70
MEDIASET ESPAÑA COMUNICACIÓN, S.A.
NOTES TOTHE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THEYEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2013
(Thousands of euros)
Mediaset España provided information in conformance with the Action Plan, responded to CNC requirements, and took all
the necessary steps expected of it. None of the supposed delays or problems in delivering information represent a material
failure to comply with the established commitments.
Therefore, Mediaset España filed an appeal and prepared a resolution before the National Court of Justice, to request the
suspension of the fine, which was agreed.
As in the previous dossier, the accompanying balance sheet does not include a provision for this contingency, as the
Company’s directors and legal advisors do not consider it likely that this risk will arise.
As explained in Note 15, the Company is open to inspection of certain tax returns, but its directors and tax advisors
consider that no significant tax contingencies will materialize, and if they do, they will not have a significant effect on the
accompanying balance sheet.
Federal Cour t Of First Instance 6 - Madrid: Regular Process # 1181/10
The Company filed a lawsuit of ordinary proceedings on November 19, 2010 against a contents supplier requesting that
a contract granting a licensing format, as well as other related contracts, be deemed null and void.The suit requested that
the defendant be ordered to return amounts paid within the scope of the agreements, as well as be fined for damages
and losses. The defendant requested that the claim be dismissed and also filed a counterclaim requesting that the
Company be ordered to pay the contract transaction costs as well as an indemnity for damages and losses (estimated
at 15 million euros).
On February 3, 2014, the Court handed down a sentence overturning the order while partially upholding the
counterclaim, declaring that the Company had not complied with the agreements reached with the supplier, and that it
was in violation of certain rights; the Company was ordered to pay the amounts claimed in the appeal.
The Company is currently preparing an appeal which should be filed soon, to include a number of sound supporting
arguments.
From a factual point of view, the Court did not consider any of the numerous items of proof submitted indicating that
the defendant is not solely entitled to legal protection, which is the most substantive aspect of the case. Also, a good
portion of the reasoning in the Sentence is based on a conceptual error: it does not differentiate between “format” and
“program”, which leads to a confusion regarding the ownership and the rights arising from one and the other.
Legally speaking, it is contradictory as it grants protection to elements lacking originality to the detriment of those which
would make the program easily distinguishable from others similar in nature.
Finally, the fine should be limited to the industrial margin or profit which the supplier would have earned had the terms
in the contracts been met, rather than the total amount of the estimated invoicing, as the supplier did not provide any
services at all.
Based on the above, we consider it probable that the Appellate Court will overturn the sentence in question, and
therefore, no provisions were made in the financial statements.
1...,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69 71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,...216