CONTINGENCIES-LEGAL MATTERS | 3 Months Ended |
Mar. 31, 2015 |
CONTINGENCIES-LEGAL MATTERS | |
CONTINGENCIES-LEGAL MATTERS. | 12. CONTINGENCIES—LEGAL MATTERS |
In June 2011, Memory Lane, Inc., a California corporation, filed a complaint in United States District Court, Central District of California, against Classmates International, Inc., Classmates Online, Inc. and Classmates, Inc. (then known as Memory Lane, Inc.) ("Classmates"), alleging false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1125, and state and common law unfair competition. The complaint included requests for an award of damages and for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Notwithstanding the request for preliminary injunctive relief, no motion for such relief was filed. Classmates responded to the complaint in September 2011. In October 2011, the plaintiff amended its complaint to, among other things, dismiss Classmates International, Inc. and add United Online, Inc. as a defendant. In February 2014, the jury issued a verdict for the defendants, concluding that the defendants did not infringe plaintiff's trademark and the court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. In March 2014 plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the judgment in favor of defendants. The plaintiff's appeal brief was filed in November 2014. Classmates' opposition brief was filed in December 2014. Plaintiff's reply brief was filed on March 2, 2015. Classmates' reply brief was filed on April 15, 2015. |
In March 2014, Modern Telecom Systems LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, against Juno Online Services, Inc. and NetZero, Inc. alleging infringement of certain patents relating to the commercial operation of their dial-up internet services. The complaint seeks an injunction, damages and other relief. On July 10, 2014, Juno Online Services, Inc. and NetZero, Inc. were served with the complaint. On July 23, 2014, Juno Online Services, Inc. and NetZero, Inc. were served with an amended complaint in the same matter. In November 2014, Juno Online Services, Inc. and NetZero, Inc. filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings seeking dismissal of the amended complaint. The motion was heard on March 2, 2015 and the court denied the motion. A status conference was held on April 20, 2015, which determined certain scheduling and that this case would not be consolidated with other cases brought by plaintiff against other defendants. The current schedule includes a trial date of late 2016. |
The Company has been cooperating with certain governmental authorities in connection with their respective investigations of its former post-transaction sales practices and certain other current or former business practices. |
• | In 2010, Classmates, Inc. and FTD.COM Inc. received subpoenas from the Attorney General for the State of Kansas and the Attorney General for the State of Maryland, respectively. These subpoenas were issued on behalf of a Multistate Work Group that currently consists of the Attorneys General for the following states: Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, New Mexico, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. The inquiry concerns certain post-transaction sales practices in which these companies previously engaged with certain third-party vendors and certain auto-renewal practices of Classmates, Inc. In the second quarter of 2012, the Company received an offer of settlement from the Multistate Work Group consisting of certain injunctive relief and the consideration of two areas of monetary relief: (1) restitution to consumers and (2) a $20 million payment by Classmates, Inc. and FTD.COM for the violations alleged by the Multistate Work Group and to reimburse the Multistate Work Group for its investigation costs. The Company rejected the Multistate Work Group's offer and has since had ongoing discussions with the Multistate Work Group regarding a negotiated resolution. In addition, there have been a series of offers and counter-offers between the parties. In December 2014, Classmates, Inc. and FTD.COM, Inc. proposed to the Multistate Work Group to resolve the matter without admitting liability by making a payment of $8 million and providing additional restitution up to a maximum of $2.5 million. In January 2015, the Multistate Work Group provided a counter offer seeking a payment from Classmates, Inc. and FTD.COM, Inc. in the amount of $8 million and restitution by Classmates, Inc. up to a maximum of $3 million, with any restitution not paid to consumers being paid to the Attorneys General. In March 2015, Classmates, Inc. and FTD.COM, Inc. accepted the monetary terms of this counter offer, but sought additional changes to certain non-monetary provisions of the counter offer. In April 2015, the Multistate Work Group indicated that the participating Attorneys General had tentatively agreed to the changed terms requested by Classmates, Inc. and FTD.COM and that the parties could commence the process to finalize consent decrees setting forth these terms with the various states. The parties are finalizing consent decrees and anticipate that they will be signed shortly. Until final consent decrees are entered into by all of the parties, there can be no assurances as to the terms on which the Multistate Work Group and Classmates, Inc. may agree to settle this matter (and how such settlement may affect Classmates, Inc.'s ongoing business), or that any settlement of this matter may be reached. If no settlement is reached, certain Attorneys General of the Multistate Work Group may file litigation against Classmates, Inc. and, in the event of litigation, Classmates, Inc. intends to vigorously defend itself. |
• | In 2011, Classmates, Inc. received a civil investigative demand from the Attorney General for the State of Washington regarding its marketing, refund, cancelation, and renewal practices. Prior to that, in 2009, Classmates, Inc. had received a civil investigative demand from the Attorney General for the State of Washington regarding certain post-transaction sales practices in which it had previously engaged with certain third-party vendors. In 2012, the Attorney General for the State of Washington joined the aforementioned Multistate Work Group. The Company believes that by joining the Multistate Work Group, the Attorney General's investigation may have been consolidated into the Multistate Work Group's inquiry. |
In November 2013, we consummated the separation of our company into two independent, publicly-traded companies: United Online, Inc., which continues to operate our current business segments, and FTD Companies, Inc., which includes the domestic and international operations of our former FTD segment (the "FTD Spin-Off Transaction"). Prior to the completion of the FTD Spin-Off Transaction, the Company and FTD Companies, Inc. entered into a Separation and Distribution Agreement (the "Separation Agreement"). The Separation Agreement addresses, among other things, the control and settlement of certain litigation matters that relate to the Company (and certain subsidiaries) and FTD Companies, Inc. (and certain subsidiaries), including the ongoing matters relating to the Multistate Work Group. The Separation Agreement also provides for the allocation of liabilities and expenses between the Company and FTD Companies, Inc. with respect to these matters. It also establishes procedures with respect to claims subject to indemnification, insurance claims and related matters. |
The Company cannot predict the outcome of these or any other governmental investigations or other legal actions or their potential implications for its business. In addition, the Company, at times, has negotiated resolutions related to certain governmental investigations. For example, in 2010, Classmates, Inc. (then known as Classmates Online, Inc.) paid $960,000 to resolve an investigation of the Attorney General for the State of New York related to its former post-transaction sales practices; and in July 2013, Classmates, Inc. (formerly known as Memory Lane, Inc.) paid $300,000 to resolve an investigation of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia related to its former post-transaction sales practices. There are no assurances that additional governmental investigations or other legal actions will not be instituted in connection with the Company's former post-transaction sales practices or other current or former business practices. |
The Company records a liability when it believes that it is both probable that a loss will be incurred, and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, at least quarterly, developments in its legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that has been previously accrued, and makes adjustments as appropriate. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount. The Company may be unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss due to various reasons, including, among others: (i) if the damages sought are indeterminate; (ii) if the proceedings are in early stages; (iii) if there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals, motions, or settlements; (iv) if there are significant factual issues to be determined or resolved; and (v) if there are novel or unsettled legal theories presented. In such instances, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss, if any. At March 31, 2015, the Company had reserves totaling $8.2 million for estimated losses related to certain matters described above, including the Multistate Work Group matter. With respect to the legal matters described above, excluding the Multistate Work Group's inquiry of Classmates, Inc. and the Modern Telecom Systems complaint, the Company has determined, based on its current knowledge, that the amount of possible loss or range of loss, including any reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts already accrued, is not reasonably estimable. However, legal matters are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, some of which are beyond the Company's control. As such, even though the Company intends to vigorously defend itself with respect to its legal matters, there can be no assurance that the final outcome of these matters will not materially and adversely affect the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. |
|