1. Basis of Presentation

IMAX Corporation, together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries (the “Company”), reports its results under United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“U.S. GAAP”).

The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, except for subsidiaries which the Company has identified as variable interest entities (“VIEs”) where the Company is not the primary beneficiary. The nature of the Company's business is such that the results of operations for the interim periods presented are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for the fiscal year. In the opinion of management, the information contained herein reflects all adjustments necessary to make the results of operations for the interim periods a fair statement of such operations.

The Company has evaluated its various variable interests to determine whether they are VIEs as required by the Consolidation Topic of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC” or “Codification”). The Company has 8 film production companies that are VIEs. As the Company has the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly impact the VIE's economic performance and has the obligation to absorb losses of the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE or the right to receive benefits from the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE for 2 of the film production companies, the Company has determined that it is the primary beneficiary of these entities. The Company continues to consolidate these entities, with no material impact on the operating results or financial condition of the Company, as these production companies have total assets and total liabilities of $nil as at March 31, 2011 (December 31, 2010 — $nil). For the other 6 film production companies which are VIEs, the Company did not consolidate these film entities since it does not have the power to direct activities and does not absorb the majority of the expected losses or expected residual returns. The Company equity accounts for these entities. As at March 31, 2011, these 6 VIEs have total assets of $12.0 million (December 31, 2010 — $11.1 million) and total liabilities of $12.0 million (December 31, 2010 — $11.1 million). Earnings of the investees included in the Company's condensed consolidated statement of operations amounted to $nil for the three months ended March 31, 2011 (2010 — $nil). The carrying value of these investments in VIEs that are not consolidated is $nil at March 31, 2011 (December 31, 2010 — $nil). A loss in value of an investment other than a temporary decline is recognized as a charge to the condensed consolidated statement of operations.

The Company accounts for investments in new business ventures using the guidance of ASC 323 Investments – Equity Method and Joint Ventures (“ASC 323”) and ASC 320 – Investments in Debt and Equity Securities (“ASC 320”), as appropriate.  At March 31, 2011, the equity method of accounting is being utilized for an investment with a carrying value of $2.9 million (December 31, 2010 - $1.6 million). The Company has determined it is not the primary beneficiary of this VIE, and therefore it has not been consolidated. In addition, during 2010, the Company made an  investment in preferred stock of another business venture of $1.5 million which meets the criteria for classification as a debt security under ASC 320 and is recorded at its fair value of $1.5 million at March 31, 2011 (December 31, 2010 – $1.5 million).  This investment is classified as an available-for-sale investment.  The total carrying value of investments in new business ventures at March 31, 2011 is $4.4 million (December 31, 2010 - $3.1 million) and is recorded in Other Assets.

All significant intercompany accounts and transactions, including all unrealized intercompany profits on transactions with equity-accounted investees, have been eliminated.

The year-end condensed consolidated balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by U.S. GAAP.

These interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements included in the Company's 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (“the 2010 Form 10-K”) which should be consulted for a summary of the significant accounting policies utilized by the Company. These interim financial statements are prepared following accounting policies consistent with the Company's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2010, except as noted below.

2. New Accounting Standards and Accounting Changes

Changes in Accounting Standards

In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU No. 2009-13, “Revenue Recognition (Topic 605): Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements (a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force)” (“ASU 2009-13”) which amends ASC 605-25, “Revenue Recognition: Multiple-Element Arrangements.” ASU 2009-13 addresses how to determine whether an arrangement involving multiple deliverables contains more than one unit of accounting and how to allocate consideration to each unit of accounting in the arrangement. This ASU removes the fair value criteria for determining separate units of accounting and replaces all references to fair value as the measurement criteria with the term selling price and establishes a hierarchy for determining the selling price of a deliverable. Consideration in a multiple-element arrangement is allocated at the inception of the arrangement to all deliverables on the basis of the relative selling price. When applying the relative selling price method, the selling price for each deliverable is determined using vendor-specific objective evidence (“VSOE”) of the selling price, or third-party evidence (“TPE”) of the selling price. If neither VSOE nor TPE of the selling price exists for a deliverable, the Company will use its best estimate of the selling price (“BESP”) for that deliverable. ASU No. 2009-13 also eliminates the use of the residual value method for determining the allocation of arrangement consideration. Additionally, ASU 2009-13 requires expanded disclosures and is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010. Earlier application is permitted with required transition disclosures based on the period of adoption. On January 1, 2011, the Company adopted the accounting requirements in ASU 2009-13 prospectively for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified after the date of adoption. As described below, the adoption of these updates did not have, nor are they expected to have, a material effect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations.

The amended standard with respect to multiple-element arrangements is not expected to materially change the allocation of arrangement consideration to the Company's units of accounting. The pattern and timing of revenue recognition for those arrangements entered into or materially modified after the date of adoption may be affected as a result of the adoption of the amended ASC 605-25 requirements. The Company will be required to develop a selling price for each deliverable using VSOE, TPE or BESP and allocate consideration amongst deliverables and to recognize revenue using that allocated consideration for the delivered units of accounting in the current period. For arrangements entered into or modified prior to the adoption date, the Company defers all consideration received and receivable under arrangements for which the selling price of an undelivered item has not yet been established.

In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU No. 2009-14, “Software (Topic 985): Certain Revenue Arrangements That Include Software Elements (a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force)” (“ASU 2009-14”). ASU 2009-14 amends ASC 985-605, “Software: Revenue Recognition,” such that tangible products, containing both software and non-software components that function together to deliver the tangible product's essential functionality, are no longer within the scope of ASC 985-605. It also amends the determination of how arrangement consideration should be allocated to deliverables in a multiple-deliverable revenue arrangement. The amendments in this update are effective, on a prospective basis, for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010. Earlier application is permitted with required transition disclosures based on the period of adoption. Both ASU 2009-13 and ASU 2009-14 must be adopted in the same period and must use the same transition disclosures. On January 1, 2011, the Company adopted the accounting requirements in ASU 2009-14. The application of this standard does not have any impact on the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements.

In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-06, “Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements,” (“ASU 2010-06”) to amend topic ASC 820 “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures,” by improving disclosure requirements in order to increase transparency in financial reporting. ASU 2010-06 requires that an entity disclose separately the amounts of significant transfers in and out of Level 1 and 2 fair value measurements and describe the reasons for the transfers. Furthermore, an entity should present information about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements for Level 3 fair value measurements. ASU 2010-06 also clarifies existing disclosures for the level of disaggregation and disclosures about input and valuation techniques. The new disclosures and clarifications of existing disclosures are effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2009, except for the disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements for the activity in Level 3 fair value measurements. Those disclosures are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2010, and for interim periods within those fiscal years. On January 1, 2010, the Company adopted the disclosure amendments in ASU 2010-06, except for the amendments to Level 3 fair value measurements as described above, and has expanded disclosures as presented in note 16. On January 1, 2011, the Company adopted the disclosure amendments in ASU 2010-06 relating to Level 3 fair value measurements. No additional disclosures were required as a result.

In July 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-20, “Receivables (Topic 310): Disclosures about the Credit Quality of Financing Receivables and the Allowance for Credit Losses” (“ASU 2010-20”). The objective of ASU 2010-20 is to provide financial statement users with greater transparency about an entity's allowance for credit losses and the credit quality of its financing receivables. Under ASU 2010-20, an entity is required to provide disclosures so that financial statement users can evaluate the nature of the credit risk inherent in the entity's portfolio of financing receivables, how that risk is analyzed and assessed to arrive at the allowance for credit losses, and the changes and reasons for those changes in the allowance for credit losses. ASU 2010-20 is applicable to all entities with financing receivables, excluding short-term trade accounts receivable or receivables measured at fair value or lower of cost or fair value. It is effective for interim and annual reporting periods ending on or after December 15, 2010. Comparative disclosure for earlier reporting periods that ended before initial adoption is encouraged but not required. However, comparative disclosures are required to be disclosed for those reporting periods ending after initial adoption. On December 31, 2010, the Company adopted the disclosure requirements in ASU 2010-20 and has expanded disclosures as presented in note 16(c).

In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-28, “Intangibles – Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts” (“ASU 2010-28”). The objective of ASU 2010-28 is to address questions about entities with reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts. The amendments in ASU 2010-28 modify Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test for reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts. For those reporting units, an entity is required to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test if it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists by considering whether there are any adverse qualitative factors indicating that an impairment may exist. ASU 2010-28 is applicable to all entities that have recognized goodwill and have one or more reporting units whose carrying amount for purposes of performing Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test is zero or negative. For public entities, the amendments are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2010. Early adoption is not permitted. On January 1, 2011, the Company adopted the accounting requirements in ASU 2010-28. This standard is not expected to have any impact on the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements as the Company does not have any reporting units with zero or negative amounts for goodwill impairment testing purposes.

Recently Issued FASB Accounting Standard Codification Updates

During 2011, the FASB has issued one ASU – ASU No. 2011-01, “Receivables (Topic 310): Deferral of the Effective Date of Disclosures about Troubled Debt Restructurings in Update No. 2010-20”. The Company is currently evaluating the potential impact of this ASU on its condensed consolidated financial statements.

3. Financing Receivables

Financing receivables, consisting of net investment in sales-type leases and receivables from financed sales of theater systems are as follows:

As at March 31, 2011, the financed sale receivables had a weighted average effective interest rate of 8.7% (December 31, 2010 — 8.8%).

4. Inventories

At March 31, 2011, finished goods inventory for which title had passed to the customer and revenue was deferred amounted to $3.1 million (December 31, 2010 — $3.2 million).

Inventories at March 31, 2011 include provisions for excess and obsolete inventory based upon current estimates of net realizable value considering future events and conditions of $4.3 million (December 31, 2010 — $4.4 million).

5. Property, Plant and Equipment

__________

(1)        Included in theater system components are assets with costs of $18.6 million (December 31, 2010 — $19.9 million) and accumulated depreciation of $17.9 million (December 31, 2010 — $19.0 million) that are leased to customers under operating leases.

(2)       Included in theater system components are assets with costs of $67.2 million (December 31, 2010 — $62.8 million) and accumulated depreciation of $13.4 million (December 31, 2010 — $12.0 million) that are used in joint revenue sharing arrangements.

(3)       Included in assets under construction are components with costs of $7.8 million (December 31, 2010 — $6.2 million) that will be utilized to construct assets to be used in joint revenue sharing arrangements.

(4)       Included in office and production equipment are assets under capital lease with costs of $1.5 million (December 31, 2010 — $1.5 million) and accumulated depreciation of $1.4 million (December 31, 2010 — $1.4 million).

(5)       Included in camera equipment is fully amortized equipment still in use by the Company.

6. Other Intangible Assets

The Company expects to amortize approximately $0.3 million of other intangible assets for the remainder of 2011 and $0.3 million for each of the next 5 years, respectively. Fully amortized other intangible assets are still in use by the Company.

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Company acquired $0.1 million in patents and trademarks. The net book value of these patents and trademarks was $0.1 million as at March 31, 2011. The weighted average amortization period for these additions was 10 years.

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Company incurred costs of less than $0.1 million to renew or extend the term of acquired other intangible assets which were recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses.

7. Credit Facility

On November 16, 2009, the Company amended and restated the terms of its senior secured credit facility, which had been scheduled to mature on October 31, 2010. The amended and restated facility, as further amended by the parties on January 21, 2011 (the “Credit Facility”), with a scheduled maturity of October 31, 2013, has a maximum borrowing capacity of $75.0 million, consisting of a revolving loan facility subject to a borrowing base calculation (as described below) and including a sublimit of $20.0 million for letters of credit and a term loan of $35.0 million. Certain of the Company's subsidiaries serve as guarantors (the “Guarantors”) of the Company's obligations under the Credit Facility. The Credit Facility is collateralized by a first priority security interest in all of the present and future assets of the Company and the Guarantors.

The terms of the Credit Facility are set forth in the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the “Credit Agreement”), dated November 16, 2009, between the Company; Wells Fargo Capital Finance Corporation Canada (formerly Wachovia Capital Finance Corporation (Canada)), as agent, lender, sole lead arranger and sole bookrunner, (“Wells Fargo”); and Export Development Canada, as lender (“EDC”, together with Wells Fargo, the “Lenders”) and in various collateral and security documents entered into by the Company and the Guarantors. Each of the Guarantors has also entered into a guarantee in respect of the Company's obligations under the Credit Facility.

The revolving portion of the Credit Facility permits maximum aggregate borrowings equal to the lesser of:

(i)       $40.0 million, and

(ii)       a collateral calculation based on the percentages of the book values of the Company's net investment in sales-type leases, financing receivables, certain trade accounts receivable, finished goods inventory allocated to backlog contracts and the appraised values of the expected future cash flows related to operating leases and the Company's owned real property, reduced by certain accruals and accounts payable and subject to other conditions, limitations and reserve right requirements. It is also reduced by the settlement risk on its foreign currency forward contracts when the notional value exceeds the fair value of the forward contracts.

The revolving portion of the Credit Facility bears interest at either (i) LIBOR plus a margin of 2.75% per annum, or (ii) Wells Fargo's prime rate plus a margin of 1.25% per annum, at the Company's option. The term loan portion of the Credit Facility bears interest at the Company's option, at either (i) LIBOR plus a margin of 3.75% per annum, or (ii) Wells Fargo's prime rate plus a margin of 2.25% per annum. Under the Credit Facility, the effective interest rate for the three months ended March 31, 2011 for the term loan portion was 4.05% (2010 — 4.01%) and n/a for the revolving portion (2010 — 3.25%).

The Credit Facility provides that so long as the term loan remains outstanding, the Company will be required to maintain: (i) a ratio of funded debt (as defined in the Credit Agreement) to EBITDA (as defined in the Credit Agreement) of not more than 2:1 through December 31, 2010, and (ii) a ratio of funded debt to EBITDA of not more than 1.75:1 thereafter. If the Company repays the term loan in full, it will remain subject to such ratio requirements only if Excess Availability (as defined in the Credit Agreement) is less than $10.0 million or Cash and Excess Availability (as defined in the Credit Agreement) is less than $15.0 million. If Cash and Excess Availability is less than $25.0 million, the Company will also be required to maintain a Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio (as defined in the Credit Agreement) of not less than 1.1:1.0; provided, however, that if the Company repays the term loan in full, it will remain subject to such ratio requirement only if Excess Availability is less than $10.0 million or Cash and Excess Availability is less than $15.0 million. At all times, under the terms of the Credit Facility, the Company is required to maintain minimum Excess Availability of not less than $5.0 million and minimum Cash and Excess Availability of not less than $15.0 million. These amounts were $40.2 million and $57.5 million at March 31, 2011 respectively. The Company was in compliance with all of these requirements at March 31, 2011.

The Credit Facility contains typical affirmative and negative covenants, including covenants that limit or restrict the ability of the Company and the Guarantors to: incur certain additional indebtedness; make certain loans, investments or guarantees; pay dividends; make certain asset sales; incur certain liens or other encumbrances; conduct certain transactions with affiliates and enter into certain corporate transactions.

The Credit Facility also contains customary events of default, including upon an acquisition or change of control or upon a change in the business and assets of the Company or a Guarantor that in each case is reasonably expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company or Guarantor. If an event of default occurs and is continuing under the Credit Facility, the Lenders may, among other things, terminate their commitments and require immediate repayment of all amounts owed by the Company.

Bank indebtedness includes the following:

Total amounts drawn and available under the Credit Facility at March 31, 2011 were $17.5 million and $35.2 million, respectively (December 31, 2010 — $17.5 million and $40.0 million, respectively).

At March 31, 2011, the Company's current borrowing capacity under the revolving portion of the Credit Facility was $35.2 million after deduction for the minimum Excess Availability reserve of $5.0 million. Outstanding borrowings and letters of credit and advance payment guarantees were $nil as at March 31, 2011. At December 31, 2010, the borrowing capacity was $40.0 million after deduction of the minimum Excess Availability reserve of $5.0 million.

In accordance with the loan agreement, the Company is obligated to make payments on the principal of the term loan as follows:

On April 27, 2011, Wells Fargo entered into a commitment letter with the Company in which it, along with EDC, has committed to provide the Company with a senior secured revolving loan and revolving term loan facility in an amount up to $110.0 million (the “New Facility”). The New Facility would serve as an amendment and extension to the Credit Facility and would extend the maturity date of Credit Facility by two years to October 31, 2015. The New Facility would consist of up to $50.0 million in revolving loans and up to a $60.0 million revolving term loan with no scheduled repayments. Both the revolving loans and the revolving term loan will bear interest, at the Company's option, at either (i) LIBOR plus a margin of 2.00% per annum, or (ii) Wells Fargo's prime rate plus a margin of 0.50% per annum. This compares to the pre-amended interest rate under the Credit Facility, which was, at the Company's option, either (i) LIBOR plus a margin of 3.75% or 2.75% per annum for the term loan and revolving loan, respectively, or (ii) Wells Fargo's prime rate plus a margin of 2.25% or 1.25% per annum for the term loan and revolving loan, respectively. The Company anticipates entering into definitive documents with respect to the New Facility by the end of the second quarter of 2011.

Wells Fargo Foreign Exchange Facility

Within the Credit Facility entered into on November 16, 2009, the Company has a $10.0 million sublimit to cover the Company's settlement risk on its purchased foreign currency forward contracts and/or other swap arrangements as defined in the Credit Facility. The settlement risk on its foreign currency forward contracts was $nil as at March 31, 2011 as the fair value exceeded the notional value of the forward contracts. The Company can enter into such arrangements up to a notional amount of $50.0 million, of which $23.6 million is remaining.

Bank of Montreal Facilities

As at March 31, 2011, the Company has available a $10.0 million facility (December 31, 2010 — $10.0 million) with the Bank of Montreal for use solely in conjunction with the issuance of performance guarantees and letters of credit fully insured by EDC (the “Bank of Montreal Facility”). As at March 31, 2011, the Company has letters of credit outstanding of $1.2 million (December 31, 2010 — $2.4 million) under the Bank of Montreal Facility.

8. Commitments

(a) The Company's lease commitments consist of rent and equipment under operating leases. The Company accounts for any incentives provided over the term of the lease. Total minimum annual rental payments to be made by the Company under operating leases as at March 31, 2011 for each of the years ended December 31, are as follows:

Rent expense was $1.2 million for three months ended March 31, 2011 (2010 — $1.3 million) net of sublease rental of less than $0.1 million (2010 — $0.1 million).

Recorded in the accrued liabilities balance as at March 31, 2011 is $4.0 million (December 31, 2010 — $4.2 million) related to accrued rent and lease inducements being recognized as an offset to rent expense over the term of the lease.

Purchase obligations under long-term supplier contracts as at March 31, 2011 were $13.5 million (December 31, 2010 — $13.6 million).

(b) As at March 31, 2011, the Company has letters of credit and advance payment guarantees secured by the Credit Facility of $nil (December 31, 2010 — $nil) outstanding. As at March 31, 2011 the Company also has letters of credit outstanding of $1.2 million as compared to $2.4 million as at December 31, 2010, under the Bank of Montreal Facility.

(c) The Company compensates its sales force with both fixed and variable compensation. Commissions on the sale or lease of the Company's theater systems are payable in graduated amounts from the time of collection of the customer's first payment to the Company up to the collection of the customer's last initial payment. At March 31, 2011, $1.4 million (December 31, 2010 —$1.5 million) of commissions have been accrued and will be payable in future periods.

9. Contingencies and Guarantees

The Company is involved in lawsuits, claims, and proceedings, including those identified below, which arise in the ordinary course of business. In accordance with the Contingencies Topic of the FASB ASC, the Company will make a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes it has adequate provisions for any such matters. The Company reviews these provisions in conjunction with any related provisions on assets related to the claims at least quarterly and adjusts these provisions to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other pertinent information related to the case. Should developments in any of these matters outlined below cause a change in the Company's determination as to an unfavorable outcome and result in the need to recognize a material provision, or, should any of these matters result in a final adverse judgment or be settled for significant amounts, they could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows, and financial position in the period or periods in which such a change in determination, settlement or judgment occurs.

The Company expenses legal costs relating to its lawsuits, claims and proceedings as incurred.

(a) In March 2005, the Company, together with Three-Dimensional Media Group, Ltd. (“3DMG”), filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, against In-Three, Inc. (“In-Three”) alleging patent infringement. On March 10, 2006, the Company and In-Three entered into a settlement agreement settling the dispute between the Company and In-Three. Despite the settlement reached between the Company and In-Three, co-plaintiff 3DMG refused to dismiss its claims against In-Three. Accordingly, the Company and In-Three moved jointly for a motion to dismiss the Company's and In-Three's claims. On August 24, 2010, the Court dismissed all of the claims pending between the Company and In-Three, thus dismissing the Company from the litigation.

On May 15, 2006, the Company initiated arbitration against 3DMG before the International Centre for Dispute Resolution in New York (the “ICDR”), alleging breaches of the license and consulting agreements between the Company and 3DMG. On June 15, 2006, 3DMG filed an answer denying any breaches and asserting counterclaims that the Company breached the parties' license agreement. On June 21, 2007, the Arbitration Panel unanimously denied 3DMG's Motion for Summary Judgment filed on April 11, 2007 concerning the Company's claims and 3DMG's counterclaims. The proceeding was suspended on May 4, 2009 due to failure of 3DMG to pay fees associated with the proceeding. The proceeding was further suspended on October 11, 2010 pending resolution of reexamination proceedings currently pending involving one of 3DMG's patents. The Company will continue to pursue its claims vigorously and believes that all allegations made by 3DMG are without merit. The Company further believes that the amount of loss, if any, suffered in connection with the counterclaims would not have a material impact on the financial position or results of operations of the Company, although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of the arbitration.

(b) In January 2004, the Company and IMAX Theatre Services Ltd., a subsidiary of the Company, commenced an arbitration seeking damages before the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chambers of Commerce (the “ICC”) with respect to the breach by Electronic Media Limited (“EML”) of its December 2000 agreement with the Company. In June 2004, the Company commenced a related arbitration before the ICC against EML's affiliate, E-CITI Entertainment (I) PVT Limited (“E-Citi”), seeking damages as a result of E-Citi's breach of a September 2000 lease agreement. An arbitration hearing took place in November 2005 against E-Citi which considered all claims by the Company. On February 1, 2006, the ICC issued an award on liability finding unanimously in the Company's favor on all claims. Further hearings took place in July 2006 and December 2006. On August 24, 2007, the ICC issued an award unanimously in favor of the Company in the amount of $9.4 million, consisting of past and future rents owed to the Company under its lease agreements, plus interest and costs. In the award, the ICC upheld the validity and enforceability of the Company's theater system contract. The Company thereafter submitted its application to the arbitration panel for interest and costs. On March 27, 2008, the Panel issued a final award in favor of the Company in the amount of $11,309,496, plus an additional $2,512 each day in interest from October 1, 2007 until the date the award is paid, which the Company is seeking to enforce and collect in full.

(c) In June 2003, Robots of Mars, Inc. ("Robots") initiated an arbitration proceeding against the Company in California with the American Arbitration Association pursuant to arbitration provisions in two film production agreements entered into in 1994 and 1995 between Robots' predecessor-in-interest and a discontinued subsidiary of the Company (Ridefilm), asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional interference with the contract. The Company discontinued its Ridefilm business through a sale of the Ridefilm business and its assets to a third party in March 2001. Robots sought an award of over $5 million in damages including contingent compensation that it claims was owed under two production agreements, damages for tort claims, and punitive damages. The arbitration hearings of this matter occurred in June and October 2009. The arbitrator issued a final award on March 16, 2011, awarding Robots $409,000 in damages and $298,000 in pre-judgment interest to date on its claim for breach of one of the Ridefilm production agreements. The arbitrator found in the Company's favor on Robots' tort claims, and awarded Robots no damages on its claim for breach of the second production agreement. Despite finding in the Company's favor on the vast majority of Robots' claims, the arbitrator awarded Robots $1,214,999 in attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the attorneys' fee provision set forth in the production agreements. Robots has initiated two separate proceedings in California state court and in Ontario, Canada, to confirm the award. The Company will oppose confirmation of the award in both venues and will seek to have it vacated in the appropriate jurisdictions on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award was not made. In addition, the Company will affirmatively seek a judgment awarding it its attorneys' fees and costs in connection with the second production agreement, on which the arbitrator expressly found Robots to be the losing party. The Company has accrued a liability of $2.1 million in respect of the arbitration award in this action.

(d) The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed between August 11, 2006 and September 18, 2006, alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws. These eight actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 18, 2007, the Court consolidated all eight class action lawsuits and appointed Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel. On October 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. The amended complaint, brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between February 27, 2003 and July 20, 2007, alleges primarily that the defendants engaged in securities fraud by disseminating materially false and misleading statements during the class period regarding the Company's revenue recognition of theater system installations, and failing to disclose material information concerning the Company's revenue recognition practices. The amended complaint also added PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's auditors, as a defendant. The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 10, 2007. On September 16, 2008, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order, denying the motion. On October 6, 2008, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. On October 31, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Fact discovery on the merits commenced on November 14, 2008. On March 13, 2009, the Court granted a second prospective lead plaintiff's request to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order naming Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and issued an order denying without prejudice plaintiff's class certification motion pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration. On June 29, 2009, the Court granted the motion for reconsideration and appointed Snow Capital Investment Partners, L.P. as the lead plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel. Westchester Capital Management, Inc. appealed this decision, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied its petition on October 1, 2009. On April 22, 2010, the new lead plaintiff filed its motion for class certification, defendants filed their oppositions to the motion on June 10, 2010, and plaintiff filed its reply on July 30, 2010. On December 20, 2010, the Court denied Snow Capital Investment Partners' motion and ordered that all applications to be appointed lead plaintiff must be filed within 20 days of the decision. Two applications for lead plaintiff were filed, on January 10, 2011 and January 12, 2011, respectively. On April 14, 2011, the Court issued an order appointing The Merger Fund as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel. The Company is not able to estimate a potential loss exposure at this time. The Company will vigorously defend the matter, although no assurances can be given with respect to the outcome of such proceedings. The Company's directors and officers insurance policy provides for reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit as well as potential damages awarded, if any, subject to certain policy limits and deductibles.

(e) A class action lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2006 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian securities laws. This lawsuit was brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between February 17, 2006 and August 9, 2006. The lawsuit is in an early procedural stage and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a potential loss exposure at this time. For reasons released December 14, 2009, the Court granted leave to the Plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to plead certain claims pursuant to the Securities Act (Ontario) against the Company and certain individuals and granted certification of the action as a class proceeding. These are procedural decisions, and do not contain any binding conclusions on the factual or legal merits of the claim. The Company has brought a motion seeking Court approval to appeal those decisions and it is not known when the Ontario court will release a decision on that motion. The Company believes the allegations made against it in the statement of claim are meritless and will vigorously defend the matter, although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of such proceedings. The Company's directors and officers insurance policy provides for reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit as well as potential damages awarded, if any, subject to certain policy limits and deductibles.

(f) In November 2009, the Company filed suit against Sanborn Theatres ("Sanborn") in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging breach of Sanborn's agreement to make payments for the purchase of two IMAX theater systems from the Company and seeking $1.7 million in compensatory damages. After granting Sanborn notice of default in connection with the failure to make required payments under the agreement and upon Sanborn's failure to cure, the Company terminated its agreement with Sanborn. On May 11, 2010, Sanborn filed counterclaims against the Company and AMC Entertainment Inc. (“AMC Entertainment”) and Regal Cinemas, Inc. (“Regal”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging breach of contract, fraud and unfair competition against the Company and alleging intentional interference with contractual relations against AMC Entertainment and Regal. The lawsuits are at early stages and, as a result the Company is not able to estimate a potential loss exposure, if any, at this time. The Company will vigorously prosecute its claims and defenses in both matters, although no assurances can be given with respect to the outcome of such proceedings.

(g) Since June 2006, the Company has been subject to ongoing informal inquiries by the SEC and the OSC. On or about September 3, 2010, the SEC issued a formal order of investigation in connection with its inquiry. The Company has been cooperating with these inquiries. The Company believes that the inquiry and investigation principally relate to the timing of recognition of the Company's theater system installation revenue in 2005 and related matters. Although the Company cannot predict the timing of developments and outcomes in these inquiries, they could result at any time in developments (including charges or settlement of charges) that could have material adverse effects on the Company. These effects could include payments of fines or disgorgement or other relief with respect to the Company or its officers or employees that could be material to the Company. Such developments could also have an adverse effect on the Company's defense of the class action lawsuits referred to above.

(h) In addition to the matters described above, the Company is currently involved in other legal proceedings which, in the opinion of the Company's management, will not materially affect the Company's financial position or future operating results, although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of any such proceedings.

(i) In the normal course of business, the Company enters into agreements that may contain features that meet the definition of a guarantee. The Guarantees Topic of the FASB ASC defines a guarantee to be a contract (including an indemnity) that contingently requires the Company to make payments (either in cash, financial instruments, other assets, shares of its stock or provision of services) to a third party based on (a) changes in an underlying interest rate, foreign exchange rate, equity or commodity instrument, index or other variable, that is related to an asset, a liability or an equity security of the counterparty, (b) failure of another party to perform under an obligating agreement or (c) failure of another third party to pay its indebtedness when due.

Financial Guarantees

The Company has provided no significant financial guarantees to third parties.

Product Warranties

The following summarizes the accrual for product warranties that was recorded as part of accrued liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets:

Director/Officer Indemnifications

The Company's General By-law contains an indemnification of its directors/officers, former directors/officers and persons who have acted at its request to be a director/officer of an entity in which the Company is a shareholder or creditor, to indemnify them, to the extent permitted by the Canada Business Corporations Act, against expenses (including legal fees), judgments, fines and any amount actually and reasonably incurred by them in connection with any action, suit or proceeding in which the directors and/or officers are sued as a result of their service, if they acted honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the Company. The nature of the indemnification prevents the Company from making a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential amount it could be required to pay to counterparties. The Company has purchased directors' and officers' liability insurance. No amount has been accrued in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as at March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010 with respect to this indemnity.

Other Indemnification Agreements

In the normal course of the Company's operations, the Company provides indemnifications to counterparties in transactions such as: theater system lease and sale agreements and the supervision of installation or servicing of the theater systems; film production, exhibition and distribution agreements; real property lease agreements; and employment agreements. These indemnification agreements require the Company to compensate the counterparties for costs incurred as a result of litigation claims that may be suffered by the counterparty as a consequence of the transaction or the Company's breach or non-performance under these agreements. While the terms of these indemnification agreements vary based upon the contract, they normally extend for the life of the agreements. A small number of agreements do not provide for any limit on the maximum potential amount of indemnification; however, virtually all of the Company's system lease and sale agreements limit such maximum potential liability to the purchase price of the system. The fact that the maximum potential amount of indemnification required by the Company is not specified in some cases prevents the Company from making a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential amount it could be required to pay to counterparties. During the second quarter of 2009, the Company provided an indemnity to a third party in connection with a terminated service arrangement. Historically, the Company has not made any significant payments under such indemnifications and less than $0.1 million has been accrued in the condensed consolidated financial statements with respect to the contingent aspect of these indemnities.

10. Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations Supplemental Information

(a)  Selling Expenses

The Company defers direct selling costs such as sales commissions and other amounts related to its sale and sales-type lease arrangements until the related revenue is recognized. These costs, included in costs and expenses applicable to revenues-equipment and product sales, totaled $0.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 (2010 — $0.2 million).

Film exploitation costs, including advertising and marketing, totaled $0.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 (2010 — $0.7 million) and are recorded in costs and expenses applicable to revenues-services as incurred.

Commissions are recognized as costs and expenses applicable to revenues-rentals in the month they are earned. These costs totaled $0.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 (2010 — $0.4 million). Direct advertising and marketing costs for each theater are charged to costs and expenses applicable to revenues-rentals as incurred. These costs totaled $0.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 (2010 — $0.2 million).

(b)  Foreign Exchange

Included in selling, general and administrative expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2011 is a $0.6 million gain (2010 – gain of $0.3 million), for net foreign exchange gains/losses related to the translation of foreign currency denominated monetary assets and liabilities and unhedged foreign exchange contracts. See note 16(d) for additional information.

(c)  Collaborative Arrangements

Joint Revenue Sharing Arrangements

In a joint revenue sharing arrangement, the Company receives a portion of a theater's box-office and concession revenues, in exchange for placing a theater system at the theater operator's venue. Under joint revenue sharing arrangements, the customer has the ability and the right to operate the hardware components or direct others to operate them in a manner determined by the customer. The Company's joint revenue sharing arrangements are typically non-cancellable for 7 to 10 years with renewal provisions. Title to equipment under joint revenue sharing arrangements does not transfer to the customer. The Company's joint revenue sharing arrangements do not contain a guarantee of residual value at the end of the term. The customer is required to pay for executory costs such as insurance and taxes and is required to pay the Company for maintenance and extended warranty throughout the term. The customer is responsible for obtaining insurance coverage for the theater systems commencing on the date specified in the arrangement's shipping terms and ending on the date the theater systems are delivered back to the Company.

The Company has signed joint revenue sharing agreements with 15 exhibitors for a total of 306 theater systems, of which 181 theaters were operating as at March 31, 2011, the terms of which are similar in nature, rights and obligations. The accounting policy for the Company's joint revenue sharing arrangements is disclosed in note 2(n) of the Company's 2010 Form 10-K.

Amounts attributable to transactions arising between the Company and its customers under joint revenue sharing arrangements are included in Rentals revenue and for the three months ended March 31, 2011 amounted to $4.0 million (2010 — $18.9 million).

IMAX DMR

In an IMAX DMR arrangement, the Company transforms conventional motion pictures into the Company's large screen format, allowing the release of Hollywood content to the IMAX theater network. In a typical IMAX DMR film arrangement, the Company will absorb its costs for the digital re-mastering and then recoup this cost from a percentage of the gross box-office receipts of the film, which generally range from 10-15%. The Company does not typically hold distribution rights or the copyright to these films.

For the three months ended March 31, 2011, 7 IMAX DMR films were exhibited through the IMAX theater network. The Company has entered into arrangements with film producers to convert 15 additional films which are expected to be released during the remainder of 2011, the terms of which are similar in nature, rights and obligations. The accounting policy for the Company's IMAX DMR arrangements is disclosed in note 2(n) of the Company's 2010 Form 10-K.