71 / 214
71
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND MANAGEMENT REPORT 2015
Madrid Cour t of First Instance number 6: Regular process number 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 filed an appeal against the sentence, arguing the following:
• 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.
• Legally speaking, the sentence is contradictory as it grants protection to elements lacking originality to the detri-
ment 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 Provincial Court will overturn the sentence. In 2014, the Company
decided to record a provision for part of the fine imposed under the first sentence, in line with its general risk
management policy.
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.