UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

____________________

FORM 10-Q

____________________





Commission file number 001-16131

WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)





1241 East Main Street

Stamford, CT 06902

(203) 352-8600

(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code,

of Registrant’s principal executive offices)



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



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



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





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



At October 26, 2016 the number of shares outstanding of the Registrant’s Class A common stock, par value $.01 per share, was 38,455,266 and the number of shares outstanding of the Registrant’s Class B common stock, par value $.01 per share, was 37,949,438.

 





 

---

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS





 





 

---

 

 WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(In thousands, except per share data)

(Unaudited)







---

 

WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)







---

 

WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands, except share data)

(Unaudited)







---

 

WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)







---

 

WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)







 



 

---

 

1. Basis of Presentation and Business Description

The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of WWE.  “WWE” refers to World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and its subsidiaries, unless the context otherwise requires.  References to “we,” “us,” “our” and the “Company” refer to WWE. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires our management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period.  Actual results could differ from those estimates.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements are unaudited. All adjustments (consisting of normal recurring adjustments) considered necessary for a fair presentation of financial position, results of operations, and cash flows at the dates and for the periods presented have been included.  The results of operations of any interim period are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations for the full year. Included in Corporate and Other are intersegment eliminations recorded in consolidation. All intercompany balances are eliminated in consolidation.

Certain information and note disclosures normally included in annual financial statements have been condensed or omitted from these interim financial statements; these financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto included in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.

We are an integrated media and entertainment company, principally engaged in the production and distribution of content through various channels, including our premium over-the-top WWE Network, television rights agreements, pay-per-view event programming, live events, feature films, licensing of various WWE themed products, and the sale of consumer products featuring our brands.  Our operations are organized around the following four principal activities:

Media Division:

Network

Television

Home Entertainment

Digital Media

Live Events:

Consumer Products Division:

Licensing

Venue Merchandise

WWEShop

---

 

WWE Studios:

 

2. Significant Accounting Policies

There have been no significant changes to our accounting policies that were previously disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for our fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, or in the methodology used in formulating these significant judgments and estimates that affect the application of these policies.

Cost of Revenues

Included within Costs of revenues are the following:





Costs to produce our live event programming are expensed when the event is first broadcast, and are not included in the amortization table noted above.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In August 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2016-15, “Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230), Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments,” which addresses eight specific cash flow issues and is intended to reduce diversity in practice in how certain cash receipts and cash payments are presented and classified in the statement of cash flows.  The guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, which for the Company will be effective for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2018, with early adoption permitted.  The amendments in the ASU should be applied using a retrospective transition method to each period presented. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this new standard and do not expect it to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.



In March 2016, the FASB issued  ASU No. 2016-09, “Compensation –Stock Compensation (Topic 718),”  which is intended to simplify several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment award transactions. The amendments require entities to record all excess tax benefits or deficiencies as income tax benefit or expense in the income statement and would require entities to classify excess tax benefits as an operating activity in the statement of cash flows. The amendments will also allow entities to provide net settlement of stock-based awards to cover tax withholding obligations without classifying the awards as a liability as long as the net settlement does not exceed the maximum individual statutory tax rate. The amounts paid to satisfy the statutory income tax withholding obligation would be classified as a financing activity in the statement of cash flows. Additionally, the amendments allow entities to elect an accounting policy to either continue to use a forfeiture estimate on share based awards or account for forfeitures when they occur. The new guidance will be effective for the fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within that year, which for the Company will be effective for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2017. If an entity early adopts the amendments in an interim period, any adjustments should be reflected as of the beginning of the fiscal year that includes that interim period.  The Company is currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of this new standard on our consolidated financial statements.



In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-07, “Investments – Equity Method and Joint Ventures (Topic 323): Simplifying the Transition to the Equity Method of Accounting”. The amendments eliminate the requirement to retroactively adopt the equity method of accounting when a change in ownership occurs. The amendments require that the equity method investor add the cost of acquiring the additional interest in the investee to the current basis of the investment and adopt the equity method of accounting as of the date the investment becomes qualified for equity method accounting. Therefore, upon qualifying for the equity method of accounting, no retroactive adjustment of the investment is required. This new guidance is effective for annual and interim reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016 which for the Company will be effective for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2017. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this new standard and does not expect it to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.



---

 

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02 “Leases (Topic 842),” which will supersede the existing guidance for lease accounting. This new standard will require lessees to recognize leases on their balance sheets, and leaves lessor accounting largely unchanged. The new standard requires a dual approach for lessee accounting under which a lessee would account for leases as finance leases or operating leases. Both finance leases and operating leases will result in the lessee recognizing a right-of-use asset and a corresponding lease liability. For finance leases, the lessee would recognize interest expense and amortization of the right-of-use asset, and for operating leases, the lessee would recognize a straight-line total lease expense. The new guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018 and interim periods within those fiscal years, which for the Company will be effective for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2019, with early adoption permitted.  An entity will be required to recognize and measure leases at the beginning of the earliest period presented using a modified retrospective approach. We are currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of this new standard on our consolidated financial statements.



In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, “Financial Instruments-Overall (Subtopic 825-10): Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities,” which requires that most equity investments be measured at fair value, with subsequent changes in fair value recognized in net income (other than those accounted for under equity method of accounting). Under the new guidance, entities will no longer be able to recognize unrealized holding gains and losses on equity securities classified today as available-for-sale in other comprehensive income, and they will no longer be able to use the cost method of accounting for equity securities that do not have readily determinable fair values. However, entities will be able to elect to record equity investments without readily determinable fair values at cost, less impairment, and plus or minus subsequent adjustments for observable price changes. The guidance for classifying and measuring investments in debt securities and loans is not impacted The new guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2017, which for the Company is effective for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2018, with early adoption permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of this new standard on our consolidated financial statements.

In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-11, “Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory,” which requires all inventory to be measured at the lower of cost and net realizable value, except for inventory that is accounted for using the LIFO or the retail inventory method, which will be measured under existing accounting standards. The new guidance must be applied on a prospective basis and is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, which for the Company will be effective for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2017, with early adoption permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of this new standard and do not expect it to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, "Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)." This standard will supersede the revenue recognition requirements in ASC 605, "Revenue Recognition," and most industry-specific guidance. The standard requires an entity to recognize revenue in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to receive in exchange for goods or services. In addition, during 2016, the FASB has issued ASU No. 2016-08, “Principle versus Agent Considerations,” ASU No. 2016-10, “Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing,” and ASU No. 2016-12, “Narrow Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients,” all of which clarify certain implementation guidance in ASU No. 2014-09.  This standard along with the subsequent clarifications issued are effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those fiscal years, making it effective for our fiscal year beginning January 1, 2018. Early adoption is permitted to the original effective date for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. The standard allows an entity to either apply the requirements retrospectively to all prior periods presented, or apply the requirements in the year of adoption, through a cumulative adjustment. We are currently evaluating the impact of adoption of this new standard, along with subsequent clarifying guidance, on our consolidated financial statements.



 

3. Segment Information

The Company currently classifies its operations into ten reportable segments.  The ten reportable segments of the Company include the following: Network (which includes our pay-per-view business), Television, Home Entertainment and Digital Media, which are individual segments that comprise the Media Division; Live Events; Licensing, Venue Merchandise and WWEShop, which are individual segments that comprise the Consumer Products Division; WWE Studios, and Corporate and Other (as defined below).

The Company presents OIBDA as the primary measure of segment profit (loss).  The Company defines OIBDA as operating income before depreciation and amortization, excluding feature film and television production asset amortization and impairments, as well as the amortization of costs related to content delivery and technology assets utilized for our WWE Network.  The Company believes the presentation of OIBDA is relevant and useful for investors because it allows investors to view our segment performance in the same manner as the primary method used by management to evaluate segment performance and make decisions about allocating resources.  Additionally, we believe that OIBDA provides a meaningful representation of operating cash flows within our segments.

---

 

OIBDA is a non-GAAP financial measure and may be different than similarly titled non-GAAP financial measures used by other companies. A limitation of OIBDA is that it excludes depreciation and amortization, which represents the periodic charge for certain fixed assets and intangible assets used in generating revenues for our business. OIBDA should not be regarded as an alternative to operating income or net income as an indicator of operating performance, or to the statement of cash flows as a measure of liquidity, nor should it be considered in isolation or as a substitute for financial measures prepared in accordance with GAAP. We believe that operating income is the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure to OIBDA. See below for a reconciliation of OIBDA to operating income for the periods presented.

We record certain costs within our Corporate and Other segment since the costs benefit the Company as a whole and are not directly attributable to our other reportable segments. These costs are categorized and presented into two categories, Corporate Support and Business Support. Corporate Support expenses primarily include our corporate general and administrative functions. Business Support expenses include our sales and marketing functions, our international sales offices, talent development costs, including costs associated with our WWE Performance Center, and our business strategy and data analytics functions.  Included in Corporate and Other are intersegment eliminations recorded in consolidation.

We do not disclose assets by segment information. In general, assets of the Company are leveraged across its reportable segments and we do not provide assets by segment information to our chief operating decision maker, as that information is not typically used in the determination of resource allocation and assessing business performance of each reportable segment.

---

 

The following tables present summarized financial information for each of the Company's reportable segments:







Reconciliation of Total Operating Income to Total OIBDA







---

 

Geographic Information

Net revenues by major geographic region are based upon the geographic location of where our content is distributed. The information below summarizes net revenues to unaffiliated customers by geographic area:







Revenues generated from the United Kingdom, our largest international market, totaled $17,290 and $16,297, and $58,166 and $49,609 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively.  The Company’s property and equipment was almost entirely located in the United States at September 30, 2016 and 2015.

 

4. Earnings Per Share

For purposes of calculating basic and diluted earnings per share, we used the following weighted average common shares outstanding (in thousands):













---

 

5. Stock-based Compensation



2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan



Our 2007 Amended and Restated Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “2007 Plan”) provides for equity-based incentive awards as determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors as incentives and rewards to encourage officers and employees to participate in our long-term success.



2016 Omnibus Incentive Plan  



The Company’s Board of Directors and stockholders approved the 2016 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “2016 Plan”) on February 3, 2016, and April 21, 2016, respectively. A total of 5,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock have been authorized for issuance under the 2016 Plan.  Beginning on February 3, 2016, the 2016 Plan replaced the 2007 Plan, and no new awards will be granted under the 2007 Plan.  Any awards outstanding under the 2007 Plan on the date of stockholder approval of the 2016 Plan will remain subject to and be paid under the 2007 Plan, and any shares subject to outstanding awards under the 2007 Plan that subsequently cease to be subject to such awards (other than by reason of settlement of the awards in shares) will automatically become available for issuance under the 2016 Plan. The 2016 Plan provides for the grant of incentive or non-qualified stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units, other stock-based awards, and performance awards to eligible participants as determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.  Awards may be granted under the 2016 Plan to officers, employees, consultants, advisors and independent contractors of the Company and its affiliates and to non-employee directors of the Company.

Restricted Stock Units

The Company grants restricted stock units ("RSUs") to officers and employees under the 2016 Plan. Stock-based compensation costs associated with our RSUs are determined using the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the date of the grant.  These costs are recognized over the requisite service period using the graded vesting method, net of estimated forfeitures.  RSUs have a service requirement typically over a three and one half year vesting schedule and vest in equal annual installments.  We estimate forfeitures based on historical trends when recognizing compensation expense and adjust the estimate of forfeitures when they are expected to differ or as forfeitures occur. Unvested RSUs accrue dividend equivalents at the same rate as are paid on our shares of Class A common stock.  The dividend equivalents are subject to the same vesting schedule as the underlying RSUs.

The following table summarizes the RSU activity during the nine months ended September 30, 2016:









Performance Stock Units

The Company grants performance stock units (“PSUs”) to officers and employees under the 2016 Plan. Stock-based compensation costs associated with our PSUs are initially determined using the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the date the awards are approved by our Compensation Committee (service inception date).  The vesting of these PSUs are subject to certain performance conditions and a service requirement of typically three and one half years.  Until such time as the performance conditions are met, stock compensation costs associated with these PSUs are re-measured each reporting period based upon the fair market value of the Company's common stock and the probability of attainment on the reporting date.  The ultimate number of PSUs that are issued to an employee is the result of the actual performance of the Company at the end of the performance period compared to the performance conditions.  Stock compensation costs for our PSUs are recognized over the requisite service period using the graded vesting method, net of estimated forfeitures. We estimate forfeitures based on historical trends which recognizing compensation expense and adjust the estimate of forfeitures when they are expected to differ or as forfeitures occur.  Unvested PSUs

---

 

accrue dividend equivalents once the performance conditions are met at the same rate as are paid on our shares of Class A common stock.  The dividend equivalents are subject to the same vesting schedule as the underlying PSUs.

During the first quarter of 2015, the Compensation Committee approved agreements to grant PSUs to three executive management members for an aggregate value of $15,000.  These awards vary from the typical PSU grant in that the awards vest in three annual tranches of 20%,  30%, and 50%, compared to the typical 33%, 33%, 33% vesting schedule.  These agreements provide for two $7,500 awards, the first with performance conditions tied to 2015 results, and the second with performance conditions tied to 2016 results. The Company began expensing the second award of $7,500 concurrently with the first award beginning in February 2015.  The units associated with these awards are included in the table below.

The following table summarizes the PSU activity during the nine months ended September 30, 2016:









During the nine months ended September 30, 2016, we granted 956,730 PSUs, inclusive of the second half of the executive grants noted above, which are subject to certain performance conditions.

During the year ended December 31, 2015, we granted 1,000,146 PSUs, inclusive of the first half of the executive grants noted above, which were subject to performance conditions.  During the first quarter of 2016, the performance conditions related to these PSUs were exceeded, which resulted in an increase of 620,923 PSUs in 2016 relating to the initial 2015 PSU grant.

Stock-based compensation costs, which includes costs related to RSUs, PSUs and the Company's Employee Stock Purchase Plan, totaled $5,967 and $4,305 and $15,556 and $12,092 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

 

6. Property and Equipment

Property and equipment consisted of the following:







Depreciation expense for property and equipment totaled $5,887 and $5,147, and $16,823 and $16,052 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. 



---

 

Asset Acquisition



On September 14, 2016, the Company acquired, through WWE Real Estate Holdings, LLC a wholly-owned special purpose subsidiary (“WWE Real Estate”), a building and underlying real property located in Stamford, Connecticut (the “Purchased Property”) from one of the debtors in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings of Newbury Common Associates, LLC and certain of its affiliates. The purchase price of $26,883 was funded, in part, by the assumption of an existing mortgage of $23,000  (see Note 12, Debt, for further discussion). The Company has been one of the tenants in the Purchased Property for approximately 16 years.  In connection with the acquisition, WWE Real Estate assumed the seller’s interests as landlord under several existing leases of the Purchased Property, including the landlord’s interest in leases under which the Company is a tenant.  Since the assets of WWE Real Estate represent collateral for the underlying mortgage, these assets are not available to satisfy debts and obligations to any other creditors of the Company.  As of September 30, 2016, costs of $28,039, consisting of purchase price and capitalized transaction costs, are reflected in Land, buildings and improvements, which is a component of Property and equipment, on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.  Depreciation on the Purchased Property is computed on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of the Purchased Property in accordance with the Company’s existing accounting policy for property and equipment. 

 

7. Feature Film Production Assets, Net

Feature film production assets consisted of the following:







Approximately 43% of “In release” film production assets are estimated to be amortized over the next 12 months, and approximately 70% of “In release” film production assets are estimated to be amortized over the next three years.  We anticipate amortizing approximately 80% of our "In release" film production asset within four years as we receive revenues associated with television distribution of our licensed films.  During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, we amortized $1,719 and $1,254,  and $4,420 and $2,663,  respectively, of feature film production assets. During these periods, our films were released under a co-distribution model.  Under the co-distribution model, third-party distribution partners control the distribution and marketing of co-distributed films, and as a result, we recognize revenue on a net basis after the third-party distribution partners recoup distribution fees and expenses and results are reported to us.  Results are typically reported to us in periods subsequent to the initial release of the film.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2016, we released three feature films,  Countdown,  Scooby Doo! & WWE: Curse of the Speed Demon, and Interrogation,  direct to DVD, which comprises $3,273 of our “In release” feature film assets as of September 30, 2016.    We currently have six films designated as “Completed but not released” and have four films “In production.”  We also have capitalized certain script development costs and pre-production costs for various other film projects designated as “In development.”  Development costs are evaluated at each reporting period for impairment and to determine if a project is deemed to be abandoned.  We did not  record any impairment charges related to abandoned projects during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015.

Unamortized feature film production assets are evaluated for impairment each reporting period.  We review and revise estimates of ultimate revenue and participation costs at each reporting period to reflect the most current information available.  If estimates for a film’s ultimate revenue and/or costs are revised and indicate a significant decline in a film’s profitability, or if events or circumstances change that indicate we should assess whether the fair value of a film is less than its unamortized film costs, we calculate the film's estimated fair value using a discounted cash flows model.  If fair value is less than unamortized cost, the film asset is written down to fair value.    We recorded an impairment charge of $270 related to our feature films  during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015.  We did not record any impairment charges during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 related to our feature films.

---

 

 

8. Television Production Assets, Net

Television production assets consisted of the following:







Television production assets consist primarily of non-live event episodic television series we have produced for distribution through a variety of platforms including on our WWE Network. Amounts capitalized include development costs, production costs, production overhead and employee salaries. Costs to produce episodic programming for television or distribution on WWE Network are amortized in the proportion that revenues bear to management's estimates of the ultimate revenue expected to be recognized from exploitation, exhibition or sale.



Amortization of television production assets, which are included in Costs of revenues, consisted of the following:







During the three months ended September 30, 2016, we reduced previously recorded amortization expenses for certain television programming as their final production costs were less than originally estimated and expensed.



Costs to produce our live event programming are expensed when the event is first broadcast, and are not included in the capitalized costs or amortization tables noted above.

Unamortized television production assets are evaluated for impairment each reporting period.  If conditions indicate a potential impairment, and the estimated future cash flows are not sufficient to recover the unamortized asset, the asset is written down to fair value.  In addition, if we determine that a program will not likely air, we will expense the remaining unamortized asset.  During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, we did not record any impairments related to our television production assets.

 

9. Investment Securities and Short-Term Investments

Investment Securities

Included within Investment Securities are the following:



---

 

Equity Method Investment



In March 2015, WWE and ABG formed a joint venture to re-launch an apparel and lifestyle brand, Tapout (the "Brand"). ABG agreed to contribute certain intangible assets for the Brand, licensing contracts, systems, and other administrative functions to Tapout.  The Company agreed to contribute promotional and marketing services related to the venture for a period of at least five years in exchange for a 50% interest in the profits and losses and voting interest in Tapout.  The Company valued its initial investment of $13,800 based on the fair value of the existing licensing contracts contributed by ABG.  To the extent that Tapout records income or losses, we record our share proportionate to our ownership percentage, and any dividends received reduce the carrying amount of the investment. Net equity method earnings from Tapout are included as a component of Investment income, net on the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Net dividends received from Tapout are reflected on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows as a component of Equity in earnings of affiliate, net of dividends received. The Company did not record any impairment charges related to our investment in Tapout during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015. 



The following table presents the net equity method earnings from Tapout and net dividends received from Tapout for the periods presented:







As promotional services are provided to Tapout, we will record revenue and reduce the existing service obligation.  During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, we recorded revenues of $779 and $1,580, and $2,484 and $1,680, respectively, related to our fulfillment of our promotional services obligation to Tapout.  The remaining service obligation as of September 30, 2016 was $8,886, and was included in Deferred Income and Non-Current Deferred Income for $606 and $8,280, respectively.

Our known maximum exposure to loss approximates the remaining service obligation to Tapout, which was $8,886 as of September 30, 2016. Creditors of Tapout do not have recourse against the general credit of the Company.

Cost Method Investments

During the nine months ended September 30, 2016, we invested $1,000 in a fantasy sports contest provider, $1,000 in a subscription-based sports media company and $250 in a virtual reality platform operator.



We evaluate our cost method investments for impairment if factors indicate that a significant decrease in value has occurred. The Company did not record any impairment charges on our cost method investments during the three months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015.

Short-Term Investments

Short-term investments measured at fair value consisted of the following:







We classify the investments listed in the above table as available-for-sale securities.  Such investments consist primarily of corporate and municipal bonds, including pre-refunded municipal bonds.  These investments are stated at fair value as required by the applicable accounting guidance. Unrealized gains and losses on such securities are reflected, net of tax, as other comprehensive income (loss) in the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income.

---

 

Our municipal and corporate bonds are included in Short-term investments, net on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.  Realized gains and losses on investments are included in earnings and are derived using the specific identification method for determining the cost of securities sold.  As of September 30, 2016, contractual maturities of these bonds are as follows:







The following table summarizes the short-term investment activity:





 



10. Fair Value Measurement

Fair value is determined based on the exchange price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.  Fair value is a market-based measurement based on assumptions that market participants would use to price the asset or liability.  Accordingly, the framework considers markets or observable inputs as the preferred source of value followed by assumptions based on hypothetical transactions, in the absence of market inputs.  The fair value should be calculated based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, not on assumptions specific to the entity.  In addition, the fair value of assets and liabilities should include consideration of non-performance risk, including the Company's own credit risk.

Additionally, the accounting guidance establishes a three-level hierarchy that ranks the quality and reliability of information used in developing fair value estimates.  The hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets and the lowest priority to unobservable data.  In cases where two or more levels of inputs are used to determine fair value, a financial instrument's level is determined based on the lowest level input that is considered significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety.  The three input levels of the fair value hierarchy are summarized as follows:



The following assets are required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis and the classification within the hierarchy was as follows:







Certain financial instruments are carried at cost on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, which approximates fair value due to their short-term, highly liquid nature.  The carrying amounts of cash and cash equivalents, money market accounts, accounts receivable, and accounts payable approximate fair value because of the short-term nature of such instruments. The carrying amount of short-term debt outstanding pursuant to our Film Credit Facility approximates fair value as interest rates on these instruments approximate current market rates.

We have classified our investment in municipal and corporate bonds within Level 2, as their valuation requires quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active and/or model-

---

 

based valuation techniques for which all significant inputs are observable in the market or can be corroborated by observable market data.  The municipal and corporate bonds are valued based on model-driven valuations.  A third party service provider assists the Company with compiling market prices from a variety of industry standard data sources, security master files from large financial institutions and other third-party sources that are used to value our municipal and corporate bond investments.  The Company did not have any transfers between Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 fair value investments during the periods presented.

The fair value measurements of our cost method investments are classified within Level 3, as significant unobservable inputs are used to measure the fair value of these assets due to the absence of quoted market prices and inherent lack of liquidity.  Significant unobservable inputs include variables such as near-term prospects of the investees, recent financing activities of the investees, and the investees' capital structure, as well as other economic variables, which reflect assumptions market participants would use in pricing these assets.  Our investments are recorded at fair value only if an impairment charge is recognized.  The Company did not record any impairment charges on these assets during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015. 

The Company's long lived property and equipment, feature film and television production assets are required to be measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis if it is determined that indicators of impairment exist.  These assets are recorded at fair value only when an impairment is recognized. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, the Company recorded impairment charges of $270 on feature film production assets based upon fair value measurements of $1,430.  The Company did not record any such charges during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016.  The Company classifies these assets as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy due to significant unobservable inputs.

The fair value of the Company’s long-term debt, consisting of a mortgage loan assumed in connection with a building purchase and a promissory note secured by the Company's Corporate Jet, is estimated based upon quoted price estimates for similar debt arrangements. At September 30, 2016, the face amount of the mortgage loan and promissory note approximates their fair value.    

 

11. Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses

Accounts payable and accrued expenses consisted of the following:









Accrued other includes accruals for our international and licensing business activities, as well as other miscellaneous accruals, none of which categories individually exceeds  5% of current liabilities.  The decrease in accrued expenses is primarily due to the payout of the Company’s fiscal 2015 bonus during the first quarter of 2016. 

 

---

 

12. Debt

Included within Debt are the following:



Mortgage



On September 14, 2016, the Company acquired, through WWE Real Estate, the Purchased Property from one of the debtors in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings of Newbury Common Associates, LLC and certain of its affiliates. See Note 6, Property and Equipment, for further discussion. In connection with the acquisition, WWE Real Estate entered into a Note and Mortgage Assumption Agreement, dated September 13, 2016 (the “Assumption Agreement”), with Hamilton and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee for the registered holders of Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-NXS2, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-NXS2 (the “Lender”).  Pursuant to the Assumption Agreement, WWE Real Estate paid the Lender approximately $1,865 as a bring current payment and assumed future obligations under a Loan Agreement, dated June 8, 2015, between the seller and the lender, in the principal amount of $23,000, which loan is secured by a mortgage on the Purchased Property.  As part of this debt assumption, the Company executed a Joinder By and Agreement of New Indemnitor pursuant to which the Company agreed to guarantee limited recourse obligations of WWE Real Estate and to certain limited indemnification obligations.  The loan bears interest at the rate of 4.50% per annum and requires monthly payments of interest only until June 2018 and $117 per month thereafter, with a balloon payment on maturity in July 2025. There is a significant yield maintenance premium for prepayments.  Pursuant to the Assumption Agreement, since the assets of WWE Real Estate represent collateral for the underlying mortgage, these assets will not be available to satisfy debts and obligations due to any other creditors of the Company.



Revolving Credit Facility

On July 29, 2016, the Company entered into an amended and restated $150,000 senior unsecured revolving credit facility with a syndicated group of banks, with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. acting as Administrative Agent (the "Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Facility").  The Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Facility replaces the previous $200,000 revolving credit facility which was set to expire on September 9. 2016. Among other things, the Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Facility extends the maturity date to July 29, 2021, modifies the applicable margin for borrowings under the facility and amends restrictions on certain financial covenants to provide for greater financial flexibility.  Applicable interest rates for the borrowings under the Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Facility are based on the Company's current consolidated leverage ratio.  As of September 30, 2016, the LIBOR-based rate plus margin was 2.10%. The Company is required to pay a commitment fee calculated at a rate per annum of 0.250% on the average daily unused portion of the Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Facility. Under the terms of the Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Facility, the Company is subject to certain financial covenants and restrictions, including restrictions on our ability to pay dividends and limitations with respect to our indebtedness, liens, mergers and acquisitions, dispositions of assets, investments, capital expenditures and transactions with affiliates.

As of September 30, 2016, the Company was in compliance with the Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Facility, and had available debt capacity under the terms of the Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Facility of $150,000.  As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, there were no amounts outstanding under the Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Facility.

---

 

Film Credit Facility



In May 2015, two domestic subsidiaries of the Company, WWE Studios Finance Corp. and WWE Studios Finance Holding Corp. (collectively, the “Loan Parties”) entered into a $35,000 secured asset based revolving credit agreement with Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent and lender (the “Film Credit Facility”).  Funds under the Film Credit Facility can be used for, among other things, development of films and television projects. Under the Film Credit Facility, the WWE Studios Finance Corp. is allowed to borrow amounts of up to an aggregate of $35,000 based on a borrowing base formula.  As of September 30, 2016,  borrowings of $1,583 have been made under the Film Credit Facility.  The Company has the intent and ability to repay the amounts outstanding on the Film Credit Facility within one year, and as such, the outstanding balance as of September 30, 2016 has been classified as a current portion of long-term debt within our Consolidated Balance Sheets.  The Film Credit Facility has a five-year term, and it is secured by substantially all the assets of the Loan Parties. The applicable interest rate for borrowings under the Film Credit Facility is a LIBOR-based rate plus 2.50% on LIBOR-based borrowings or an alternate base rate plus 1.50% for alternate base rate borrowings, in all cases subject to adjustment based on the status of film projects.  As of September 30, 2016, the LIBOR-based rate plus margin was 3.35%. The Loan Parties are required to pay certain fees, including a commitment fee, calculated at a rate per annum of 0.50% on the average daily unutilized portion of the Film Credit Facility.  Under the terms of the Film Credit Facility, the Loan Parties are subject to certain financial covenants and restrictions, including limitations with respect to indebtedness, liens, mergers and acquisitions, dispositions of assets, investments, capital expenditures, and transactions with affiliates.  As of September 30, 2016, the Company was in compliance with the Film Credit Facility,  and had $6,000 of available capacity under the terms of the Film Credit Facility.

Aircraft Financing

In August 2013, the Company entered into a $31,568 promissory note (the “Note”) with Citizens Asset Finance, Inc., for the purchase of a 2007 Bombardier Global 5000 aircraft and refurbishments.  The Note bears interest at a rate of 2.18% per annum, is payable in monthly installments of $406, inclusive of interest, beginning in September 2013, and has a final maturity of August 7, 2020.  The Note is secured by a first priority perfected security interest in the purchased aircraft.  As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the amounts outstanding related to the Note were $18,253 and $21,575, respectively.

 

13. Concentration of Credit Risk

We continually monitor our position with, and the credit quality of, the financial institutions that are counterparties to our financial instruments. Our accounts receivable relate principally to a limited number of distributors, including our WWE Network, television, pay-per-view, and home video distributors, and licensees that produce consumer products containing our intellectual property.  We closely monitor the status of receivables with these customers and maintain allowances for anticipated losses as deemed appropriate. At September 30, 2016, our largest receivable balance from customers was 15% of our gross accounts receivable. At December 31, 2015,  our two largest receivable balances from customers were 15% and 14% of our gross accounts receivable. No other customers individually exceeded 10% of our gross accounts receivable balance.

 

14. Income Taxes

As of September 30, 2016, we had $33,538 of deferred tax assets, net, included in non-current income tax assets in our Consolidated Balance Sheet.  As of December 31, 2015, we had $44,709 of deferred tax assets, net, included in non-current income tax assets in our Consolidated Balance Sheet.  

The Company considers all available evidence, both positive and negative, to determine whether, based on the weight of that evidence, a valuation allowance is required to reduce the net deferred tax assets to the amount that is more likely than not to be realized in future periods.  The Company believes that based on past performance, expected future taxable income and prudent and feasible tax planning strategies, it is more likely than not that the net deferred tax assets will be realized.  Changes in these factors may cause us to increase our valuation allowance on deferred tax assets, which would impact our income tax expense in the period we determine that these factors have changed.

 

---

 

15. Film and Television Production Incentives

The Company has access to various governmental programs that are designed to promote film and television production within the United States of America and certain international jurisdictions.  Incentives earned with respect to expenditures on qualifying film production activities and capital projects are recorded as an offset to the related asset balances. Incentives earned with respect to television and other production activities are recorded as an offset to production expenses. The Company recognizes these benefits when we have reasonable assurance regarding the realizable amount of the incentives.

We recorded the following incentives during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015:





 

 

16. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings



On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.  This complaint was amended on January 30, 2015 and alleges that the Company ignored, downplayed, and/or failed to disclose the risks associated with traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE’s performers.  On March 31, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint in its entirety or, if not dismissed, to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.  Without addressing the merits of the Company's motion to dismiss, the Court transferred the case to Connecticut on June 25, 2015.  The plaintiffs filed an objection to such transfer, which was denied on July 27, 2015.  On January 16, 2015, a second lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes.  On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut due to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and, following a scheduling conference in which the court ordered the plaintiffs to cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2015.  On June 29, 2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety.   On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ McCullough, a/k/a “Big Russ McCullough,” Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew R. Wiese a/k/a “Luther Reigns,” individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., asserting similar allegations to Haynes.  The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs, which the California court granted on July 10, 2015.  On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint and, on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  Each of these suits seeks unspecified actual, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical monitoring.  The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class actions.  On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier, individually and as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr., and as personal representative of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.  A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. These lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that the injuries contributed to these former talents’ deaths.  WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut based on forum-selection clauses in the decedents’ contracts with WWE, which motions were granted by the respective courts.  On November 23, 2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and Osborne, which the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015 and December 21, 2015, respectively.    On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham, Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred.  On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, which the Company

---

 

opposed.  The Court previously ordered a stay of discovery in all cases pending decisions on the motions to dismiss.  On January 15, 2016, the Court partially lifted the stay and permitted discovery only on three issues in the case involving Singleton and LoGrasso.  Such discovery was completed by June 1, 2016, and on March 21, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum of decision granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motions to dismiss the Haynes, Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough lawsuits.  The Court granted the Company’s motions to dismiss the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the Company’s motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit except for the claim of fraud by omission.  On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the Windham lawsuit based on the Court’s memorandum of decision on the motions to dismiss.  On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court’s decision not to dismiss the fraud by omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and, on April 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court dismissal of the Windham lawsuit.  On July 21, 2016, the Court denied the Company’s motion in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company’s motion in the Windham lawsuit.  On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed notices of appeal of the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits.  On April 27, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction, which motions were granted and the appeals were dismissed with leave to appeal upon the resolution of all of the consolidated cases.  The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the sole remaining claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit on August 1, 2016.  Lastly, on July 18, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Joseph M. Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and Vincent K. McMahon, individually and as the trustee of certain trusts.  This lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees denying them, among other things, rights and benefits under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), federal tax law, and various state Worker’s Compensation laws.  This lawsuit also alleges that the booking contracts and other agreements between the plaintiffs and the Company are unconscionable and should be declared void, entitling the plaintiffs to certain damages relating to the Company’s use of their intellectual property.  The lawsuit alleges claims for violation of RICO, unjust enrichment, and an accounting against Mr. McMahon.  The Company and Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss this complaint on October 19, 2016.  The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the Company in these various lawsuits are being prompted by the same plaintiffs’ lawyer and are without merit.  The Company intends to continue to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously. 



On August 9, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut entitled Marcus Bagwell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.  The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. §42-110a, et seq., principally arising from WWE’s alleged failure to pay royalties for streaming video on the WWE Network.  On September 7, 2016, a motion for leave to amend was filed along with a proposed amended complaint that, among other things, seeks to add Scott Levy as an individual plaintiff and WCW, Inc. as a defendant. The Company believes all claims against the Company in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to continue to defend itself vigorously.



In addition to the foregoing, we are involved in several other lawsuits and claims that we consider to be in the ordinary course of our business.  By its nature, the outcome of litigation is not known, but the Company does not currently expect this ordinary course litigation to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. We may, from time to time, become a party to other legal proceedings.