Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments | Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments Legal Proceedings Public Liability and Property Damage The Company is currently a defendant in numerous actions and has received numerous claims on which actions have not yet been commenced for public liability and property damage arising from the operation of motor vehicles and equipment rented from the Company. The obligation for public liability and property damage on self-insured U.S. and international vehicles and equipment, as stated on the Company's balance sheet, represents an estimate for both reported accident claims not yet paid and claims incurred but not yet reported. The related liabilities are recorded on a non-discounted basis. Reserve requirements are based on rental volume and actuarial evaluations of historical accident claim experience and trends, as well as future projections of ultimate losses, expenses, premiums and administrative costs. At March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , the Company's liability recorded for public liability and property damage matters was $413 million and $402 million , respectively. The Company believes that its analysis is based on the most relevant information available, combined with reasonable assumptions, and that the Company may prudently rely on this information to determine the estimated liability. The liability is subject to significant uncertainties. The adequacy of the liability reserve is regularly monitored based on evolving accident claim history and insurance related state legislation changes. If the Company's estimates change or if actual results differ from these assumptions, the amount of the recorded liability is adjusted to reflect these results. Other Matters From time to time the Company is a party to various legal proceedings. The Company has summarized below the most significant legal proceedings to which the Company was and/or is a party to during the three months ended March 31, 2016 or the period after March 31, 2016 but before the filing of this Report on Form 10-Q. Concession Fee Recoveries - In October 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Enterprise”) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Enterprise became a defendant in a separate action which they have now settled.) The Sobel case is a consumer class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at airports in Nevada and were separately charged airport concession recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges during the class period. In October 2014, the court entered final judgment against the Company and directed Hertz to pay the class approximately $42 million in restitution and $11 million in prejudgment interest, and to pay attorney's fees of $3.1 million with an additional $3.1 million to be paid from the restitution fund. In December 2014, Hertz timely filed an appeal of that final judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the plaintiffs cross appealed the court's judgment seeking to challenge the lower court's ruling that Hertz did not deceive or mislead the class members. The matter has now been fully briefed by the parties. No oral argument date has been set. The Company continues to believe the outcome of this case will not be material to its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation - In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleged that Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In June 2014, Hertz Holdings responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative class period such that it was not alleged to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations that were not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior complaint. In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in the District of New Jersey, and Hertz Holdings responded to the second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff could file a third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015. On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint included additional allegations and expanded the putative class period such that it was alleged to span from February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015. On November 4, 2015, Hertz Holdings filed its motion to dismiss. Thereafter, a motion was made by plaintiff to add a new plaintiff, because of challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff. The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed on March 1, 2016. Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice on March 24, 2016 and on May 6, 2016, plaintiff filed its opposition to same. Hertz Holdings believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses and it intends to vigorously defend against the complaint, but litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of this matter is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that this matter could be decided unfavorably to Hertz Holdings. However, Hertz Holdings is currently unable to estimate the range of these possible losses, but they could be material to the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. Ryanair - In July 2015, Ryanair Ltd. ("Ryanair") filed a complaint against Hertz Europe Limited, a subsidiary of the Company, in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, Royal Courts of Justice of the United Kingdom alleging breach of contract in connection with Hertz Europe Limited’s termination of its car hire agreement with Ryanair following a contractual dispute with respect to Ryanair’s agreement to begin using third party ticket distributors. The complaint seeks damages, interest and costs, together with attorney fees. The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses and it intends to vigorously defend against these allegations, but litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of this matter is not predictable with assurance. The Company has established a reserve for this matter which is not material. However, it is possible that this matter could be decided unfavorably to the Company, accordingly, it is possible that an adverse outcome could exceed the amount accrued in an amount that could be material to the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. The Company intends to assert that it has meritorious defenses in the foregoing matters and the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. Governmental Investigations - In June 2014, the Company was advised by the staff of the New York Regional Office of the SEC that it is investigating the events disclosed in certain of the Company’s filings with the SEC. In addition, in December 2014 a state securities regulator requested information regarding the same events. The investigations generally involve the restatements included in the Company's 2014 Form 10-K and related accounting for prior periods. The Company has and intends to continue to cooperate with both the SEC and state requests. Due to the stage at which the proceedings are, Hertz is currently unable to predict the likely outcome of the proceedings or estimate the range of reasonably possible losses, which may be material. Among other matters, the restatements included in the Company’s 2014 Form 10-K addressed a variety of accounting matters involving the Company’s Brazil rental car operations. The Company has identified certain activities in Brazil that may raise issues under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and local laws, which the Company has self-reported to appropriate government entities. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this issue or estimate the range of reasonably possible losses, which could be material. French Antitrust - In February 2015, the French Competition Authority issued a Statement of Objections claiming that several car rental companies, including Hertz and certain of its subsidiaries, violated French competition law by receiving historic market information from twelve French airports relating to the car rental companies operating at those airports and by engaging in a concerted practice relating to train station surcharges. Hertz believes that it has valid defenses and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations, but, due to the early stage at which the proceedings are, Hertz is currently unable to predict the likely outcome of the proceedings or range of reasonably possible losses, which could be material. French Road Tax - The French Tax Authority has challenged the historic practice of several rental car companies, including Hertz France, of registering vehicles in jurisdictions where it is established and where the road tax payable with respect to those vehicles is lower than the road tax payable in the jurisdictions where the vehicles will primarily be used. In respect of a period in 2005, the Company has unsuccessfully appealed the French Tax assessment to the highest Administrative court in France. In respect of a period from 2003 to 2005, following an adverse judgment, the Company appealed the French Tax Authority’s assessment to the Civil Court of Appeal. This appeal is currently awaiting judgment. In the third quarter of 2015, following an adverse decision against another industry participant involved in a similar action, the Company has recorded charges with respect to this matter of approximately $23 million during 2015. In January 2016, the Company made a payment of approximately $9 million . The Company has established reserves for matters where the Company believes that losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Other than the aggregate reserve established for claims for public liability and property damage, none of those reserves are material. For matters, including certain of those described above, where the Company has not established a reserve, the ultimate outcome or resolution cannot be predicted at this time, or the amount of ultimate loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of the individual litigated matters is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that certain of the actions, claims, inquiries or proceedings, including those discussed above, could be decided unfavorably to the Company or any of its subsidiaries involved. Accordingly, it is possible that an adverse outcome from such a proceeding could exceed the amount accrued in an amount that could be material to the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. In March 2016, the Company, as plaintiff, received a $9 million settlement related to a 2013 eminent domain case associated with one of the Company’s airport locations. The settlement gain is included in other (income) expense, net in the Company's condensed consolidated statements of operations. Indemnification Obligations There have been no significant changes to the Company's indemnification obligations as compared to those disclosed in Note 16, "Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments" of the Notes to consolidated financial statements included in the 2015 Form 10-K under the caption Item 8, "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data." |