the amount of
$2,250,000 each, bearing interest at 8.25%, that matured in July
2002. These notes were paid in full on December 5, 2002.
|
|
Note 5 |
Fair Value of Financial Instruments |
The carrying amounts of our cash and cash equivalents,
restricted cash and accounts payable approximate fair value due
to their short-term maturities. Interest rate swap contracts are
carried at fair value and included in other liabilities on the
consolidated balance sheet. The carrying amounts of our
variable-rate secured debt approximate fair value since the
interest rates on these instruments are equivalent to rates
currently offered us. The following table summarizes our
financial instruments and their calculated fair values (dollars
in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Book Value | |
|
Fair Value | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Financial Instrument |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Cash
|
|
$ |
12,292 |
|
|
$ |
21,735 |
|
|
$ |
12,292 |
|
|
$ |
21,735 |
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
$ |
7,145 |
|
|
$ |
4,787 |
|
|
$ |
7,145 |
|
|
$ |
4,787 |
|
Investment in marketable securities
|
|
$ |
29 |
|
|
$ |
85 |
|
|
$ |
53 |
|
|
$ |
85 |
|
Restricted cash
|
|
$ |
815 |
|
|
$ |
456 |
|
|
$ |
815 |
|
|
$ |
456 |
|
Interest rate swaps asset
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
105 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
105 |
|
Note receivable
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
13,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
13,000 |
|
Accounts and film rent payable
|
|
$ |
19,485 |
|
|
$ |
17,711 |
|
|
$ |
19,485 |
|
|
$ |
17,711 |
|
Notes payable
|
|
$ |
83,252 |
|
|
$ |
71,145 |
|
|
$ |
82,007 |
|
|
$ |
70,251 |
|
Interest rate swaps liability
|
|
$ |
810 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
810 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
Note 6 |
Acquisitions and Disposal of Assets |
From time to time, we acquire or dispose of various business
assets in accordance with our global business plan. During 2004,
we made various investments of capital to purchase and/or
develop various existing or new assets. In accordance with
SFAS No. 141 Business Combinations, we are
in the process of finalizing the purchase price allocation for
these acquisitions. A summary of the assets acquired and
liabilities assumed on
-83-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
the acquisition dates in 2004 (valued at the foreign currency
exchange rates at the time of acquisition) and an explanation
relating to these acquisitions is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anderson | |
|
Movieland | |
|
Newmarket | |
|
|
Assets Acquired |
|
Acquisition | |
|
Acquisition | |
|
Acquisition | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Cash
|
|
$ |
135 |
|
|
$ |
18 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
153 |
|
Receivables
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
147 |
|
Inventory
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
|
Prepayments
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56 |
|
Land
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
992 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
992 |
|
Building
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,083 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,083 |
|
Lease agreements
|
|
|
282 |
|
|
|
593 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
875 |
|
Fixtures and equipment
|
|
|
3,237 |
|
|
|
2,157 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,394 |
|
Property held for development
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,042 |
|
|
|
1,042 |
|
Plans and permits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
162 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
162 |
|
Deferred tax asset
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
3,129 |
|
|
|
5,026 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,155 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Acquired Assets
|
|
$ |
6,972 |
|
|
$ |
15,079 |
|
|
$ |
1,042 |
|
|
$ |
23,093 |
|
|
Liabilities Assumed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creditors
|
|
$ |
433 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
433 |
|
Prepaid revenue
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Accruals
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71 |
|
Other payables
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62 |
|
Provisions
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
95 |
|
Lease agreements
|
|
|
450 |
|
|
|
277 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
727 |
|
Loans
|
|
|
661 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
661 |
|
Put Option
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities Assumed
|
|
$ |
1,780 |
|
|
$ |
452 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,232 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Net Assets
|
|
$ |
5,192 |
|
|
$ |
14,627 |
|
|
$ |
1,042 |
|
|
$ |
20,861 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In August 2004, we closed a series of agreements which,
together, provided for the acquisition of six existing New
Zealand cinemas, representing 27 screens, and in the case
of three of these locations, the fee interests underlying such
cinemas. Two of the locations included ancillary retail and
commercial tenants. We also acquired the plans and permits for
the development of an additional two screens at each of two of
the cinemas, for a potential increase of 4 additional
screens.
The acquisition costs of these cinemas and fee interests
amounting to $14.6 million (NZ$21.8 million) was
funded by a combination of $13.3 million
(NZ$19.8 million) of working capital, $792,000
(NZ$1.2 million) in shares of our Class A Common Stock
(98,949 shares issued at $8.00 per share (NZ$11.94,
using a NZ$ to US$ exchange ratio of $0.67)), and a $546,000
(NZ$784,000) purchase money promissory note The working
capital was funded through a combination of cash of
$5.4 million (NZ$8.1 million) and a drawdown under of
our new banking facility in New Zealand of $8.3 million
(NZ$12.3 million). The shares issued includes a
non-transferable option to put to us the Class A Common
-84-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Stock issued to them at a put price of NZ$11.94 at any time
during January 2006. The $546,000 (NZ$784,000) purchase money
promissory note has an interest rate of 5.50% and requires that
all principal and interest be paid in February 2006.
On July 1, 2004, we acquired most of the assets of the
Australia based Anderson Circuit for
$6.9 million (AUS$9.7 million) giving us four existing
cinemas with 22 screens and agreements to lease with
respect to two additional cinemas (with an additional
15 screens) in two facilities then under construction.
Prior to selling the circuit, the Andersons had encountered
financial difficulties, and substantially all of their cinema
assets had been placed in the hands of a receiver by their bank
lender. Ultimately, as the result of negotiations with the
Andersons, certain other stockholders, landlords and the bank,
we were able to acquire all but one of the cinemas that had
historically comprised the Anderson circuit and both of their
projects (West Lakes and Rhodes) then under development.
The total acquisition costs of these cinemas, of
$5.7 million (AUS$8.0 million), excluding the cost of
the fit-out of the two development cinemas, were met from our
own funds in conjunction with a $3.4 million
(AUS$4.7 million) drawdown on the newly signed
$39.3 million (AUS$55.0 million) bank facility. As
part of this acquisition, several landlords required bank
guarantees, which increased our restricted cash by $296,000
(AUS$417,000) and reduced our total credit facility by
$1.9 million (AUS$2.7 million). The total fit-out cost
for the two development cinemas aggregated $3.8 million
(AUS$5.0 million) and was paid from our own funds.
As ownership of the various cinemas in the circuit was divided
among a variety of entities and subject to the claims of a
variety of creditors, the acquisitions were ultimately
structured as the acquisition of (i) the shares of one
company, which owns as its sole asset the 10-screen leasehold
cinema at Epping (a suburb of Melbourne), (ii) agreements
to lease with respect to two leasehold cinemas opened in the
fourth quarter at Rhodes (8 screens) (a suburb of Sydney)
and West Lakes (7 screens) (a suburb of Adelaide), and
(iii) three existing leasehold cinemas at Colac
(2 screens), Melton (5 screens) and Sunbury
(5 screens) (all suburbs of Melbourne).
We currently own an approximately four-acre property located in
the Newmarket area of Brisbane, Australia, which we are
developing as an approximately 95,000 square foot shopping
center. On July 1, 2004, we acquired an approximately
12,500 square foot parcel adjacent to that development site
for $1.0 million (AUS$1.4 million). We anticipate that
the addition of this property will allow the addition of a
complementary cinema element to the project. On
December 31, 2004 we entered into a $25.2 million
(AUS$32.7 million) construction loan with the Bank of
Western Australia, Ltd. This loan will be used to fund the
construction of the Newmarket site.
|
|
|
Other Acquisitions or Divestitures |
In addition to the above acquisitions, set out below are certain
transactions that are either pending or have been completed
during the last 24 months:
1. Pending Cinemas 1,
2 & 3 Land Acquisition. On August 4, 2004, we
entered into an agreement to purchase for $12 million the
approximately 7,840 square-foot fee interest underlying our
current leasehold estate in the Cinemas 1, 2 & 3
property located in Manhattan on 3rd Avenue between
58th Street and 59th Street. The ownership of the
Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 property is currently divided
into three components: the fee interest (which we now have under
contract to purchase); the ground lease and improvements (which
are owned by Sutton Hill Capital LLC but which we, have an
option to purchase as a part of a pool of assets in
-85-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
2010); and our current space lease which also runs until 2010.
We are currently in negotiations with Sutton Capital to acquire
immediately Sutton Capitals ground lease interest in the
property and its proprietary interest in the building and other
improvements on the land, and have agreed in principal that, as
a part of the transaction, Sutton Capital will have an option to
acquire at cost up to a 25% non-managing membership
interest in the limited liability company that we have formed to
take title to the property. These negotiations are ongoing, and
any potential transaction will ultimately be subject to review
and approval by the Conflicts Committee of our Board of
Directors. In connection with these negotiations, the parties
are also discussing an early acquisition of Sutton
Capitals interest in the Village East Cinema. As of
December 31, 2004, we had deposited earnest money totaling
$800,000 into escrow with respect to the purchase of the fee
interest.
2. Mt. Gravatt Acquisition.
On May 15, 2003, we acquired, for $2,178,000
(AUS$3,244,000), and the settlement of certain litigation claims
(i) an undivided
1/3rd interest
in the unincorporated joint venture that owns and operates the
16-screen multiplex cinema at the Mt. Gravatt shopping center in
suburban Brisbane, Australia and (ii) the right,
exercisable at any time prior to December 16, 2003, to sell
that interest back to the sellers for $4,960,000
(AUS$7,388,000), the Put Price. We have elected to
continue to hold our ownership interest in that cinema. In
addition, as a part of that settlement, we also received the
right to acquire at cost an undivided interest in an additional
multiplex cinema development opportunity. The extent of our
participation is subject to certain factors outside of our
control, but will not be less than a
1/3 interest
nor greater than a
1/2 interest.
While the development is proceeding, it has not yet reached the
point of maturity where we are obliged to make an election
whether or not to participate, or as to the extent of our
participation.
Our purchase of our undivided ownership interest in the Mt.
Gravatt cinema at the sellers undepreciated historic cost
of $2,178,000 (AUS$3,244,000) resulted in a one-time gain of
$2,259,000 (AUS$3,463,000), net of applicable expenses. The gain
was based on a fair market value for that unconsolidated joint
venture interest of $4,960,000 (AUS$7,388,000), as reflected by
the above described Put Price. In addition, we
received approximately $287,000 (AUS$430,000) in profit
distribution covering the period from December 18, 2002
(the agreed effective date of the parties settlement) to
May 15, 2003 (the date on which the settlement was
completed). We additionally booked the recovery of approximately
$518,000 in legal fees related to the litigation. As permitted
by SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations, the
proceeds were prorated and approximately $60,000 (AUS$92,000)
was recognized as income. The remainder was recorded as an
adjustment to the joint venture purchase price.
3. CineVista Cinemas.
Negotiations for the sale of the Puerto Rican circuit are
ongoing, but have not progressed. No assurances can be given
that the sale will be consummated. As a result, effective
December 31, 2002, the Puerto Rican circuit was no longer
deemed to be an asset held for sale for accounting purposes and
was no longer presented as such at December 31, 2004 or
2003, respectively.
The table below sets forth our investment in rental property as
of the dates indicated (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Rental Property
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$ |
2,951 |
|
|
$ |
2,951 |
|
|
Building and improvements
|
|
|
7,516 |
|
|
|
7,516 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,467 |
|
|
|
10,467 |
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(3,071 |
) |
|
|
(2,551 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rental property, net
|
|
$ |
7,396 |
|
|
$ |
7,916 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-86-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
At December 31, 2004, our office building located in
Glendale, California (the Glendale Building) was our
only rental property not associated with an entertainment
property. This property does not house any of our operations and
is not a part of our cinema exhibition business. With the
exception of the ground floor space, the Glendale Building is
entirely leased to Disney Enterprises, Inc.
(Disney). The rental rate for the Disney lease,
which began on February 1, 1997, is approximately
$164,000 per month through the scheduled lease termination
date of January 31, 2007. In addition, Disney has the
option to renew the lease for one additional five-year period.
Direct costs incurred to obtain the lease of $1,355,000, net of
$1,058,000 in accumulated amortization, consisting of
commissions, legal and other fees, are included in the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as Capitalized leasing
costs at December 31, 2004.
|
|
Note 8 |
Property and Equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
Property and Equipment |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In thousands) | |
|
Land
|
|
$ |
29,579 |
|
|
$ |
26,889 |
|
|
Building
|
|
|
69,288 |
|
|
|
57,919 |
|
|
Leasehold Interests & Improvements
|
|
|
7,947 |
|
|
|
7,305 |
|
|
Construction-in-progress and property development
|
|
|
6,485 |
|
|
|
8,348 |
|
|
Fixtures and equipment
|
|
|
52,264 |
|
|
|
41,397 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost
|
|
|
165,563 |
|
|
|
141,858 |
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(31,903 |
) |
|
|
(19,312 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property and equipment, net
|
|
$ |
133,660 |
|
|
$ |
122,546 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense for property and equipment was $12,591,
$11,794 and $6,779 for the three years ending December 31,
2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
|
|
Note 9 |
Equity Investments, Investment in Joint Ventures and
Investment in Affiliates |
As described in Note 6, in May 2003, we acquired an
undivided
1/3 interest
in an unincorporated joint venture that owns and operates a
16-screen multiplex cinema in Australia. We own an undivided
1/3 interest
in the assets and liabilities of the joint venture, however, our
share of assets and liabilities are not included in the
Consolidated Balance Sheet. As of December 31, 2004, we
have invested $3,845,000 (AUS$4,988,000) in this joint venture.
For the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, our share
of equity earnings of approximately $956,000 (AUS$1,216,000) and
$289,000 (AUS$391,000), respectively, was included in the
Consolidated Income Statement.
|
|
|
New Zealand Joint Ventures |
We have investments in three joint ventures with Everard
Entertainment Ltd in New Zealand (the NZ JVs).
We entered into the first joint venture in 1998, the second in
2003, and the third in 2004. These joint ventures are
unincorporated and as such, we own an undivided 50% interest in
the assets and liabilities of each of the joint ventures;
however, our share of assets and liabilities are not included in
the Consolidated Balance Sheet. As of December 31, 2004, we
had invested $1,226,000 (NZ$1,721,000) in these joint ventures.
-87-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002, our
portion of the NZ JVs equity earnings of approximately
$724,000 (NZ$1,020,000), $298,000 (NZ$461,000) and $248,000
(NZ$456,000), respectively was included in the Consolidated
Statement of Operations.
|
|
|
The Sutton Redevelopment Investment |
On September 14, 2004, we acquired for $2.3 million a
non-managing membership interest in 205-209 East
57th Street Associates, LLC a limited liability company
formed to redevelop our former cinema site at 205 East
57th Street in Manhattan. Our membership interest
represents a 25% interest in the LLC, and was issued to us
by 205-209 East 57th Street Associates, LLC in
consideration of a capital contribution equal to 25% of its
total book capital, calculated after taking into account the
effect of our capital contribution. In December 2004, a capital
call of $2,877,000 was made to make up the shortfall in equity
resulting from higher than budgeted cost for the redevelopment
project. In order not to dilute our 25% interest we decided
to increase our capital contribution by $719,000 as requested
and will make this payment in the first quarter of 2005.
We own a 50% membership interest in AFC, the sole asset of
which is the Angelika Film Center and Café in the Soho
District of Manhattan. We are also the managing partner of AFC.
As such, the operations of AFC are consolidated into these
consolidated financial statements.
|
|
|
Investment in and Advances to the Agricultural
Partnerships |
Up until July 2002, we owned, through certain partnerships, a
40% interest in a 1,600-acre citrus farm in California (the
Agricultural Partnerships). In addition to our
equity investment, we had provided financing to the Agricultural
Partnerships. We wrote off our investment in the Agricultural
Partnerships in 2000 when this investment was deemed
unrecoverable. Big 4 Farming, LLC, in which we held an
80% membership interest, provided farm operation services
to the Agricultural Partnerships and was paid 5% of the gross
agricultural receipts, less certain expenses and reimbursement
of its costs. This operation is now inactive. As of July 1,
2002, the Agricultural Partnerships reconveyed the Big 4
Ranch to the original owner in consideration of the release from
all obligations and liabilities otherwise owed to the original
owner. During the year ended December 31, 2002, we
recovered approximately $1,110,000 in loans previously written
off. We are no longer in any agricultural businesses.
|
|
Note 10 |
Goodwill and Intangible Assets |
Goodwill associated with our asset acquisitions is tested for
impairment in the fourth quarter of every year. Based on the
projected profits and cash flows of the related assets, it was
determined that there is no indication of impairment to our
goodwill as of December 31, 2004 or 2003. Goodwill
increased during the period primarily due to the acquisitions
discussed in Note 6 Acquisitions and Disposal
of Assets. At December 31, 2004, our goodwill of
$13,816,000 consists of the following (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cinema | |
|
Real Estate | |
|
Corporate |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Balance as of January 1, 2004
|
|
$ |
1,050 |
|
|
$ |
4,040 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
5,090 |
|
Goodwill acquired during 2004
|
|
|
7,834 |
|
|
|
322 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,156 |
|
Foreign currency exchange adjustment
|
|
|
544 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
570 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2004
|
|
$ |
9,428 |
|
|
$ |
4,388 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
13,816 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-88-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
We have intangible assets subject to amortization in the amount
of $11,957,000 and $12,248,000, net of accumulated amortization
of $5,295,000 and $4,162,000 for the years ends
December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Intangible assets
consist of the following (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beneficial | |
|
Option | |
|
Acquisition | |
|
|
As of December 31, 2004 |
|
Lease | |
|
Fee | |
|
Costs | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Gross carrying amount
|
|
$ |
10,459 |
|
|
$ |
5,000 |
|
|
$ |
1,793 |
|
|
$ |
17,252 |
|
Less: Accumulated amortization
|
|
|
2,041 |
|
|
|
2,923 |
|
|
|
331 |
|
|
|
5,295 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total, net
|
|
$ |
8,418 |
|
|
$ |
2,077 |
|
|
$ |
1,462 |
|
|
$ |
11,957 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beneficial | |
|
Option | |
|
Acquisition | |
|
|
As of December 31, 2003 |
|
Lease | |
|
Fee | |
|
Costs | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Gross carrying amount
|
|
$ |
10,459 |
|
|
$ |
5,000 |
|
|
$ |
951 |
|
|
$ |
16,410 |
|
Less: Accumulated amortization
|
|
|
1,271 |
|
|
|
2,557 |
|
|
|
334 |
|
|
|
4,162 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total, net
|
|
$ |
9,188 |
|
|
$ |
2,443 |
|
|
$ |
617 |
|
|
$ |
12,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We amortize our beneficial leases over the lease terms of twenty
years and our option fees and acquisition costs over
10 years. For the years ended December 31, 2004 and
2003, this amortization expense totaled $1,277,000 and
$2,142,000, respectively. The estimated amortization expense in
the five succeeding years is approximately $1,252,000 per
annum. As fully described in Note 4 Related
Parties and Transactions, in October 2003, in connection with
the sale of the Sutton Property, among other things, the City
Cinemas Purchase Option was amended to remove the Sutton
Property and to reduce our exercise price by $5,000,000 from
$33,000,000 to $28,000,000. Accordingly, the net carrying value
of the $5,000,000 option was reduced by $890,000 to reflect the
decrease in the City Cinemas property, still available for
purchase following the sale of the Sutton Property in 2003 and
the Murray Hill Property in 2002.
-89-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 11 |
Prepaid and Other Assets |
Prepaid and other assets are summarized as follows (dollars in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Prepaid and other current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid expenses
|
|
$ |
338 |
|
|
$ |
529 |
|
|
Prepaid taxes
|
|
|
762 |
|
|
|
594 |
|
|
Deposits
|
|
|
983 |
|
|
|
341 |
|
|
Impounds
|
|
|
599 |
|
|
|
478 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
503 |
|
|
|
219 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total prepaid and other current assets
|
|
$ |
3,185 |
|
|
$ |
2,161 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Railroad right-of-way and other assets
|
|
$ |
2,073 |
|
|
$ |
2,804 |
|
|
Long-term restricted cash
|
|
|
399 |
|
|
|
387 |
|
|
Deferred rent receivable
|
|
|
200 |
|
|
|
296 |
|
|
Deferred financing costs, net
|
|
|
1,076 |
|
|
|
451 |
|
|
Deferred expense
|
|
|
353 |
|
|
|
179 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-current assets
|
|
$ |
4,133 |
|
|
$ |
4,142 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 12 Future Minimum Rental Income
Rental revenue amounted to $15,275,000, $12,275,000 and
$10,683,000 for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and
2002, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2004,
rental revenue includes the revenue from Courtenay Central,
Invercargill, and Napier in New Zealand; Auburn and Belmont in
Australia; the Glendale office building in California, the
rental live theaters, and the retail space associated within the
Union Square, Village East Cinema in New York; and the Royal
George Theater in Chicago.
We have operating leases with the tenants at the Glendale
Building that expire in 2005 and are subject to scheduled fixed
increases. US GAAP requires that rents due under operating
leases with fixed increases be averaged over the life of the
lease. This practice, known as straight-line rents
creates an unbilled rent receivable in any period during which
the amount of straight-line rent exceeds the actual rent billed,
generally at the inception of the lease period. Included in our
balance sheet as Other, Non-Current (see
Note 11 Prepaid and Other Assets) at
December 31, 2004 and 2003 are approximately $200,000 and
$296,000, respectively, of unbilled rent receivables which have
been recorded under the straight-line method.
-90-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Future minimum rental income under all operating leases is
summarized as follows (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ending December 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
$ |
7,173 |
|
2006
|
|
|
7,516 |
|
2007
|
|
|
4,679 |
|
2008
|
|
|
3,615 |
|
2009
|
|
|
2,053 |
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
12,083 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
37,119 |
|
|
|
|
|
Note 13 Notes Payable
|
|
|
City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility |
In connection with the City Cinemas Transaction, we undertook to
lend SHC up to $28,000,000, commencing in July 2007. With the
release of the Murray Hill cinema from the Operating Lease in
February 2002, this obligation decreased to $18,000,000. In
connection with the sale of the Sutton Property, as more fully
described in Note 4 Related Parties and
Transactions, the City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility was
further reduced by $5,000,000 from $18,000,000 to $13,000,000
and the draw down date was changed to the earlier of October
2005 or the payment of the Sutton Purchase Money Note.
Prior to the sale of the Sutton Property in 2003, our funding
obligation under the City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility was
not recorded on our Consolidated Balance Sheet. Instead, it was
disclosed as an off balance sheet future loan commitment.
Following the October 2003 sale of the Sutton Property, this
loan commitment was recorded as an other non-current
liability on our Consolidated Balance Sheet. On
September 14, 2004 the Sutton Purchase Money Note was paid,
and $8.0 million of the proceeds were called by SHC as a
drawdown of the City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility. We have
been advised by SHC that it will not be calling the remainder of
the City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility ($5.0 million)
until July 2007. We are currently paying interest at
8.98% per annum on the $5.0 million that has been
funded to date with respect to this facility.
The City Cinemas Standby Credit Facility is intended to provide
SHC with liquidity pending our determination whether or not to
purchase the assets leased pursuant to the City Cinemas
Operating Lease. Any amounts outstanding under this credit
facility at the date the option is exercised will be a credit
against the purchase price otherwise payable by us. Initially,
SHCs obligation to repay the amounts advanced under the
City Cinemas Standby Credit Agreement was secured by the assets
of SHC which comprised the assets subject to the City Cinemas
Operating Lease. However, as explained in greater detail in
Note 4 and for the reasons set forth in Note 4,
incident to the sale of the Sutton Property, we agreed in
connection with the sale of the Sutton Cinema, that if we did
not exercise the City Cinemas Purchase Option, the principal
amount outstanding under the City Cinemas Standby Credit
Facility would be forgiven.
|
|
|
Royal George Theater LLC Term Loan |
On November 29, 2002, we entered into a $2,500,000 loan
agreement with a financial institution, secured by our Royal
George Theater in Chicago, Illinois. The loan is a 5-year term
loan that accrues a variable interest rate payable monthly in
arrears. As of December 31, 2004, the interest rate on the
loan was 5.04%. The loan agreement contains various
non-financial covenants. The most restrictive covenant is that
we must
-91-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
maintain the ratio of EBITDA (as defined by the loan agreement)
to capital expenditures, taxes and loan payments of at least 1.1
to 1. We owed $2,153,000 and $2,319,000 on this term loan as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Our interest
expense totaled $89,000, $91,000 and $97,000 for the years ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. The loan is
guaranteed by us.
|
|
|
Union Square Theater Term Loan |
On October 4, 2001, we entered into a $3,500,000 loan
agreement with a financial institution secured by our Union
Square Theater in Manhattan. This 10-year term loan accrues
interest at 7.31% for the first five years with the interest
rate adjusting in the sixth year, and may be prepaid at the end
of the fifth year without penalty. We owed $3,325,000 and
$3,385,000 on this term loan for the years ended
December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Our interest
expense totaled $245,000 and $250,000 for the years ended
December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. While this loan
is structured as a limited recourse liability (the only
collateral being our Union Square building and the tenant leases
with respect to that building), this non-recourse structure is
somewhat offset by our inter-company obligation under the lease
of the live theater portion of the building, which provides for
an annual rent of $546,000.
|
|
|
Glendale Office Building Term Loan |
On December 20, 1999, we entered into an $11,000,000 loan
agreement with an institutional lender secured by our Glendale
Office Building in Glendale, California. This ten-year loan
accrues interest at a fixed rate of 8.18% per annum. We
owed $10,188,000 and $10,380,000 on this term loan as of ended
December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Our interest
expense totaled $840,000 and $841,000 for the years ended
December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The lenders
recourse under this loan is limited to the Glendale Office
Building and the tenant leases related thereto.
|
|
|
Australian General Corporate Credit Facility |
On October 4, 2004, we entered into a $39.3 million
(AUS$55.0 million) credit facility with the Bank of Western
Australia, Ltd through our Australian subsidiary, Reading
Entertainment, Australia, Pty, Limited (the Australia
Credit Facility). This credit facility replaces our prior
facility with that lender in the amount of $21.4 million
(AUS$30.0 million), expires on January 1, 2009 and
provides for interest-only payments until June 30, 2006.
Our Australian Corporate Credit Facility is secured by
substantially all of our cinema assets in Australia, but has not
been guaranteed by any company other than several of our wholly
owned Australian subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2004, we
have drawn down $24.9 million (AUS$32.3 million) on
our Australian Corporate Credit Facility with an additional
reduction of the overall facility of $1.9 million
(AUS$2.7 million) for bank guarantees. At December 31,
2004, the variable interest rate on this credit facility was
6.48%. The credit facility includes a number of affirmative and
negative covenants designed to protect the Banks security
interests. The most restrictive covenant of the facility is a
limitation on the total amount that we are able to drawdown
based on the total assets that are securing the loan. Our
Australian Corporate Credit Facility provides for floating
interest rates based on the BBSY (Bank Bill Swap Bid Rate) bid
rate, but requires that not less than 50% of the loan be swapped
into fixed rate obligations. The facility allowed us to utilize
the old swap that was in place for our previous facility, at
6.70%, through its term, and to swap up to 50% of the maximum
credit facility immediately. As a result, at December 31,
2004, the floating rate portion, at 6.48% was $3.7 million
(AUS$4.8 million); the old swap at 6.70% was notionally
$10.2 million (AUS$13.3 million); and the new swap, at
7.44% was notionally $10.9 million (AUS$14.3 million).
The old swap fully expires on December 31, 2007, at which
time the full swap amount will be held under the new swap, which
expires on December 31, 2008. All interest rates above
include a 1.00% interest rate margin.
-92-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
On December 31, 2004 we entered into a $25.2 million
(AUS$32.7 million) construction draw loan with the Bank of
Western Australia, Ltd through our Australian subsidiary
Newmarket Properties Pty, Ltd. (the Newmarket Loan).
This loan is being used to finance the construction of our
approximately 100,000 square foot shopping center,
currently under construction in Newmarket, Queensland, Australia
and is generally without recourse to our assets other than the
Newmarket construction project and the various Australian based
cinema assets which also secure our Australian Corporate Credit
Facility. Our Newmarket Loan has not been guaranteed by any
entity other than several of our Australian subsidiaries. The
construction portion of our Newmarket Loan converts to a term
loan on completion of the construction and is interest only
during the construction period and for the remaining years of
the term loan expiring on January 1, 2009. Our Newmarket
Loan provides for floating rate interest and includes usual and
customary affirmative and negative covenants designed to protect
the banks security interest. The most restrictive covenant
of the facility is a limitation on the total amount that we are
able to drawdown based on the total assets that are securing the
loan. While our Newmarket Loan provides for a floating rate of
interest, it requires not less than 75% of the loan to be
swapped into fixed rate obligations. At December 31, 2004,
the fixed rate portion under the interest rate swap was at
7.18%. The current swap continues until May 31, 2006. As of
December 31, 2004, we had not as yet drawn down on the
loan. All interest rates above include a 1.00% interest rate
margin.
|
|
|
Fair Value of Interest Rate Swap Agreements |
In accordance with SFAS No. 133, we marked our
Australian interest rate swap instruments to market resulting in
$91,000 (AUS$118,000) increase to interest expense during 2004
and a $80,000 (AUS$106,000) decrease in interest expense in 2003
(See Note 23 Derivative Instruments).
|
|
|
New Zealand Corporate Credit Facility |
On November 23, 2004, we replaced our existing
$20.9 million (NZ$31.3 million) credit facility with a
$35.5 million (NZ$50.0 million) credit facility with
Westpac Banking Corporation. The facility is secured by
substantially all of our New Zealand assets, but has not been
guaranteed by any entity other than several of our New Zealand
subsidiaries. The facility expires on November 23, 2009 and
provides for payment of interest only through November 23,
2006. The credit facility has been fully drawn in order to repay
the replaced facility and to finance our previously disclosed
acquisition of six cinemas (27 screens) and three
underlying fee interests in New Zealand. The facility includes
various affirmative and negative covenants designed to protect
the banks security, limits capital expenditures and the
repatriation of funds out of New Zealand without the approval of
the bank. The most restrictive covenant of the facility is the
restriction of transferring funds from subsidiary to parent.
Interest on the facility is a floating rate. At
December 31, 2004 that rate was 8.25% (which includes a
1.45% interest rate margin) and the amount outstanding was
$35.5 million (NZ$50.0 million).
-93-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Our aggregate future principal loan payments are as follows
(dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ending December 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
$ |
610 |
|
2006
|
|
|
1,529 |
|
2007
|
|
|
9,638 |
|
2008
|
|
|
2,785 |
|
2009
|
|
|
56,297 |
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
12,393 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
83,252 |
|
|
|
|
|
Since approximately $62,586,000 of our total debt of $83,252,000
at December 31, 2004 consisted of debt denominated in
Australian and New Zealand dollars, the U.S. dollar amounts
of these repayments will fluctuate in accordance with the
relative values of these currencies.
|
|
Note 14 |
Other Liabilities |
Other liabilities are summarized as follows (dollars in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred payables
|
|
$ |
599 |
|
|
$ |
1,104 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
599 |
|
|
$ |
1,148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign withholding taxes
|
|
$ |
5,233 |
|
|
$ |
4,995 |
|
|
Straight-line rent liability
|
|
|
3,747 |
|
|
|
3,387 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,314 |
|
|
|
1,251 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
11,294 |
|
|
$ |
9,633 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 15 |
Minority Interest |
The minority interests are comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
50% of membership interest in AFC by a subsidiary of National
Auto Credit, Inc. (NAC) |
|
|
|
25% minority interest in Australian Country Cinemas by
21st Century Pty, Ltd |
|
|
|
20% minority interest in Big 4 Farming LLC by Cecelia Packing
Corporation |
-94-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The components of minority interest are as follows (dollars in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
AFC
|
|
$ |
2,997 |
|
|
$ |
3,816 |
|
Australian Country Cinemas
|
|
|
471 |
|
|
|
672 |
|
Other
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,470 |
|
|
$ |
4,488 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 16 |
Lease Agreements |
Most of our cinemas conduct their operations in leased
facilities. Nine of our thirteen operating multiplexes in
Australia, three of our seven cinemas in New Zealand and all of
our cinemas in the United States and Puerto Rico are in leased
facilities. These cinema leases have remaining terms inclusive
of options of 10 to 50 years. Certain of our cinema leases
provide for contingent rentals based upon a specified percentage
of theater revenues with a guaranteed minimum. Substantially all
of our leases require the payment of property taxes, insurance
and other costs applicable to the property. We also lease office
space and equipment under non-cancelable operating leases. All
of our leases are accounted for as operating leases and
accordingly, we have no leases which require capitalization.
We determine the annual base rent expense of our cinemas by
amortizing total minimum lease obligations on a straight-line
basis over the lease terms. Base rent expense and contingent
rental expense under the operating leases totaled approximately
$9,552,000 and $2,164,000 for 2004, respectively, and $8,953,000
and $2,105,000, respectively, for 2003. Future minimum lease
payments by year and, in the aggregate, under non-cancelable
operating leases consist of the following at December 31,
2004 (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum | |
|
|
Lease | |
|
|
Payments | |
|
|
| |
2005
|
|
$ |
13,601 |
|
2006
|
|
|
13,739 |
|
2007
|
|
|
13,923 |
|
2008
|
|
|
13,173 |
|
2009
|
|
|
12,797 |
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
98,966 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total minimum lease payments
|
|
$ |
166,199 |
|
|
|
|
|
Since approximately $4,222,000 of our total minimum lease
payments of $9,552,000 for the year ended December 31, 2004
consisted of lease obligations denominated in Australian and New
Zealand dollars, the U.S. dollar amounts of these obligations
will fluctuate in accordance with the relative values of these
currencies.
|
|
Note 17 |
Commitments and Contingencies |
Sutton Hill Capital
In connection with the City Cinemas Transaction discussed in
Note 4, we undertook to lend SHC up to $28,000,000,
commencing in July 2007 pursuant to the City Cinemas Standby
Credit Facility. With the release of the Murray Hill Cinema from
the City Cinemas Operating Lease in February 2002, our funding
obligation under the City Cinemas Credit Facility decreased to
$18,000,000. With the sale of the Sutton
-95-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Property as fully described in Note 4
Related Parties and Transactions, the City Cinemas Credit
Facility was further reduced by $5,000,000 from $18,000,000 to
$13,000,000 and the draw down date was accelerated from December
2007 to September 14, 2004, the day the purchaser of Sutton
Cinemas property paid off the note receivable to conform to the
payment of the Sutton Purchase Money Note.
|
|
|
Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 Land Acquisition |
On August 4, 2004, we entered into an agreement to purchase
for $12 million the approximately 7,840 square-foot
fee interest underlying our current leasehold estate in the
Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 property located in Manhattan on
3rd Avenue between 58th Street and 59th Street.
The ownership of the Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 property is
currently divided into three components: the fee interest (which
we now have under contract to purchase); the ground lease and
improvements (which are owned by Sutton Hill Capital LLC, but
which we have an option to purchase as a part of a pool of
assets in 2010); and our current space lease which also runs
until 2010. We are currently in negotiations with Sutton Capital
to acquire immediately Sutton Capitals ground lease
interest in the property and its proprietary interest in the
building and other improvements on the land, and have agreed in
principal that, as a part of the transaction, Sutton Capital
will have an option to acquire at cost up to a 25% non-managing
membership interest in the limited liability company that we
have formed to take title to the property. These negotiations
are ongoing, and any transaction, if any, will ultimately be
subject to review and approval by the Conflicts Committee of our
Board of Directors. In connection with these negotiations, the
parties are also discussing an early acquisition of Sutton
Capitals interest in the Village East Cinema. As of
December 31, 2004, we had deposited earnest money totaling
$800,000 into escrow. For further information as to the status
of this acquisition please see Note 25
Subsequent Events.
|
|
|
New Zealand Joint Venture Loans |
We are the 50% co-owners with the Everard Entertainment Ltd of
the assets comprising three unincorporated joint ventures in New
Zealand, referred to in these financial statements as the NZ
JVs. We are 50% liable for three bank loans aggregating
$10,685,000 (NZ$14,996,000) which are secured by a first
mortgage over the land and building assets of the three joint
ventures. However, as we do not consolidate the accounts of the
NZ JVs, the bank loans discussed above are not reflected in the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2004. These
loans are without recourse to any assets other than our
interests in these three joint ventures.
We are also the tenant under the lease of the Christchurch
cinema owned by one of the NZ JVs. While we have assigned our
beneficial interest in that lease to one of the NZ JVs, and
while Everard Entertainment LTD has agreed to indemnify us as to
50% of any liability under that lease, we remain, as a legal
matter, liable to the landlord for 100% of the obligations of
the tenant under that lease.
The Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) has completed
its audits of the tax return of RDGE for its tax year ended
December 31, 1996 and the tax return of CRG for its tax
year ended June 30, 1997. With respect to both of these
companies, the principal focus of these audits was the treatment
of the contribution by RDGE to our wholly owned subsidiary,
Reading Australia, and thereafter the subsequent repurchase by
Stater Bros. Inc. from Reading Australia of certain preferred
stock in Stater Bros. Inc. (the Stater Stock)
received by RDGE from CRG as a part of a private placement of
securities by RDGE which closed in October 1996.
By letters dated November 9, 2001, the IRS issued reports
of examination proposing changes to the tax returns of RDGE and
CRG for the years in question (the Examination
Reports). The Examination Report for each of RDGE and CRG
proposed that the gains on the disposition by RDGE of Stater
Stock, reported as taxable on the RDGE return, should be
allocated to CRG. As reported, the gain resulted in no
additional tax to RDGE inasmuch as the gain was entirely offset
by a net operating loss carry forward of RDGE. This
-96-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
proposed change would result in an additional tax liability for
CRG of approximately $21,850,000 plus interest of approximately
$11,000,000 as of December 31, 2004. In addition, this
proposal would result in California tax liability of
approximately $5,500,000 plus interest of approximately
$3,000,000 as of December 31, 2004. Accordingly, this
proposed change represented, as at the end of 2004, an exposure
of approximately $41,500,000. Moreover, California has recently
enacted amnesty provisions imposing additional
liability on taxpayers who are determined to have materially
underreported their taxable income. While these provisions have
been criticized by a number of corporate taxpayers to the extent
that they apply to tax liabilities that are being contested in
good faith, no assurances can be given that these new provisions
will be applied in a manner that would mitigate the impact on
such taxpayers. Accordingly, these provisions may cause an
additional $4,000,000 exposure to CRG, for a total exposure of
approximately $45,500,000.
In early February, we had a mediation conference with the IRS
concerning this proposed change. The mediation was conducted by
two mediators, one of whom was selected by the taxpayer from the
private sector and one of whom was an employee of the IRS. In
connection with this mediation, we and the IRS each prepared
written submissions to the mediators setting forth our
respective cases. In its written submission, the IRS noted that
it had offered to settle its claims against us at 30% of the
proposed change, and reiterated this offer at the medication.
This offer constituted, in effect, an offer to settle for a
payment of $5,500,000 federal tax, plus interest, for an
aggregate settlement amount of approximately $8,000,000. Based
on advice of counsel given after reviewing the materials
submitted by the IRS to the mediation panel, and the oral
presentation made by the IRS to the mediation panel and the
comments of the mediators (including the IRS mediator) we
determined not to accept this offer.
We anticipate that we will shortly receive a notice of
deficiency in the full amount of the IRSs proposed change,
and we intend to aggressively litigate this matter in the tax
court. While there are always risks in litigation, we believe
that a settlement at the level currently offered by the IRS
would substantially understate the strength of our position and
the likelihood that we would prevail in a trial of this matter.
Since these tax liabilities relate to time periods prior to the
Consolidation of CDL, RDGE, and CRG into Reading International,
Inc. and since RDGE and CRG continue to exist as wholly owned
subsidiaries of RII, it is expected that any adverse
determination would be limited in recourse to the assets of RDGE
or CRG, as the case may be, and not to the general assets of
RII. At the present time, the assets of these subsidiaries are
comprised principally of RII securities. Accordingly, we do not
anticipate, even if there were to be an adverse judgment in
favor of the IRS that the satisfaction of that judgment would
interfere with the internal operation or result in any levy upon
or loss of any of our material operating assets. The
satisfaction of any such adverse judgment would, however, result
in a material dilution to existing stockholder interests.
The IRS has also informally notified us that it intends to
disallow the gains booked by RDGE in 1997 as a consequence of
its acquisition certain computer equipment and sale of the
anticipated income stream from the lease of such equipment to
third parties. The result of such disallowance would be the loss
of the depreciation deductions that we took with respect to that
equipment in the years following 1997. Such disallowance would
have the effect of decreasing net operating losses but would not
result in any additional federal income tax for such years. We
have advised the IRS that we intend to appeal this
determination. In turn, such disallowance would increase our
state tax exposure for those years by approximately $170,000.
Since we offset the gain claimed in 1997 against then expiring
net operating losses, the only impact of the IRS position
at the federal level would be the refund to us of approximately
$440,000 plus interest, representing the alternative minimum tax
we paid to the IRS with respect to that transaction.
|
|
|
Environmental and Asbestos Claims |
The City of Philadelphia (the City) has asserted
that the North Viaduct property owned by a subsidiary of Reading
requires environmental decontamination and that such
subsidiarys share of any such remediation cost will
aggregate approximately $3,500,000. The City has also asserted
that we should demolish
-97-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
certain bridges and overpasses that comprise a portion of the
North Viaduct. We have in the recent past had discussions with
the City involving a possible conveyance of the property.
However, these discussions have not been productive of any
definitive offer or proposal from the City. We have also
recently received an offer for the property from a firm
specializing the in the acquisition and redevelopment of so
called brown fields sites, indicating to us that the
North Viaduct has value over and above costs of remediation.
Accordingly, we continue to believe that our recorded
remediation reserves related to the North Viaduct are adequate.
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 which 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. 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 rail road 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. To date, we have only had one such
third party claim.
|
|
|
Whitehorse Center Litigation |
On October 30, 2000, we commenced litigation in the Supreme
Court of Victoria at Melbourne, Commercial and Equity Division,
against our joint venture partner and the controlling
stockholders of our joint venture partner in the Whitehorse
Center. That action is entitled Reading Entertainment
Australia PTY, LTD vs. Burstone Victoria PTY, LTD and May Way
Khor and David Frederick Burr, and was brought to collect on
a promissory note (the K/B Promissory Note)
evidencing a loan that we made to Ms. Khor and
Mr. Burr and that was guaranteed by Burstone Victoria PTY,
LTD (Burstone). The defendants asserted certain
set-offs and counterclaims, alleging, in essence, that we
breached our alleged obligations to proceed with the development
of the Whitehorse Shopping Center, causing the defendants
substantial damages. Following trial, the trial court determined
that we had breached certain obligations owed to WPG (the joint
venture in which we own a 50% interest) but not any obligations
owed to Ms. Khor, Mr. Burr or Burstone. Accordingly,
due to a variety of factors, we have no direct liability to
Ms. Khor, Mr. Burr or Burstone. Furthermore, it
appears that any recovery that Ms. Khor, Mr. Burr
and/or Burstone may obtain through WPG will be significantly
less than their liability to us on the loan. Accordingly, it
appears that the net result, in the view of the trial court, is
a net liability from Ms. Khor and Mr. Burr to us,
before the assessment of attorneys fees.
Australia follows the so called English Rule that
the prevailing party in an action is entitled to recoup
attorneys fees. However, since (i) both parties to
some extent prevailed in their claims, (ii) a number of the
defenses and claims raised by Ms. Khor and Mr. Burr
were struck down by the court or ultimately conceded at trial by
Ms. Khor and Mr. Burr, and (iii) the standard for
assessment of attorneys fees is different in an action on a
promissory note providing for the assessment of attorneys fees
(as did the K/ B Promissory Note), in which case the court will
typically assess attorneys fees at 100% of the amount billed,
and the assessment of the amount of legal fees in the absence of
such a contractual obligation, in which case the court will
typically assess attorneys fees at approximately 66% of the
amount billed, the amount of attorneys that Ms, Khor and
Mr. Burr will be responsible to us for and the amount of
legal fees that we will be responsible to Ms. Khor and
Mr. Burr is uncertain, and currently awaits determination
of this issue by the Trial Court.
We have retained a senior Queens Counsel to conduct an
independent review of the evidence submitted at trial and the
trial courts opinion, and have been advice of such
counsel, that in his opinion the trial court erred in a number
of critical aspects, and that we should have no liability to WPG
or any of the Burstone
-98-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
parties. Accordingly, we intend to appeal that part of the trial
courts determination. Since Ms. Khor and
Mr. Burr do not contest their liability under the K/ B
Promissory Note, and since we are advised that there is no right
on the part of Ms, Khor and Mr. Burr to set off against
their liability on the K/ B Promissory Note their judgment
against us pending appeal, we currently intend to pursue
collection of the principal and interest owed on the K/ B
Promissory, and to pursue an appeal of the trial courts
decision against us on the repudiation and damages issues.
We are not a party to any other pending legal proceedings or
environmental action which we believe could have a material
adverse effect on our financial position.
Note 18 Common Stock
Our common stock trades on the American Stock Exchange under the
symbols RDI and RDI.B which are our Class A (non-voting)
and Class B (voting) stock, respectively. Our
Class A (non-voting) has preference over our Class B
(voting) share upon liquidation. No dividends have ever
been issued for either share class.
During 2004, we issued 98,949 shares at $8.00 (NZ$11.94)
per share in connection with our acquisition of six cinemas in
New Zealand. The holders of these shares have the right to sell
such shares back to us at NZ$11.94 per share at any time
during January 1, 2006. During 2004, at the request of
certain of our stockholders, we exchanged 486,908 shares of
our Class B Voting Common Stock held by such holders for a
like number of shares of our Class A Non-Voting Common
Stock.
Note 19 Income Taxes
Loss before provision for income tax expense included the
following (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
United States
|
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
(9,345 |
) |
|
$ |
1,704 |
|
Foreign
|
|
|
(9,117 |
) |
|
|
3,540 |
|
|
|
(9,863 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(9,097 |
) |
|
$ |
(5,805 |
) |
|
$ |
(8,159 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-99-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Significant components of the provision for income taxes are as
follows (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Current income tax expense (benefit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(1,184 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,134 |
) |
|
State
|
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
367 |
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
830 |
|
|
|
988 |
|
|
|
759 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,046 |
|
|
|
(297 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
819 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
State
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
189 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,008 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income tax expense
|
|
$ |
1,046 |
|
|
$ |
711 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effect of
temporary differences between the financial
statement carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for
financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax
purposes. The components of the deferred tax liabilities and
assets are as follows (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
Deferred tax assets (Liabilities) |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
Acquired and option properties
|
|
$ |
1,515 |
|
|
$ |
1,408 |
|
|
Net operating loss carry forwards
|
|
|
27,516 |
|
|
|
26,921 |
|
|
Impairment reserves
|
|
|
13,439 |
|
|
|
13,159 |
|
|
Alternative minimum tax carry forwards
|
|
|
3,445 |
|
|
|
3,415 |
|
|
Unrealized (gain) loss on marketable securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
Installment sale of cinema property
|
|
|
5,671 |
|
|
|
5,324 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
827 |
|
|
|
456 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross deferred tax assets
|
|
|
52,413 |
|
|
|
50,661 |
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
(52,413 |
) |
|
|
(50,661 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax asset
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have determined as of December 31, 2004 that $52,413,000
of deferred tax assets does not satisfy the recognition criteria
set forth in SFAS No. 109 Accounting
for Income Taxes. Accordingly, a valuation allowance has
been recorded for this amount.
-100-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
As of December 31, 2004, we had the following U.S. net
operating loss carry forwards (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Expiration Date |
|
Amount | |
|
|
| |
2018
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
2019
|
|
|
1,376 |
|
2020
|
|
|
542 |
|
2021
|
|
|
16,777 |
|
2022
|
|
|
1,636 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
20,335 |
|
|
|
|
|
We have approximately $3,445,000 in alternative minimum tax
credit carry forwards at December 31, 2004 that have no
expiration date. In addition, we have approximately $39,000,000
in Australia loss carry forwards and $2,200,000 in New Zealand
loss carry forwards that have no expiration date. Finally, we
also have approximately $16,950,000 in Puerto Rico loss carry
forwards expiring no later than 2011. We do not expect to
generate enough Puerto Rico taxable income to materially utilize
Puerto Rico loss carry forwards. Reading Management expects no
other substantial limitations on the future use of U.S. or
foreign loss carry forwards except for reductions in unused
U.S. loss carry forwards that may occur in connection with
the 1996 Tax Audit described in Note 17
Commitments and Contingencies.
The provision for income taxes is different from amounts
computed by applying U.S. statutory rate to consolidated
losses before taxes. The significant reason for these
differences follows (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Expected tax benefit
|
|
$ |
(2,596 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,826 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,784 |
) |
Reduction (increase) in taxes resulting from:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in valuation allowance
|
|
|
1,752 |
|
|
|
1,699 |
|
|
|
1,544 |
|
|
Foreign withholding tax provision
|
|
|
830 |
|
|
|
802 |
|
|
|
759 |
|
|
Tax effect of foreign tax rates on current income
|
|
|
341 |
|
|
|
433 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
State and local tax (benefit) provision
|
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
367 |
|
|
Other items
|
|
|
503 |
|
|
|
(485 |
) |
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual tax provision
|
|
$ |
1,046 |
|
|
$ |
711 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pursuant to ABP No. 23, Accounting for Income
Taxes-Special Areas, a provision should be made for the
tax effect of earnings of foreign subsidiaries which are not
permanently invested outside the United States. In our opinion,
the earnings of our foreign subsidiaries are not permanently
invested outside the United States. No earnings were available
in the Reading Australia consolidated group of subsidiaries or
in the Puerto Rico subsidiary as of December 31, 2004. The
Reading New Zealand consolidated group of subsidiaries generated
pre-tax earnings in 2004, though continues with a deficit in
earnings accumulated since inception. In our opinion,
withholding taxes related to the current pre-tax earnings would
not have a material effect on financial reporting. Accordingly,
no tax provision under APB 23 has been made.
We have accrued $11.0 million in income tax liabilities as
of December 31, 2004, of which $6.3 million have been
classified as income taxes payable and $4.7 million have
been classified as other non-current liabilities. We believe
this amount represents an adequate provision for our income tax
provision for our income tax exposures, including income tax
contingencies related to foreign withholding taxes described in
Note 14 Other Liabilities and to the 1996 Tax
Audit described in Note 17 Commitments and
Contingencies.
-101-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Note 20 Comprehensive Income
US GAAP requires us to classify unrealized gains and losses on
equity securities as well as our foreign currency adjustments as
comprehensive income. The following table sets forth our
comprehensive income for the periods indicated (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(8,463 |
) |
|
$ |
(5,928 |
) |
Cumulative foreign currency adjustment
|
|
|
1,190 |
|
|
|
23,373 |
|
Unrealized loss on securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(219 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive (loss) income
|
|
$ |
(7,273 |
) |
|
$ |
17,226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 21 |
Business Segments and Geographic Area Information |
Effective the fourth quarter of 2004, we reorganized our
operating segments separating live theater rental activities
from our cinema exhibition segment and included live theater
rentals as part of our real estate segment to provide better
operational clarity and transparency of reporting.
The table below sets forth certain information concerning our
cinema operations and our real estate operations (including
information relating to both our real estate development, retail
rental and live theater rental activities) for the three years
ended December 31, 2004 (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cinema | |
|
Real Estate | |
|
Corporate | |
|
Consolidated | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
$ |
87,257 |
|
|
$ |
15,725 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
102,982 |
|
Net earnings (loss)
|
|
|
1,040 |
|
|
|
2,816 |
|
|
|
(12,319 |
) |
|
|
(8,463 |
) |
Assets
|
|
|
81,439 |
|
|
|
133,110 |
|
|
|
15,678 |
|
|
|
230,227 |
|
Capital expenditures (including acquisitions)
|
|
|
21,971 |
|
|
|
11,016 |
|
|
|
193 |
|
|
|
33,180 |
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
$ |
81,464 |
|
|
$ |
12,275 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
93,739 |
|
Net earnings (loss)
|
|
|
4,163 |
|
|
|
(479 |
) |
|
|
(9,612 |
) |
|
|
(5,928 |
) |
Assets
|
|
|
72,180 |
|
|
|
133,677 |
|
|
|
17,009 |
|
|
|
222,866 |
|
Capital expenditures (including acquisitions)
|
|
|
3,321 |
|
|
|
2,401 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
5,809 |
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
$ |
75,717 |
|
|
$ |
10,683 |
|
|
$ |
86 |
|
|
$ |
86,486 |
|
Net earnings (loss)
|
|
|
1,462 |
|
|
|
415 |
|
|
|
(9,831 |
) |
|
|
(7,954 |
) |
Assets
|
|
|
54,403 |
|
|
|
115,451 |
|
|
|
12,918 |
|
|
|
182,772 |
|
Capital expenditures (including acquisitions)
|
|
|
4,815 |
|
|
|
5,340 |
|
|
|
282 |
|
|
|
10,437 |
|
The cinema results shown above include revenue and operating
expense directly linked to our cinema assets.
The real estate results include rental income from our
properties and live theaters offset by operating expense,
including mortgage interest.
Corporate expense/income includes expense and/or income that are
not directly attributable to other operating segments.
-102-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table sets forth the book value of our property
and equipment by geographical area (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Australia
|
|
$ |
67,399 |
|
|
$ |
65,689 |
|
|
$ |
49,258 |
|
New Zealand
|
|
|
41,582 |
|
|
|
31,372 |
|
|
|
26,127 |
|
Puerto Rico
|
|
|
1,987 |
|
|
|
2,403 |
|
|
|
2,602 |
|
United States
|
|
|
22,692 |
|
|
|
23,082 |
|
|
|
23,494 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
133,660 |
|
|
$ |
122,546 |
|
|
$ |
101,481 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table sets forth our revenues by geographical area
(dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Australia
|
|
$ |
46,979 |
|
|
$ |
35,833 |
|
|
$ |
31,121 |
|
New Zealand
|
|
|
13,531 |
|
|
|
10,079 |
|
|
|
5,786 |
|
Puerto Rico
|
|
|
12,932 |
|
|
|
14,336 |
|
|
|
14,581 |
|
United States
|
|
|
29,540 |
|
|
|
33,491 |
|
|
|
34,998 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
102,982 |
|
|
$ |
93,739 |
|
|
$ |
86,486 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 22 Quarterly Financial Information
(Unaudited dollars in thousands, except per share
amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First | |
|
Second | |
|
Third | |
|
Fourth | |
|
|
Quarter | |
|
Quarter | |
|
Quarter | |
|
Quarter | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
$ |
23,338 |
|
|
$ |
25,066 |
|
|
$ |
28,098 |
|
|
$ |
26,480 |
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(1,353 |
) |
|
$ |
(584 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,162 |
) |
|
$ |
(4,364 |
) |
Basic loss per share
|
|
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.03 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.10 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.20 |
) |
Diluted loss per share
|
|
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.03 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.10 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.20 |
) |
|
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
$ |
21,970 |
|
|
$ |
23,285 |
|
|
$ |
23,656 |
|
|
$ |
24,828 |
|
Net (loss) income
|
|
$ |
(1,945 |
) |
|
$ |
1,418 |
|
|
$ |
(2,577 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,824 |
) |
Basic (loss) earnings per share
|
|
$ |
(0.09 |
) |
|
$ |
0.06 |
|
|
$ |
(0.12 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.12 |
) |
Diluted (loss) earnings per share
|
|
$ |
(0.09 |
) |
|
$ |
0.06 |
|
|
$ |
(0.12 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.12 |
) |
In our opinion, the unaudited quarterly financial information
presented above reflects all adjustments that are necessary for
a fair presentation of the results of the quarterly periods
presented.
The net income in the second quarter of 2003 reflects the
recognition of a gain of approximately $2,259,000 and the
recovery of approximately $518,000 in legal fees relating to the
settlement of a lawsuit with certain Australian distributors and
exhibitors and is fully described in Note 6
Acquisitions and Disposal Assets.
-103-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Note 23 Derivative Instruments
We are exposed to interest rate changes from our outstanding
floating rate borrowings. We manage our fixed to floating rate
debt mix to mitigate the impact of adverse changes in interest
rates on earnings and cash flows and on the market value of our
borrowings. From time to time, we may enter into interest rate
hedging contracts which effectively convert a portion of our
Australian dollar and/or New Zealand dollar denominated variable
rate debt to a fixed rate over the term of the interest rate
swap. In the case of our Australia borrowings, we are presently
required to swap no less than 50% of our draw downs under our
Australian Corporate Credit Facility and no less than 75% of our
draw downs under our Newmarket Loan into fixed interest rate
obligations.
The following table sets forth the terms of our interest rate
swap derivative instruments at December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receive Variable | |
|
|
Type of Instrument | |
|
Notional Amount | |
|
Pay Fixed Rate | |
|
Rate | |
|
Maturity Date | |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
Interest rate swap |
|
|
$ |
2,356,000 |
|
|
|
6.1800 |
% |
|
|
5.4400 |
% |
|
|
March 31, 2006 |
|
|
Interest rate swap |
|
|
$ |
12,585,000 |
|
|
|
6.6800 |
% |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
December 31, 2008 |
|
|
Interest rate swap |
|
|
$ |
10,985,000 |
|
|
|
6.4400 |
% |
|
|
5.4833 |
% |
|
|
December 31, 2008 |
|
|
Interest rate swap |
|
|
$ |
10,214,000 |
|
|
|
5.7000 |
% |
|
|
5.4833 |
% |
|
|
December 31, 2007 |
|
In accordance with SFAS No. 133 Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, we marked our
Australian interest swap instruments to market on the
consolidated balance sheet resulting in an $91,000 (AUS$118,000)
increase to interest expense during 2004 and an $80,000
(AUS$106,000) decrease in interest expense in 2003. We have
recorded the fair market value of our interest rate swaps of
$810,000 (AUS$1,050,000) as an other long-term liability. The
swap with a notional amount of $12,585,000 does not have a
Receive Variable Rate because we had not drawn on the facility
as of December 31, 2004. In accordance with
SFAS No. 133, we have not designated any of our
current interest rate swap positions as financial reporting
hedges.
Note 24 Investments in and Advances to
Unconsolidated Joint Ventures
Investments in and advances to unconsolidated joint ventures are
accounted for under the equity method of accounting, and as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003 include the following (dollars
in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Interest | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Mt. Gravatt
|
|
|
33.3% |
|
|
$ |
3,845 |
|
|
$ |
2,032 |
|
Berkeley Cinemas
|
|
|
50.0% |
|
|
|
1,217 |
|
|
|
1,375 |
|
205-209 East 57th Street Associates, LLC
|
|
|
25.0% |
|
|
|
2,290 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
7,352 |
|
|
$ |
3,407 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As described in Note 6, in May 2003, we acquired an
undivided 1/3 interest in an unincorporated joint venture that
owns and operates a 16-screen multiplex cinema in Australia.
We have investments in three joint ventures with Everard
Entertainment Ltd in New Zealand (the NZ JVs).
We entered into the first joint venture in 1998, the second in
2003, and the third in 2004. We own an undivided 50% interest in
the assets and liabilities of each of the joint ventures.
-104-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
205-209 East 57th Street Associates, LLC |
On September 14, 2004, we acquired for $2.3 million a
non-managing membership interest in 205-209 East 57th Street
Associates, LLC a limited liability company formed to redevelop
our former cinema site at 205 East 57th Street in Manhattan. As
this project is in its development stage, the joint venture had
no operating activity for the period ended December 31,
2004. Our membership interest represents a 25% interest in the
LLC, and was issued to us by 205-209 East 57th Street
Associates, LLC in consideration of a capital contribution equal
to 25% of its total book capital, calculated after taking into
account the effect of our capital contribution.
Combined Condensed financial information for the entities
accounted for using the equity method is as follows (dollars in
thousands):
Condensed Balance Sheet Information (Unaudited):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Current Assets
|
|
$ |
3,145 |
|
|
$ |
2,077 |
|
Non current assets
|
|
|
17,157 |
|
|
|
12,638 |
|
Current Liabilities
|
|
|
4,850 |
|
|
|
2,775 |
|
Non current liabilities
|
|
|
11,385 |
|
|
|
9,015 |
|
Minority Interest
|
|
|
7,352 |
|
|
|
3,407 |
|
Condensed Statements of Operations Information (Unaudited):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Net Revenue
|
|
$ |
21,195 |
|
|
$ |
15,319 |
|
Operating Income
|
|
|
7,971 |
|
|
|
4,553 |
|
Net Income
|
|
|
4,024 |
|
|
|
2,641 |
|
Note 25 Subsequent Events
In January 2005, we entered into a purchase and sale agreement
providing for the sale of our Glendale office building in
Glendale, California for $21.0 million. Our Glendale
Property is currently subject to a first mortgage in the amount
of approximately $10.2 million which the buyer intends to
assume. It is currently our intention to complete a so-called
1031 exchange of the Glendale Property for the fee,
ground lease and building comprising the Cinemas 1,
2 & 3 property. As the mortgage is non-recourse in
nature, we believe it likely that the assumption will be
approved. However, no assurances in this regard can be given.
In relation to the land element of the Cinemas 1,
2 & 3 property, in January 2005, we increased our
deposit down payment on the property from $800,000 to
$4.0 million and agreed to an increase in the purchase
price from $12.0 million to $12.2 million. In return,
we acquired an extension of the contract period until
June 1, 2005. Although we are working to close this
acquisition, no assurances can be given that sufficient
financing will be obtained to complete the acquisition.
-105-
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In February 2005, we sold a two screen cinema located on the
outskirts of Melbourne, known as the Colac cinema, for
approximately $193,000 (AUS$250,000). We purchased the cinema in
July 2004 as part of the Anderson Circuit acquisition, but the
location was never part of our on-going operational strategy.
-106-
|
|
Item 9 |
Change in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting
and Financial Disclosure |
None.
Item 9A Controls and Procedures
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Our management, with the participation of our chief executive
officer and chief financial officer, evaluated the effectiveness
of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Rules 13a-15(e) and under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 Exchange Act) as of December 31, 2004. Based on this
evaluation, our chief executive officer and chief financial
officer concluded that, as of December 31, 2004, our
disclosure controls and procedures were (1) designated to
ensure that material information relating to us, including our
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to our chief executive
officer and chief financial officer by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report
was being prepared, and (2) effective, in that they provide
reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed
by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange
Act are recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the
time periods specified in the SECs rules and forms.
Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term
is defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f). Under the
supervision and with the participation of our management,
including our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, we conducted an evaluation of the
effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting
based on the framework in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on our
evaluation under the framework in Internal Control
Integrated Framework, our management concluded that our internal
control over financial reporting was effective as of
December 31, 2004. Our managements assessment of the
effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2004 has been audited by
Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public
accounting firm, as stated in their report which is included
herein.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
No change in our internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange
Act) occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 2004
that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to
materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
-107-
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Reading
International, Inc.:
We have audited managements assessment, included in the
accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control over
Financial Reporting, that Reading International, Inc. and
subsidiaries (the Company) maintained effective
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2004, based on criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission. The Companys management is responsible for
maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting
and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on managements assessment and an opinion on the
effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, evaluating
managements assessment, testing and evaluating the design
and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing
such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable
basis for our opinions.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed by, or under the supervision of, the
companys principal executive and principal financial
officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected
by the companys board of directors, management, and other
personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over
financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or
improper management override of controls, material misstatements
due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a
timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the
effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting
to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may
become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the
degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate.
In our opinion, managements assessment that the Company
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2004, is fairly stated, in all material
respects, based on the criteria established in Internal
Control Integrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all
material respects, effective internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2004, based on the criteria
established in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2004
-108-
of the Company and our report dated March 25, 2005
expressed an unqualified opinion on the consolidated financial
statements.
Los Angeles, California
March 25, 2005
-109-
PART III
Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14
Information required by Part II (Items 10, 11, 12, 13
and 14) of this From 10-K is herby incorporated by
reference from the Reading International, Inc.s definitive
Proxy Statement for its 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders,
which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
pursuant to Regulation 14A, not later than 120 days
after the end of the fiscal year.
-110-
PART IV
|
|
Item 15 |
Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules, and Reports on
Form 8-K |
(a) The following documents are filed as a part of this
report:
The following financial statements are filed as part of this
report under Item 8 Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data.
|
|
|
|
|
Description |
|
Pg. No | |
|
|
| |
Report of Independent Registered Public Accountants
|
|
|
68 |
|
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2004 and 2003
|
|
|
69 |
|
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Three Years Ended
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
70 |
|
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders Equity for the
Three Years Ended December 31, 2004
|
|
|
71 |
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Three Years Ended
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
72 |
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
|
2. Financial Statement Schedules for the years ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 |
There are no Financial Statement Schedules to be listed here as
the required information is shown in the consolidated financial
statements or notes thereto. See Item 8 Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data.
|
|
|
3. Exhibits (Listed by numbers corresponding to
Item 601 of Regulation S-K) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
.1 |
|
Certificate of Amendment of Restatement Articles of
Incorporation of Citadel Holding Corporation (filed as
Exhibit 3.1 to the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999, and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
3 |
.2 |
|
Restated By-laws of Citadel Holding Corporation, a Nevada
corporation (filed as Exhibit 3.2 to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1999, and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
3 |
.3 |
|
Certificate of Amendment of Articles of Incorporation of Citadel
Holding Corporation (filed as Exhibit 3.3 to the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2001) |
|
3 |
.4 |
|
Articles of Merger of Craig Merger Sub, Inc. with and into Craig
Corporation (filed as Exhibit 3.4 to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2001) |
|
3 |
.5 |
|
Articles of Merger of Reading Merger Sub, Inc. with and into
Reading Entertainment, Inc. (filed as Exhibit 3.5 to the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2001) |
|
3 |
.6 |
|
Restated By-laws of Reading International, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (filed herewith) |
|
10 |
.1 |
|
Tax Disaffiliation Agreement, dated as of August 4, 1994,
by and between Citadel Holding Corporation and Fidelity Federal
Bank (filed as Exhibit 10.27 to the Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 1994, and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.2 |
|
Standard Office lease, dated as of July 15, 1994, by and
between Citadel Realty, Inc. and Fidelity Federal Bank (filed as
Exhibit 10.42 to the Companys Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1995, and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.3 |
|
First Amendment to Standard Office Lease, dated May 15,
1995, by and between Citadel Realty, Inc. and Fidelity Federal
Bank (filed as Exhibit 10.43 to the Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 1995, and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.4 |
|
Guaranty of Payment dated May 15, 1995 by Citadel Holding
Corporation in favor of Fidelity Federal Bank (filed as
Exhibit 10.47 to the Companys Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1995, and
incorporated herein by reference) |
-111-
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
.5 |
|
Exchange Agreement dated September 4, 1996 among Citadel
Holding Corporation, Citadel Acquisition Corp., Inc. Craig
Corporation, Craig Management, Inc., Reading Entertainment,
Inc., Reading Company (filed as Exhibit 10.51 to the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1996 and incorporated herein by
reference) |
|
10 |
.6 |
|
Asset Put and Registration Rights Agreement dated
October 15, 1996 among Citadel Holding Corporation, Citadel
Acquisition Corp., Inc., Reading Entertainment, Inc., and Craig
Corporation (filed as Exhibit 10.52 to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1996 and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.7 |
|
Articles of Incorporation of Reading Entertainment, Inc., A
Nevada Corporation (filed as Exhibit 10.7 to the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1999, and incorporated herein by
reference) |
|
10 |
.7a |
|
Certificate of Designation of the Series A Voting
Cumulative Convertible preferred stock of Reading Entertainment,
Inc. (filed as Exhibit 10.7a to the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1999, and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.8 |
|
Lease between Citadel Realty, Inc., Lesser and Disney
Enterprises, Inc., Lessee dated October 1, 1996 (filed as
Exhibit 10.54 to the Companys Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1996,
and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.9 |
|
Second Amendment to Standard Office Lease between Citadel
Realty, Inc. and Fidelity Federal Bank dated October 1,
1996 (filed as Exhibit 10.55 to the Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 1996, and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.10 |
|
Citadel 1996 Non-employee Director Stock Option Plan (filed as
Exhibit 10.57 to the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996, and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.11 |
|
Reading Entertainment, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 1997 (filed as
Exhibit 10.58 to the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.12 |
|
Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of April 11, 1997 by and
between Citadel Holding Corporation and Craig Corporation (filed
as Exhibit 10.56 to the Companys Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1997) |
|
10 |
.13 |
|
Secured Promissory Note dated as of April 11, 1997 issued
by Craig Corporation to Citadel Holding Corporation in the
principal amount of $1,998,000 (filed as Exhibit 10.60 to
the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 1997) |
|
10 |
.14 |
|
Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property between
Prudential Insurance Company of America and Big 4 Farming
LLC dated August 29, 1997 (filed as Exhibit 10.61 to
the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 1997) |
|
10 |
.15 |
|
Second Amendment to Agreement of Purchase and Sale between
Prudential Insurance Company of America and Big 4 Farming
LLC dated November 5, 1997 (filed as Exhibit 10.62 to
the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 1997) |
|
10 |
.16 |
|
Partnership Agreement of Citadel Agricultural Partners
No. 1 dated December 19, 1997 (filed as
Exhibit 10.63 to the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.17 |
|
Partnership Agreement of Citadel Agricultural Partners
No. 2 dated December 19, 1997 (filed as
Exhibit 10.64 to the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.18 |
|
Partnership Agreement of Citadel Agricultural Partners
No. 3 dated December 19, 1997 (filed as
Exhibit 10.65 to the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.19 |
|
Farm Management Agreement dated December 26, 1997 between
Citadel Agricultural Partner No. 1 and Big 4 Farming
LLC (filed as Exhibit 10.67 to the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1997 and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.20 |
|
Farm Management Agreement dated December 26, 1997 between
Citadel Agricultural Partner No. 2 and Big 4 Farming
LLC (filed as Exhibit 10.68 to the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1997 and incorporated herein by reference) |
-112-
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
.21 |
|
Farm Management Agreement dated December 26, 1997 between
Citadel Agricultural Partner No. 3 and Big 4 Farming
LLC (filed as Exhibit 10.69 to the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1997 and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.22 |
|
Line of Credit Agreement dated December 29, 1997 between
Citadel Holding Corporation and Big 4 Ranch, Inc. (filed as
Exhibit 10.70 to the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.23 |
|
Management Services Agreement dated December 26, 1997
between Big 4 Farming LLC and Cecelia Packing (filed as
Exhibit 10.71 to the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.24 |
|
Agricultural Loan Agreement dated December 29, 1997 between
Citadel Holding Corporation and Citadel Agriculture Partner
No. 1 (filed as Exhibit 10.72 to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1997 and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.25 |
|
Agricultural Loan Agreement dated December 29, 1997 between
Citadel Holding Corporation and Citadel Agriculture Partner
No. 2 (filed as Exhibit 10.73 to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1997 and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.26 |
|
Agricultural Loan Agreement dated December 29, 1997 between
Citadel Holding Corporation and Citadel Agriculture Partner
No. 3 (filed as Exhibit 10.74 to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1997 and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.27 |
|
Promissory Note dated December 29, 1997 between Citadel
Holding Corporation and Citadel Agricultural Partners No. 1
(filed as Exhibit 10.75 to the Companys Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.28 |
|
Promissory Note dated December 29, 1997 between Citadel
Holding Corporation and Citadel Agricultural Partners No. 2
(filed as Exhibit 10.76 to the Companys Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.29 |
|
Promissory Note dated December 29, 1997 between Citadel
Holding Corporation and Citadel Agricultural Partners No. 3
(filed as Exhibit 10.77 to the Companys Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.30 |
|
Security Agreement dated December 29, 1997 between Citadel
Holding Corporation and Citadel Agricultural Partnership
No. 1 (filed as Exhibit 10.78 to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1997 and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.31 |
|
Security Agreement dated December 29, 1997 between Citadel
Holding Corporation and Citadel Agricultural Partnership
No. 2 (filed as Exhibit 10.79 to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1997 and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.32 |
|
Security Agreement dated December 29, 1997 between Citadel
Holding Corporation and Citadel Agricultural Partnership
No. 3 (filed as Exhibit 10.80 to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1997 and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.33 |
|
Administrative Services Agreement between Citadel Holding
Corporation and Big 4 Ranch, Inc. dated December 29, 1997
(filed as Exhibit 10.81 to the Companys Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.34 |
|
Reading Entertainment, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 1998 (filed as Exhibit as 10.41
to the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1998 and incorporated herein by
reference) |
|
10 |
.35 |
|
Reading Entertainment, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 1999 (filed by Reading
Entertainment Inc. as Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1999 on April 14, 2000 and incorporated
herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.36 |
|
Promissory note dated December 20, 1999 between Citadel
Holding Corporation and Nationwide Life Insurance 3 (filed as
Exhibit 10.36 to the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.37* |
|
Employment Agreement between Citadel Holding Corporation and
Andrzej Matyczynski (filed as Exhibit 10.37 to the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1999 and incorporated herein by
reference) |
|
10 |
.38 |
|
Citadel 1999 Employee Stock Option Plan (filed as
Exhibit 10.38 to the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 and
incorporated herein by reference) |
-113-
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
.39 |
|
Amendment and Plan of Merger By and Among Citadel Holding
Corporation and Off-Broadway Theatres, Inc. (filed as
Exhibit A to the Companys Proxy Statement and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.40 |
|
Amended and Restated Lease Agreement dated as of July 28,
2000 as amended and restated as of January 29, 2002 between
Sutton Hill Capital, L.L.C. and Citadel Cinemas, Inc. (filed as
Exhibit 10.40 to the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.41 |
|
Amended and Restated Citadel Standby Credit Facility dated as of
July 28, 2000 as amended and restated as of
January 29, 2002 between Sutton Hill Capital, L.L.C. and
Reading International, Inc. (filed as Exhibit 10.40 to the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2002 and incorporated herein by
reference) |
|
10 |
.42 |
|
Amended and Restated Security Agreement dated as of
July 28, 2000 as amended and restated as of
January 29, 2002 between Sutton Hill Capital, L.L.C. and
Reading International, Inc. (filed as Exhibit 10.40 to the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2002 and incorporated herein by
reference) |
|
10 |
.43 |
|
Amended and Restated Pledge Agreement dated as of July 28,
2000 as amended and restated as of January 29, 2002 between
Sutton Hill Capital, L.L.C. and Reading International, Inc.
(filed as Exhibit 10.40 to the Companys Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.44 |
|
Amended and Restated Intercreditor Agreement dated as of
July 28, 2000 as amended and restated as of
January 29, 2002 between Sutton Hill Capital, L.L.C. and
Reading International, Inc. and Nationwide Theatres Corp. (filed
as Exhibit 10.40 to the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.45 |
|
Guaranty dated July 28, 2000 by Michael R. Forman and James
J. Cotter in favor of Citadel Cinemas, Inc. and Citadel Realty,
Inc. (filed as Exhibit 10.40 to the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2002 and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.46 |
|
Amended and Restated Agreement with Respect to Fee Option dated
as of July 28, 2000 as amended and restated as of
January 29, 2002 between Sutton Hill Capital, L.L.C. and
Citadel Realty, Inc. (filed as Exhibit 10.40 to the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2002 and incorporated herein by
reference) |
|
10 |
.47 |
|
Theater Management Agreement between Liberty Theaters Inc. and
OBI LLC (filed as Exhibit 10.40 to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002 and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.48* |
|
Non-qualified Stock Option Agreement between Reading
International, Inc. and James J. Cotter (filed as
Exhibit 10.40 to the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 and
incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.49 |
|
Omnibus Agreement between Citadel Cinemas, Inc. and Sutton Hill
Capital, LLC, dated October 22, 2003 (filed on Quarterly
Report Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2003 and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.50 |
|
Pledge Agreement between Citadel Cinemas, Inc. and Sutton Hill
Capital, LLC, dated October 22, 2003 (filed on Quarterly
Report Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2003 and incorporated herein by reference) |
|
10 |
.51 |
|
Guarantee of Lenders Obligation Under Standby Credit Agreement
in favor of Sutton Hill Capital, LLC, dated October 22,
2003(filed on Quarterly Report Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2003 and incorporated herein by
reference) |
|
10 |
.52* |
|
Employment agreement between Reading International, Inc. and
Wayne D. Smith (filed herewith) |
|
21 |
|
|
List of Subsidiaries (filed herewith) |
|
23 |
|
|
Consent of Independent Auditors (filed herewith) |
|
31 |
.1 |
|
Certification of Principal Executive Officer dated
March 25, 2005 pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (filed herewith) |
|
31 |
.2 |
|
Certification of Principal Financial Officer dated
March 25, 2005 pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (filed herewith) |
-114-
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
.1 |
|
Certification of Principal Executive Officer dated
March 25, 2005 pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (filed herewith) |
|
32 |
.2 |
|
Certification of Principal Financial Officer dated
March 25, 2005 pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (filed herewith) |
|
|
* |
These exhibits constitute the executive compensation plans and
arrangements of the Company. |
(b) Exhibits Required by Item 601 of
Regulation S-K
(c) Financial Statement Schedule
-115-
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed
on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
|
|
|
Reading International, Inc.
|
|
(Registrant) |
|
|
|
|
By: |
/s/ Andrzej Matyczynski
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrzej Matyczynski |
|
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
Date: March 25, 2005
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following
persons on behalf of Registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Title(s) |
|
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ James J. Cotter
James
J. Cotter |
|
Chairman of the Board and Director and Chief Executive Officer |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
/s/ Eric Barr
Eric
Barr |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
/s/ James J.
Cotter, Jr.
James
J. Cotter, Jr. |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
/s/ Margaret Cotter
Margaret
Cotter |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
/s/ William D. Gould
William
D. Gould |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
/s/ Edward L. Kane
Edward
L. Kane |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
/s/ Gerard P. Laheney
Gerard
P. Laheney |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
/s/ Alfred
Villaseñor, Jr.
Alfred
Villaseñor, Jr. |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
-116-
exv3w6
EXHIBIT 3.6
AMENDED AND RESTATED
BYLAWS
OF
Reading International, Inc.
A Nevada Corporation
(formerly Citadel Holding Corporation)
AMENDED AND RESTATED
BYLAWS
OF
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC.
A Nevada Corporation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page |
|
ARTICLE I |
|
STOCKHOLDERS |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section 1 |
|
Annual Meeting |
|
1 |
|
|
Section 2 |
|
Special Meetings |
|
1 |
|
|
Section 3 |
|
Notice of Meetings |
|
1 |
|
|
Section 4 |
|
Place of Meetings |
|
2 |
|
|
Section 5 |
|
Stockholder Lists |
|
2 |
|
|
Section 6 |
|
Quorum; Adjourned Meetings |
|
2 |
|
|
Section 7 |
|
Voting |
|
2 |
|
|
Section 8 |
|
Proxies |
|
3 |
|
|
Section 9 |
|
Action Without Meeting |
|
3 |
|
|
Section 10 |
|
Certain Limitations |
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTICLE II |
|
DIRECTORS |
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section 1 |
|
Management of Corporation |
|
3 |
|
|
Section 2 |
|
Number, Tenure, and Qualifications |
|
4 |
|
|
Section 3 |
|
Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board |
|
4 |
|
|
Section 4 |
|
Vacancies; Removal |
|
4 |
|
|
Section 5 |
|
Annual and Regular Meetings |
|
5 |
|
|
Section 6 |
|
First Meeting |
|
5 |
|
|
Section 7 |
|
Special Meetings |
|
5 |
|
|
Section 8 |
|
Business of Meetings |
|
5 |
|
|
Section 9 |
|
Quorum; Adjourned Meetings |
|
5 |
|
|
Section 10 |
|
Committees |
|
6 |
|
|
Section 11 |
|
Action Without Meeting; Telephone Meetings |
|
6 |
|
|
Section 12 |
|
Special Compensation |
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTICLE III |
|
NOTICES |
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section 1 |
|
Notice of Meetings |
|
7 |
|
|
Section 2 |
|
Effect of Irregularly Called Meetings |
|
7 |
|
|
Section 3 |
|
Waiver of Notice |
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page |
|
ARTICLE IV |
|
OFFICERS |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section 1 |
|
Election |
|
|
8 |
|
Section 2 |
|
Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board |
|
|
8 |
|
Section 3 |
|
President |
|
|
8 |
|
Section 4 |
|
Vice-President |
|
|
8 |
|
Section 5 |
|
Secretary |
|
|
9 |
|
Section 6 |
|
Assistant Secretaries |
|
|
9 |
|
Section 7 |
|
Treasurer |
|
|
9 |
|
Section 8 |
|
Assistant Treasurers |
|
|
9 |
|
Section 9 |
|
Compensation |
|
|
10 |
|
Section 10 |
|
Removal; Resignation |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTICLE V |
|
CAPITAL STOCK |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section 1 |
|
Certificates |
|
|
10 |
|
Section 2 |
|
Surrendered; Lost or Destroyed Certificates |
|
|
11 |
|
Section 3 |
|
Regulations |
|
|
11 |
|
Section 4 |
|
Record Date |
|
|
11 |
|
Section 5 |
|
Registered Owner |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTICLE VI |
|
GENERAL PROVISIONS |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section 1 |
|
Registered Office |
|
|
12 |
|
Section 2 |
|
Checks; Notes |
|
|
12 |
|
Section 3 |
|
Fiscal Year |
|
|
12 |
|
Section 4 |
|
Stock of Other Corporations or Other Interests |
|
|
12 |
|
Section 5 |
|
Corporate Seal |
|
|
12 |
|
Section 6 |
|
Annual Statement |
|
|
13 |
|
Section 7 |
|
Dividends |
|
|
13 |
|
Section 8 |
|
Conflicts of Interest |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTICLE VII |
|
INDEMNIFICATION |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section 1 |
|
Indemnification of Officers and Directors, Employees and Agents |
|
|
13 |
|
Section 2 |
|
Insurance |
|
|
14 |
|
Section 3 |
|
Further Bylaws |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTICLE VIII |
|
AMENDMENTS |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section 1 |
|
Amendments by Stockholders |
|
|
14 |
|
Section 2 |
|
Amendments by Board of Directors |
|
|
14 |
|
AMENDED AND RESTATED
BYLAWS1
OF
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC.
A Nevada Corporation
ARTICLE I
STOCKHOLDERS
Section 1 Annual Meeting
Annual meetings of the stockholders, commencing with the year 2000, shall be held each year
within 150 days of the end of the fiscal year on the third Thursday in May if not a legal holiday,
and if a legal holiday, then on the next secular day following at ten oclock a.m., or such other
date and time as may be set by the Board of Directors2 from time to time and stated in
the notice of the meeting, at which the stockholders shall elect by a plurality vote a Board of
Directors and transact such other business as may properly be brought before the meeting.
Section 2 Special Meetings
Special meetings of the stockholders, for any purpose or purposes, unless otherwise prescribed
by statute or by the Articles of Incorporation, may be called by the Chairman or Vice Chairman of
the Board or the President, and shall be called by the Chairman, Vice Chairman or President at the
written request of a majority of the Board of Directors or at the written request of stockholders
owning outstanding shares representing a majority of the voting power of the Corporation. Such
request shall state the purpose or purposes of such meeting.
Section 3 Notice of Meetings
Written notice of stockholders meetings, stating the place, date and hour thereof, and, in the
case of a special meeting, the purpose or purposes for which the meeting is called, shall be given
to each stockholder entitled to vote thereat at least ten days but not more than sixty days before
the date of the meeting, unless a different period is prescribed by statute. Business transacted
any special meeting of the stockholders shall be limited to the purpose or purposes stated in the
notice.
1 |
|
These Amended and Restated Bylaws are
hereinafter referred to as the Bylaws. |
|
2 |
|
The Board and Board of
Directors are hereinafter used in reference to the Board of Directors of
Reading International, Inc. |
Section 4 Place of Meetings
All annual meetings of the stockholders shall be held in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California, at such place as may be fixed from time to time by the Board of Directors, or at such
other place within or without the State of Nevada as the directors shall determine. Special
meetings of the stockholders may be held at such time and place within or without the State of
Nevada as shall be stated in the notice of the meeting, or in a duly executed waiver of notice
thereof. Business transacted at any special meeting of stockholders shall be limited to the
purposes stated in the notice.
Section 5 Stockholder Lists
The officer who has charge of the stock ledger of the Corporation shall prepare and make, not
less than ten nor more than sixty days before every meeting of stockholders, a complete list of the
stockholders entitled to vote at the meeting, arranged in alphabetical order, and showing the
address of each stockholder and the number of shares registered in the name of each stockholder.
Such list shall be open to the examination of any stockholder, for any proper purpose germane to
the meeting, during ordinary business hours for a period not less than ten days prior to the
meeting, either at a place within the city where the meeting is to be held, which place shall be
specified in the notice of the meeting, or, if not so specified, at the place where the meeting is
to be held. The list shall also be produced and kept at the time and place of the meeting during
the whole time thereof, and may be inspected by any stockholder who is present.
Section 6 Quorum; Adjourned Meetings
The holders of a majority of the stock issued and outstanding and entitled to vote thereat,
present in person or represented by proxy, shall constitute a quorum at all meetings of the
stockholders for the transaction of business except as otherwise provided by statute or by the
Articles of Incorporation. If, however, such quorum shall not be present or represented at any
meeting of the stockholders, the stockholders entitled to vote thereat, present in person or
represented by proxy, shall have the power to adjourn the meeting from time to time, without notice
other than announcement at the meeting, until a quorum shall be present or represented. At such
adjourned meeting at which a quorum shall be present or represented, any business may be transacted
which might have been transacted at the meeting as originally noticed. If the adjournment is for
more than thirty days, or if after the adjournment a new record date is fixed for the adjourned
meeting, a notice of the adjourned meeting shall be given to each stockholder of record entitled to
vote at the meeting.
Section 7 Voting
Except as otherwise provided by statute or the Articles of Incorporation or these Bylaws, and
except for the election of directors, at any meeting duly called and held at which a quorum is
present, a majority of the votes cast at such meeting upon a given matter by the holders of
outstanding shares of stock of all classes of stock of the Corporation entitled to vote thereon who
are present in person or by proxy shall decide such matter. At any meeting duly called and held
2
for the election of directors at which a quorum is present, directors shall be elected by a
plurality of the votes cast by the holders (acting as such) of shares of stock of the Corporation
entitled to elect such directors.
Section 8 Proxies
At any meeting of the stockholders any stockholder may be represented and vote by a proxy or
proxies appointed by an instrument in writing. In the event that any such instrument in writing
shall designate two or more persons to act as proxies, a majority of such persons present at the
meeting, or, if only one shall be present, then that one shall have and may exercise all of the
powers conferred by such written instrument upon all of the persons so designated unless the
instrument shall otherwise provide. No proxy, proxy revocation or power of attorney to vote shall
be used at a meeting of the stockholders unless it shall have been filed with the secretary of the
meeting; provided, however, nothing contained herein shall prevent any stockholder from attending
any meeting and voting in person. All questions regarding the qualification of voters, the
validity of proxies and the acceptance or rejection of votes shall be decided by the inspectors of
election who shall be appointed by the Board of Directors, or if not so appointed, then by the
presiding officer of the meeting.
Section 9 Action Without Meeting
Any action which may be taken by the vote of the stockholders at a meeting may be taken
without a meeting if authorized by the written consent of stockholders holding at least a majority
of the voting power, unless the provisions of the statutes governing the Corporation or of the
Articles of Incorporation require a different proportion of voting power to authorize such action
in which case such proportion of written consents shall be required. Prompt notice of the taking
of the corporate action without a meeting by less than unanimous written consent shall be given to
those stockholders who have not consented in writing.
Section 10 Certain Limitations
The Board of Directors shall not, without the prior approval of the stockholders, adopt any
procedures, rules or requirements which restrict a stockholders right to (i) vote, whether in
person, by proxy or by written consent; (ii) elect, nominate or remove directors; (iii) call a
special meeting; or (iv) to bring new business before the stockholders, except as may be required
by applicable law.
ARTICLE II
DIRECTORS
Section 1 Management of Corporation
The business of the Corporation shall be managed by its Board of Directors, which may exercise
all such powers of the Corporation and do all such lawful acts and things as are not by statute or
by the Articles of Incorporation or by these Bylaws directed or required to be exercised or done by
the stockholders.
3
Section 2 Number, Tenure, and Qualifications
The number of directors, which shall constitute the whole board, shall be nine (9) until the
Companys 2004 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, at which time the size of the Board of Directors of
the Company will automatically, and without any further action by the Company, the Board of
Directors, or shareholders, be reduced to 8 members. Thereafter, the number of directors may from
time to time be increased or decreased to not less than one nor more than ten by action of the
Board of Directors. The directors shall be elected by the holders of shares entitled to vote
thereon at the annual meeting of the stockholders and, except as provided in Section 4 of this
Article, each director elected shall hold office until his successor is elected and qualified.
Directors need not be stockholders.
Section 3 Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board
The directors may elect one of their members to be Chairman of the Board of Directors and one
of their members to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors. The Chairman and Vice Chairman
shall be subject to the control of and may be removed by the Board of Directors. The Chairman and
Vice Chairman shall perform such duties as may from time to time be assigned to them by the Board
of Directors.
Section 4 Vacancies; Removal
Vacancies in the Board of Directors, including those caused by an increase in the number of
directors, may be filled by a majority of the remaining directors, though less than a quorum, or by
a sole remaining director, and each director so elected shall hold office until his successor is
elected at an annual or a special meeting of the stockholders. The holders of no less than
two-thirds of the outstanding shares of stock entitled to vote may at any time peremptorily
terminate the term of office of all or any of the directors by vote at a meeting called for such
purpose or by written consent filed with the Secretary or, in his absence, with any other officer.
Such removal shall be effective immediately, even if successors are not elected simultaneously.
A vacancy or vacancies in the Board of Directors shall be deemed to exist in case of the
death, resignation or removal of any directors, or if the authorized number of directors be
increased, or if the stockholders fail at any annual or special meeting of stockholders at which
any director or directors are elected to elect the full authorized number of directors to be voted
for at that meeting.
If the Board of Directors accepts the resignation of a director tendered to take effect at a
future time, the Board or the stockholders shall have power to elect a successor to take office
when the resignation is to become effective.
No reduction of the authorized number of directors shall have the effect of removing any
director prior to the expiration of his term of office.
4
Section 5 Annual and Regular Meetings
Annual and regular meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held at any place within or
without the State of Nevada that has been designated from time to time by resolution of the Board
of Directors or by written consent of all members of the Board of Directors. In the absence of
such designation, annual and regular meetings shall be held at the registered office of the
Corporation. Regular meetings of the Board of Directors may be held without call or notice at such
time and at such place as shall from time to time be fixed and determined by the Board of
Directors.
Section 6 First Meeting
The first meeting of each newly elected Board of Directors shall be held at such time and
place as shall be fixed by the vote of the stockholders at the annual meeting and no notice of such
meeting shall be necessary to the directors in order legally to constitute the meeting, provided a
quorum is present. In the event of the failure of the stockholders to fix the time and place of
such first meeting, or in the event such meeting is not so held, the meeting may be held at such
time and place as shall be specified in a notice given as hereinafter provided for special meetings
of the Board of Directors, or as shall be specified in a written waiver signed by all of the
directors.
Section 7 Special Meetings
Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called by the Chairman or Vice Chairman of
the Board or the President upon notice to each director, either personally or by mail or by
telegram. Upon the written request of a majority of the directors, the Chairman or Vice Chairman
of the Board or the President shall call a special meeting of the Board to be held within two days
of the receipt of such request and shall provide notice thereof to each director, either personally
or by mail or by telegram.
Section 8 Business of Meetings
The transactions of any meeting of the Board of Directors, however called and noticed or
wherever held, shall be as valid as though had at a meeting duly held after regular call and
notice, if a quorum be present, and if, either before or after the meeting, each of the directors
not present signs a written waiver of notice, or a consent to holding such meeting, or an approval
of the minutes thereof. All such waivers, consents or approvals shall be filed with the corporate
records or made a part of the minutes of the meeting.
Section 9 Quorum; Adjourned Meetings
A majority of the authorized number of directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction
of business, except to adjourn as hereinafter provided. Every act or decision done or made by a
majority of the directors present at a meeting duly held at which a quorum is present shall be
regarded as the act of the Board of Directors, unless a greater number is required by law or by the
Articles of Incorporation. Any action of a majority, although not at a regularly called meeting,
and the record thereof, if assented to in writing by all of the other members of the Board
5
shall be as valid and effective in all respects as if passed by the Board of Directors in a
regular meeting.
A quorum of the directors may adjourn any directors meeting to meet again at a stated day and
hour; provided, however, that in the absence of a quorum, a majority of the directors present at
any directors meeting, either regular or special, may adjourn from time to time, without notice
other than announcement at the meeting, until a quorum is present.
Notice of the time and place of holding an adjourned meeting need not be given to the absent
directors if the time and place are fixed at the meeting adjourned.
Section 10 Committees
The Board of Directors may, by resolution adopted by a majority of the whole Board, designate
one or more committees of the Board of Directors, each committee to consist of at least one or more
directors of the Corporation which, to the extent provided in the resolution, shall have and may
exercise the power of the Board of Directors in the management of the business and affairs of the
Corporation and may have power to authorize the seal of the Corporation to be affixed to all papers
which may require it; but no such committee shall have the power to amend the Articles of
Incorporation, to adopt an agreement or plan of merger or consolidation, to recommend to the
stockholders a sale, lease or exchange of all or substantially all of the Corporations assets, to
recommend to the stockholders dissolution or revocation of dissolution, or to amend these Bylaws,
and, unless the resolution or the Articles of Incorporation expressly so provide, no such committee
shall have the power or authority to declare a dividend or to authorize the issuance of stock.
Such committee or committees shall have such name or names as may be determined from time to time
by the Board of Directors. The Board may designate one or more directors as alternate members of
any committee, who may replace any absent or disqualified member at any meeting of the committee.
The members of any such committee present at any meeting and not disqualified from voting may,
whether or not they constitute a quorum, unanimously appoint another member of the Board of
Directors to act at the meeting in the place of any absent or disqualified member. At meetings of
such committees, a majority of the members or alternate members shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business, and the act of a majority of the members or alternate members at any
meeting at which there is a quorum shall be the act of the committee.
The committees, if required by the Board, shall keep regular minutes of their proceedings and
report the same to the Board of Directors.
Section 11 Action Without Meeting; Telephone Meetings
Any action required or permitted to be taken at any meeting of the Board of Directors or of
any committee thereof may be taken without a meeting if a written consent thereto is signed by all
members of the Board of Directors or of such committee, as the case may be, and such written
consent is filed with the minutes of proceedings of the Board or committee.
6
Nothing contained in these Bylaws shall be deemed to restrict the powers of members of the
Board of Directors, or any committee thereof, to participate in a meeting of the Board or committee
by means of telephone conference or similar communications equipment whereby all persons
participating in the meeting can hear each other.
Section 12 Special Compensation
The directors may be paid their expenses of attendance at each meeting of the Board of
Directors and may be paid a fixed sum for attendance at each meeting of the Board of Directors or a
stated salary as director as fixed by the Board of Directors. No such payment shall preclude any
director from serving the Corporation in any other capacity and receiving compensation therefor.
Members of committees may be allowed like reimbursement and compensation for attending committee
meetings.
ARTICLE III
NOTICES
Section 1 Notice of Meetings
Whenever, under the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation or applicable law or these
Bylaws, notice is required to be given to any director or stockholder, it shall not be construed to
mean personal notice, but such notice may be given in writing, by mail, addressed to such director
or stockholders, at his address as it appears on the records of the Corporation, postage prepaid,
and such notice shall be deemed to be given at the time when the same shall be deposited in the
United States mail. Notice to directors may also be given by telegram.
Notices of meetings of stockholders shall be in writing and signed by the President or a
Vice-President or the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary or by such other person or persons as the
directors shall designate. Such notice shall state the purpose or purposes for which the meeting
is called and the time and the place, which may be within or without this State, where it is to be
held. Personal delivery of any notice to any officer of a corporation or association, or to any
member of a partnership, shall constitute delivery of such notice to such corporation, association
or partnership. In the event of the transfer of stock after delivery of such notice of and prior
to the holding of the meeting it shall not be necessary to deliver or mail notice of the meeting to
the transferee.
Section 2 Effect of Irregularly Called Meetings
Whenever all parties entitled to vote at any meeting, whether of directors or stockholders,
consent, either by a writing on the records of the meeting or filed with the secretary, or by
presence at such meeting and oral consent entered on the minutes, or by taking part in the
deliberations at such meeting without objection, the doings of such meeting shall be as valid as if
had at a meeting regularly called and noticed, and at such meeting any business may be transacted
which is not excepted from the written consent or to the consideration of which no objection for
want of notice is made at the time, and if any meeting be irregular for want of notice or of such
consent, provided a quorum was present at such meeting, the proceedings of
7
said meeting may be ratified and approved and rendered likewise valid and the irregularity or
defect therein waived by a writing signed by all parties having the right to vote at such meeting;
and such consent or approval of stockholders may be by proxy or attorney, but all such proxies and
powers of attorney must be in writing.
Section 3 Waiver of Notice
Whenever any notice whatever is required to be given under the provisions of the statutes, the
Articles of Incorporation or these Bylaws, a waiver thereof in writing, signed by the person or
persons entitled to said notice, whether before or after the time stated therein, shall be deemed
equivalent thereto.
ARTICLE IV
OFFICERS
Section 1 Election
The officers of the Corporation shall be elected annually at the first meeting by the Board of
Directors held after each annual meeting of the stockholders and shall be a President, one or more
Vice Presidents, a Treasurer and a Secretary, and such other officers with such titles and duties
as the Board of Directors may determine, none of whom need be directors. The President shall be
the Chief Executive Officer, unless the Board designates the Chairman of the Board as Chief
Executive Officer. Any person may hold one or more offices and each officer shall hold office
until his successor shall have been duly elected and qualified or until his death or until he shall
resign or is removed in the manner as hereinafter provided for such term as may be prescribed by
the Board of Directors from time to time.
Section 2 Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board
The Board of Directors at its first annual meeting after each annual meeting of the
stockholders may choose a Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board from among the directors of the
Corporation. The Chairman of the Board, and in his absence the Vice Chairman, shall preside at
meetings of the stockholders and the Board of Directors and shall see that all orders and
resolutions of the Board of Directors are carried into effect.
Section 3 President
The President shall be the chief operating officer of the Corporation, shall also be a
director and shall have active management of the business of the Corporation. The President shall
execute on behalf of the Corporation all instruments requiring such execution except to the extent
the signing and execution thereof shall be expressly designated by the Board of Directors to some
other officer or agent of the Corporation.
Section 4 Vice-President
The Vice-President shall act under the direction of the President and in the absence or
disability of the President shall perform the duties and exercise the powers of the President. The
8
Vice-President shall perform such other duties and have such other powers as the President or
the Board of Directors may from time to time prescribe. The Board of Directors may designate one
or more Executive Vice-Presidents or may otherwise specify the order of seniority of the
Vice-Presidents. The duties and powers of the President shall descend to the Vice-Presidents in
such specified order of seniority.
Section 5 Secretary
The Secretary shall act under the direction of the President. Subject to the direction of the
President, the Secretary shall attend all meetings of the Board of Directors and all meetings of
the stockholders and record the proceedings. The Secretary shall perform like duties for the
standing committees when required. The Secretary shall give, or cause to be given, notice of all
meetings of the stockholders and special meetings of the Board of Directors, and shall perform such
other duties as may be prescribed by the President or the Board of Directors.
Section 6 Assistant Secretaries
The Assistant Secretaries shall act under the direction of the President. In order of their
seniority, unless otherwise determined by the President or the Board of Directors, they shall, in
the absence or disability of the Secretary, perform the duties and exercise the powers of the
Secretary. They shall perform such other duties and have such other powers as the President or the
Board of Directors may from time to time prescribe.
Section 7 Treasurer
The Treasurer shall act under the direction of the President. Subject to the direction of the
President, the Treasurer shall have custody of the corporate funds and securities and shall keep
full and accurate accounts of receipts and disbursements in books belonging to the Corporation and
shall deposit all monies and other valuable effects in the name and to the credit of the
Corporation in such depositories as may be designated by the Board of Directors. The Treasurer
shall disburse the funds of the Corporation as may be ordered by the President or the Board of
Directors, taking proper vouchers for such disbursements, and shall render to the President and the
Board of Directors, at its regular meetings, or when the Board of Directors so requires, an account
of all transactions as Treasurer and of the financial condition of the Corporation.
If required by the Board of Directors, the Treasurer shall give the Corporation a bond in such
sum and with such surety or sureties as shall be satisfactory to the Board of Directors for the
faithful performance of the duties of such persons office and for the restoration to the
Corporation, in case of such persons death, resignation, retirement or removal from office, of all
books, papers, vouchers, money and other property of whatever kind in such persons possession or
under such persons control belonging to the Corporation.
Section 8 Assistant Treasurers
The Assistant Treasurers in the order of their seniority, unless otherwise determined by the
President or the Board of Directors, shall, in the absence or disability of the Treasurer,
9
perform the duties and exercise the powers of the Treasurer. They shall perform such other
duties and have such other powers as the President or the Board of Directors may from time to time
prescribe.
Section 9 Compensation
The Board of Directors shall fix the salaries and compensation of all officers of the
Corporation.
Section 10 Removal; Resignation
The officers of the Corporation shall hold office at the pleasure of the Board of Directors.
Any officer elected or appointed by the Board of Directors, or any member of a committee, may be
removed at any time, with or without cause, by the Board of Directors by a vote of not less than a
majority of the entire Board at any meeting thereof or by written consent. Any vacancy occurring
in any office of the Corporation by death, resignation, removal or otherwise shall be filled by the
Board of Directors for the unexpired portion of the term.
Any director or officer of the Corporation, or any member of any committee, may resign at any
time by giving written notice to the Board of Directors, the Chairman of the Board, the President,
or the Secretary of the Corporation. Any such resignation shall take effect at the time specified
therein or, if the time is not specified, then upon receipt thereof. The acceptance of such
resignation shall not be necessary to make it effective.
ARTICLE V
CAPITAL STOCK
Section 1 Certificates
Every stockholder shall be entitled to have a certificate signed by the Chairman or Vice
Chairman of the Board of Directors, the President or a Vice-President and the Treasurer or an
Assistant Treasurer, or the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary of the Corporation, certifying the
number of shares owned by such person in the Corporation. If the Corporation shall be authorized
to issue more than one class of stock or more than one series of any class, the designations,
preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of the various classes of
stock or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such rights, shall
be set forth in full or summarized on the face or back of the certificate which the Corporation
shall issue to represent such stock; provided, however, that except as otherwise provided in NRS
78.242, in lieu of the forgoing requirements, there may be set forth on the face or back of the
certificate which the Corporation shall issue to represent such class or series of stock, a
statement that the Corporation will furnish without charge to each stockholder who so requests, the
designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of the
various classes or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such
preferences and/or rights.
If a certificate is signed (1) by a transfer agent other than the Corporation or its employees
or (2) by a registrar other than the Corporation or its employees, the signatures of the officers
of
10
the Corporation may be facsimiles. In case any officer who has signed or whose facsimile
signature has been placed upon a certificate shall cease to be such officer before such certificate
is issued, such certificate may be issued with the same effect as though the person had not ceased
to be such officer. The seal of the Corporation, or a facsimile thereof, may, but need not be,
affixed to certificates of stock.
Section 2 Surrendered; Lost or Destroyed Certificates
The Board of Directors or any transfer agent of the Corporation may direct a new certificate
or certificates to be issued in place of any certificate or certificates theretofore issued by the
Corporation alleged to have been lost or destroyed upon the making of an affidavit of that fact by
the person claiming the certificate of stock to be lost or destroyed. When authorizing such issue
of a new certificate or certificates, the Board of Directors (or any transfer agent of the
Corporation authorized to do so by a resolution of the Board of Directors) may, in its discretion
and as a condition precedent to the issuance thereof, require the owner of such lost or destroyed
certificate or certificates, or the owners legal representative, to advertise the same in such
manner as it shall require and/or give the Corporation a bond in such sum as it may direct as
indemnity against any claim that may be made against the Corporation with respect to the
certificate alleged to have been lost or destroyed.
Section 3 Regulations
The Board of Directors shall have the power and authority to make all such rules and
regulations and procedures as it may deem expedient concerning the issue, transfer, registration,
cancellation and replacement of certificates representing stock of the Corporation.
Section 4 Record Date
The Board of Directors may fix in advance a date not exceeding sixty days nor less than ten
days preceding the date of any meeting of stockholders, or the date for the payment of any
distribution, or the date for the allotment of rights, or the date when any change or conversion or
exchange of capital stock shall go into effect, or a date in connection with obtaining the consent
of stockholders for any purpose, as a record date for the determination of the stockholders
entitled to notice of and to vote at any such meeting, and any adjournment thereof, or entitled to
receive payment of any such distribution, or to give such consent, and in such case, such
stockholders, and only such stockholders as shall be stockholders of record on the date so fixed,
shall be entitled to notice of and to vote at such meeting, or any adjournment thereof, or to
receive payment of such dividend, or to receive such allotment of rights, or to exercise such
rights, or to give such consent, as the case may be, notwithstanding any transfer of any stock on
the books of the Corporation after any such record date fixed as aforesaid.
Section 5 Registered Owner
The Corporation shall be entitled to recognize the person registered on its books as the owner
of shares to be the exclusive owner for all purposes including voting and distribution, and the
Corporation shall not be bound to recognize any equitable or other claim to or interest in such
11
share or shares on the part of any other person, whether or not it shall have express or other
notice thereof, except as otherwise provided by the laws of Nevada.
ARTICLE VI
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1 Registered Office
The registered office of the Corporation shall be in the County of Clark, State of Nevada.
The principal office of the Corporation shall be located in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California.
The Corporation may also have offices at such other places both within and without the State
of Nevada as the Board of Directors may from time to time determine or the business of the
Corporation may require.
Section 2 Checks; Notes
All checks or demands for money and notes of the Corporation shall be signed by such officer
or officers or such other person or persons as the Board of Directors may from time to time
designate.
Section 3 Fiscal Year
The fiscal year of the Corporation shall be fixed by resolution of the Board of Directors.
Section 4 Stock of Other Corporations or Other Interests
Unless otherwise ordered by the Board of Directors, the President, the Secretary, and such
other attorneys or agents of the Corporation as may be from time to time authorized by the Board of
Directors or the President, shall have full power and authority on behalf of the Corporation to
attend and to act an vote in person or by proxy at any meeting of the holders of securities of any
corporation or other entity in which the Corporation may own or hold shares or other securities,
and at such meetings shall possess and may exercise all the rights and powers incident to the
ownership of such shares or other securities which the Corporation, as the owner or holder thereof,
might have possessed and exercised if present. The President, the Secretary or other such
attorneys or agents may also execute and deliver on behalf of the Corporation, powers of attorney,
proxies, consents, waivers and other instruments relating to the shares or securities owned or held
by the Corporation.
Section 5 Corporate Seal
The corporation will have a corporate seal, as may from time to time be determined by
resolution of the Board of Directors. If a corporate seal is adopted, it shall have inscribed
thereon the name of the corporation and the words Corporate Seal and Nevada. The seal may be
used by causing it or a facsimile thereof to be impressed or affixed or in any manner reproduced.
12
Section 6 Annual Statement
The Board of Directors shall present at each annual meeting, and at any special meeting of the
stockholders when called for by a vote of the stockholders, a full and clear statement of the
business and condition of the Corporation.
Section 7 Dividends
Dividends upon the capital stock of the Corporation, subject to the provision of the Articles
of Incorporation, if any, may be declared by the Board of Directors at any regular or special
meeting pursuant to law. Dividends may be paid in cash, in property, or in shares of the capital
stock of the Corporation, subject to the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation.
Before payment of any dividend, there may be set aside out of any funds of the Corporation
available for dividends such sum or sums as the directors from time to time, in their absolute and
sole discretion, think proper as a reserve or reserves to meet contingencies, or for equalizing
dividends, or for repairing or maintaining any property or the Corporation, or for such other
purpose or purposes as the directors believe to be in the interest of the Corporation, and the
directors may modify or abolish any such reserve in the manner in which it was created.
Section 8 Conflicts of Interest
In the event of any proposed transaction which would result in the merger of the Corporation
with or into any other company or entity, or the sale, dividend, spin-off or transfer of all or
substantially all of the assets of the Corporation, whether in one or more related transactions (a
Covered Transaction), such Covered Transaction shall require the approval of a two-thirds
majority of the Board of Directors after a review and written report of the terms and fairness of
such transaction have been conducted and prepared by a special committee of the Board appointed to
conduct such review. Such special committee shall consist of not less than two directors and shall
be composed entirely of directors who are neither employees, directors, officers, agents or
appointees or representatives of any company or entity affiliated with any party to the Covered
Transaction, other than the Corporation. Such special committee is authorized to retain such
professional advisors, including investment bankers, attorneys, and accountants as it may
determine, in its sole discretion, to be appropriate under the circumstances.
ARTICLE VII
INDEMNIFICATION
Section 1 Indemnification of Officers and Directors, Employees and Agents
Every person who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to or is involved in
any action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative, by reason
of the fact that such person or a person of whom that person is the legal representative is or was
a director, officer, employee or agent of the Corporation or is or was serving at the request of
the Corporation or for its benefit as a director, officer, employee or agent of another
corporation, or as its representative in a partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise,
shall be indemnified and held harmless to the fullest extent legally permissible under the NRS from
time to time
13
against all expenses, liability and loss (including attorneys fees, judgments, fines and
amounts paid or to be paid in settlement) reasonably incurred or suffered by such person in
connection therewith. The expenses of officers, directors, employee or agents incurred in
defending a civil or criminal action, suit or proceeding must be paid by the Corporation as they
are incurred and in advance of the final disposition of the action, suit or proceeding upon receipt
of an undertaking by or on behalf of the director, officer, employee or agent to repay the amount
if it is ultimately determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that such person is not
entitled to be indemnified by the Corporation. Such right of indemnification shall be a contract
right, which may be enforced in any manner desired by such person. Such right of indemnification
shall not be exclusive of any other right which such directors, officers, employees or agents may
have or hereafter acquire and, without limiting the generality of such statement, they shall be
entitled to their respective rights of indemnification under any bylaw, agreement, vote of
stockholders, provision of law or otherwise, as well as their rights under this Article VII.
Section 2 Insurance
The Board of Directors may cause the Corporation to purchase and maintain insurance on behalf
of any person who is or was a director, officer, employee or agent of the Corporation, or is or was
serving at the request of the Corporation as a director, officer, employee or agent of another
corporation, or as its representative in a partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise
against any liability asserted against such person and incurred in any such capacity or arising out
of such status, whether or not the Corporation would have the power to indemnify such person.
Section 3 Further Bylaws
The Board of Directors may from time to time adopt further Bylaws with respect to
indemnification and may amend these and such Bylaws to provide at all times the fullest
indemnification permitted by the laws of the State of Nevada.
ARTICLE VIII
AMENDMENTS
Section 1 Amendments by Stockholders
The Bylaws may be amended by the stockholders at any annual or special meeting of the
stockholders by a majority vote, provided notice of intention to amend or repeal shall have been
contained in the notice of such meeting.
Section 2 Amendments by Board of Directors
The Board of Directors at any regular or special meeting by a majority vote may amend these
Bylaws, including Bylaws adopted by the stockholders, but the stockholders may from time to time
specify particular provisions of the Bylaws, which shall not be amended by the Board of Directors.
14
exv10w52
EXHIBIT 10.52
March 6, 2004
Mr. Wayne Smith
New South Wales, Australia
Dear Wayne,
Reading Australia and Reading New Zealand, two major subsidiaries of Reading International, Inc.,
are pleased to offer you a three (3) year contract as the Executive Director of its New Zealand and
Australia operations. This position subordinates all operations and personnel in New Zealand and
Australia to your office and you will directly report to myself as the C.E.O. and Chairman.
You will officially commence in that position on April 1, 2004, and will be officed in Melbourne.
Timing of the transfer from Sydney to Melbourne will be mutually agreed upon.
Your annual compensation shall be $A250,000 all inclusive in the first year, $A275,000 in the
second year and $A300,000 in the third year. An automobile expense allowance of $A20,000 is
optional at your election. In addition, you will be entitled to the opportunity to earn a bonus of
$A50,000 a year. Economic targets and goals will be set in the first 60 days beginning each April
1 by the Reading International Board and yourself. Naturally, the Board, in its discretion,
reserves the right to award an additional bonus should the particular circumstances so warrant.
Shall the Reading International Board determine that your services are not meeting the standards of
anticipated performance, your executive agreement may be immediately terminated and you will be
entitled to six (6) months salary.
In the event that you or Reading should determine in the next 3 weeks that certain additional
provisions be added to this agreement, without such provisions altering or modifying the
aforementioned salient terms, we agree to accommodate each other.
Sincerely,
/s/ James J. Cotter
Acknowledged and agreed to:
/s/ Wayne D. Smith
exv21
EXHIBIT 21
READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. LISTING OF SUBSIDIARIES
AHGP, Inc.
AHLP, Inc.
Angelika Film Centers (Dallas), Inc.
Angelika Film Centers LLC
Angelika Film Centers (Plano), LP
Australia Country Cinemas Pty Ltd
Bayou Cinemas LP
Big 4 Farming LLC
Burwood Developments Pty Ltd
Citadel 57th Street, LLC
Citadel Acquisition Corporation
Citadel Agriculture, Inc.
Citadel Cinemas, Inc.
Citadel Distribution Services, Inc.
Citadel Realty, Inc.
Cliveden Ltd
Copenhagen Courtenay Central Ltd
Craig Corporation
Craig Food & Hospitality, Inc.
Craig Management, Inc.
Darnelle Enterprises Ltd
Dimension Specialty, Inc.
Entertainment Holdings, Inc.
Epping Cinemas Pty Ltd
Hope Street Hospitality, LLC
Hotel Newmarket Pty Ltd
James J. Cotter & Associates
Liberty Theaters, Inc.
Liberty Theatricals, LLC
Minetta Live, LLC
Movieland Cinemas (NZ) Ltd
Newmarket Properties Pty Ltd
Orpheum Live, LLC
Liberty Live, LLC
Port Reading Railroad Company
Puerto Rico Holdings, Inc.
Queenstown Land Holdings Ltd
Railroad Investments, Inc.
Reading Acquisitions Pty Ltd
Reading Capital Corporation
Reading Center Development Corporation
Reading Cinema Properties Ltd
Reading Cinemas Courtenay Central Ltd
Reading Cinemas NJ, Inc.
Reading Cinemas of Puerto Rico, Inc.
Reading Cinemas Pty Ltd
Reading Cinemas Puerto Rico LLC
Reading Cinemas USA LLC
Reading Cinemas, Inc.
Reading Colac Pty Ltd
Reading Company
Reading Courtenay Central Ltd
Reading Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd
Reading Exhibition Pty Ltd
Reading Holdings, Inc.
Reading International Cinemas LLC
Reading Investment Company, Inc.
Reading Licenses Pty Ltd
Reading Melton Pty Ltd
Reading New Zealand Ltd
Reading Pacific LLC
Reading Properties Pty Ltd
Reading Real Estate Company
Reading Realty, Inc.
Reading Resources, Inc.
Reading Sunbury Pty Ltd
Reading Theaters, Inc.
Reading Transportation Company
Reading Wellington Properties Ltd
RG-I, Inc.
RG-II, Inc.
Ronwood Investments Ltd
Royal George, LLC
Sutton Hill Properties, LLC
Trenton-Princeton Traction Company
Tington Investments Ltd
Tobrooke Holdings Ltd
Trevone Holdings Ltd
Twin Cities Cinemas, Inc.
US International Property Finance Pty Ltd
Washington and Franklin Railway Company
Western Gaming, Inc.
Wilmington and Northern Railroad
exv23
EXHIBIT 23
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-36277 on Form
S-8 of our reports dated March 25, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements of
Reading International, Inc. and its subsidiaries and managements report on internal control over
financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Reading International, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2004.
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Los Angeles, California
March 25, 2005
exv31w1
CERTIFICATIONS
EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, James J. Cotter, certify that:
1) I have reviewed this Form 10-K of Reading
International, Inc.;
2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;
4) The registrants other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for
the registrant and have:
|
|
|
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared; |
|
|
b) designed such internal control over financial reporting,
or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; |
|
|
c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and |
|
|
d) disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and |
5) The registrants other certifying officer and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants Board of
Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
|
|
|
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and |
|
|
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting. |
|
|
|
/s/ James J. Cotter
|
|
|
|
James J. Cotter |
|
Chief Executive Officer |
March 25, 2004
exv31w2
EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, Andrzej Matyczynski, certify that:
1) I have reviewed this Form 10-K of Reading
International, Inc.;
2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;
4) The registrants other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for
the registrant and have:
|
|
|
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared; |
|
|
b) designed such internal control over financial reporting,
or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; |
|
|
c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and |
|
|
d) disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and |
5) The registrants other certifying officer and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants Board of
Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
|
|
|
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and |
|
|
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting. |
|
|
|
/s/ Andrzej Matyczynski
|
|
|
|
Andrzej Matyczynski |
|
Chief Financial Officer |
March 25, 2004
exv32w1
EXHIBIT 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Reading
International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the
Report), I, James J. Cotter, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
|
|
|
|
1. |
The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and |
|
|
2. |
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. |
|
|
|
/s/ James J. Cotter
|
|
|
|
James J. Cotter |
|
Chief Executive Officer |
March 25, 2005
exv32w2
EXHIBIT 32.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Reading
International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the
Report), I, Andrzej Matyczynski, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
|
|
|
|
1. |
The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and |
|
|
2. |
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. |
|
|
|
/s/ Andrzej Matyczynski
|
|
|
|
Andrzej Matyczynski |
|
Chief Financial Officer |
March 25, 2005