Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended |
Mar. 31, 2014 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies |
|
Our contractual obligations as of March 31, 2014 did not materially change from the amounts set forth in our 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K. |
|
Company Litigation |
|
We are involved in various claims, legal proceedings and governmental inquiries related to contract disputes, business practices, antitrust, intellectual property and other commercial, employment and tax matters. We believe that we have meritorious defenses, and we are vigorously defending against these claims, proceedings and inquiries. At March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, we had accruals of $6.0 million and $5.5 million related to various legal proceedings, respectively. Litigation is inherently unpredictable and, although we believe we have valid defenses in these matters, unfavorable resolutions could occur. Below, we have provided relevant information on these matters. |
|
We are party to various cases brought by municipalities and other state and local governmental entities in the U.S. involving hotel occupancy or related taxes and our merchant hotel business model. Most of the cases were brought simultaneously against other OTCs, including Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline. Certain of these cases are class actions, some of which have been confirmed on a state-wide basis and some which are purported. The cases allege, among other things, that we violated the jurisdictions’ hotel occupancy tax ordinances, as well as related sales and use taxes. While not identical in their allegations, the cases generally assert similar claims, including violations of local or state occupancy tax ordinances, failure to pay sales or use tax, and in some cases, violations of consumer protection ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust, demand for a legal or equitable accounting, injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and civil conspiracy. The plaintiffs seek relief in a variety of forms, including: declaratory judgment, full accounting of monies owed, imposition of a constructive trust, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, interest, penalties and costs, attorneys’ fees, and where a class action has been claimed, an order certifying the action as a class action. An adverse ruling in one or more of these cases could require us to pay tax retroactively and prospectively and possibly pay interest, penalties and fines. The proliferation of additional cases could result in substantial additional defense costs. |
|
We have also been contacted by several municipalities or other taxing bodies concerning our possible obligations with respect to state or local hotel occupancy or related taxes. The following taxing bodies have issued notices to the Company: 43 cities in California; Broomfield, Colorado Springs, Durango, Frisco, Glendale, Glenwood Springs, Golden, Grand Junction, Greeley, Greenwood Village, Lafayette, Lakewood, Littleton, Loveland, Silverthorne, and Steamboat Springs, Colorado; Arlington, Texas; Brunswick and Stanly, North Carolina; Davis, Summit, Salt Lake and Weber, Utah; the Arizona Department of Revenue; the New Mexico Department of Revenue; the Ohio Department of Taxation; Paradise Valley, Arizona; St. Louis, Missouri; Alabama Municipalities; the Louisiana Department of Revenue; the Vermont Department of Taxation; and the Maine Department of Revenue. These taxing authorities have not issued assessments, but have requested information to conduct an audit and/or have requested that the Company register to pay local hotel occupancy taxes. |
|
The following taxing authorities have issued assessments which are not final and are subject to further review by the taxing authorities: the Colorado Department of Revenue; the City of Aurora, Colorado; the Maryland Comptroller; the Texas Comptroller; Lake County, Indiana; the Wisconsin Department of Revenue; and 12 taxing jurisdictions in Arizona. These assessments range from $0.02 million to approximately $5.8 million, and total approximately $8.4 million. |
|
In addition, the Hawaii Department of Taxation issued an assessment of $16.9 million for the 2012 taxable year, which is not final and is subject to further review by the taxing authority. The 2012 assessment is in addition to the $58.0 million final assessments previously issued by the Hawaii Department of Taxation for prior years, more than $30.0 million of which was rejected by the Hawaii Tax Court of Appeals. Additionally, on December 9, 2013, the Hawaii Department of Taxation issued Notices of Final Assessments totaling $3.4 million against various Orbitz entities for General Excise Tax, penalties and interest for rental car transactions facilitated during the period of January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2012. None of the Hawaii assessments issued in 2011 through 2013 have been based on historical transaction data. |
|
Assessments or declaratory rulings that are administratively final and subject to judicial review have been issued by the cities of San Francisco and San Diego, California; the city of Denver, Colorado; the counties of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Osceola, Florida; and the Indiana Department of Revenue. These assessments range from $0.2 million to approximately $3.2 million, and total approximately $7.8 million. Trial courts rejected the assessments in San Francisco and San Diego, California and Broward, Florida, which account for $5.3 million of this total. |
|
The OTCs, including Orbitz, have prevailed in the large majority of hotel tax cases that have been decided to date, having obtained favorable judgments in more than two dozen cases. However, there have been certain adverse lower court decisions against Orbitz and the other OTCs that, if affirmed, could result in significant liability to the Company. |
|
First, in July 2011, related to the City of San Antonio hotel occupancy tax case, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law in which it held the defendant OTCs, including Orbitz, liable for hotel occupancy taxes on markup, fees, and breakage revenue, and also imposed penalties and interest. On April 4, 2013, the Court entered judgment against Orbitz in the amount of approximately $4.3 million and post-judgment motions are still pending. The OTCs, including Orbitz, intend to appeal once the pending motions are ruled upon by the court. Because we do not believe a loss is probable given the numerous issues that exist on appeal, we have not accrued any liability related to this case. |
|
Second, in September 2012, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted the District’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied the OTCs’ motion for summary judgment, finding the companies liable for sales tax on hotel reservations dating back to the inception of the merchant model. Although the Court acknowledged that the District had amended its law in 2011, and that the sales tax law was ambiguous prior to that time, the Court nonetheless found the OTCs liable for merchant model hotel reservations before that date. Because we believe that the Court’s finding of liability was the result of a misapplication of the law, we do not believe a loss is probable relating to the pre-amendment case and plan to appeal. Accordingly, we have not accrued any liability relating to the District of Columbia case for the period prior to July 2011. On March 25, 2014, Orbitz paid a judgment of $3.8 million, which represents the sales tax attributable to orbitz.com’s hotel reservations through December 31, 2011. This amount is subject to a refund if Orbitz prevails in its appeal. Although the Company expects to prevail on the issue of whether it is liable for sales tax before July 2011, it is possible that we will not prevail, and if that occurs, that amount of the judgment that we have not expensed is approximately $3.7 million. |
|
Third, in January 2013, the Tax Court of Appeals in Hawaii ruled that the OTCs are subject to Hawaii’s general excise tax. The Court also determined that the “splitting provision” contained in the Hawaii general excise tax statute, which limits application of the tax to only the amounts that travel agents receive for their services, does not apply to the transactions at issue. On March 19, 2013, the Court issued an order in which it also imposed “failure to file” and “failure to pay” penalties on the OTCs. On August 15, 2013, the Hawaii Tax Appeal Court ruled that the OTCs were required to pay interest on penalties, and entered final judgment disposing of all issues and claims of all parties. On September 11, 2013, the OTCs filed their notice of appeal. Under Hawaii law, in order to appeal, Orbitz was required to pay the total amount of the final judgment to Hawaii prior to appealing the Court’s order. Accordingly, Orbitz made payments to Hawaii of $16.9 million in April 2013, and approximately$9.2 million to Hawaii in September 2013. These amounts reflected a determination of Orbitz’s liability for general excise tax (both on the amounts that it receives for its services and the amounts that the hotels receive for the rental of their rooms), interest, penalties, and interest on penalties. Although Orbitz disagrees with the Court’s rulings on general excise tax and intends to appeal them, we have recorded an expense of $4.2 million in light of the decision. The $4.2 million represents the amount Orbitz estimates it would owe if the Court had correctly applied the general excise tax splitting provision on merchant reservations through December 31, 2012 and a 25% failure to file penalty imposed on that figure. Orbitz has not reserved for the remainder of the ruling because it believes that the general excise tax splitting provision plainly applies to the transactions in question, and that the award of “failure to pay” penalties is entirely unsupported by the record in the case, and that interest on penalties should not have been awarded. Although we believe that it is not probable that Orbitz ultimately will be liable for more than $4.2 million as a result of the Court’s order, it is possible that Orbitz will not prevail, and if it does not, the amount of any final award of general excise tax, penalties and interest against Orbitz could exceed $26.0 million. |
|
Fourth, in June 2013, the Circuit Court of Cook County granted in part the City of Chicago’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the OTCs are subject to the City’s accommodations tax ordinance. The Court has not yet made any determination as to damages. Although we disagree with the Court’s decision, we have accrued approximately $1.5 million for this matter, which represents our estimate of potential liability since 2008, when the City amended its ordinance in an effort to impose accommodations tax on the money that OTCs receive for the services they provide. If the Court’s decision is affirmed in all respects, however, it is possible that Orbitz could be found to owe approximately $2.4 million. |
|
In an unrelated matter, Trilegiant Corporation filed an action for breach of contract and declaratory judgment in the Supreme Court of New York against us, alleging that we are obligated to make a series of termination payments arising out of a promotion agreement that we terminated in 2007. In 2007, we accrued the present value of the termination payments and in 2010 we ceased making termination payments due to a dispute with Trilegiant. On October 2, 2013, the Court denied Orbitz’s motion for summary judgment on one of its affirmative defenses, and on December 24, 2013, the court rejected most of our remaining defenses. As of March 31, 2014, we had an accrual totaling $13.2 million, which includes $1.5 million for potential interest. |
|
On August 20, 2012, a putative consumer class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against certain major hotel chains, and the leading OTCs, including Orbitz. The complaint alleged that the hotel chains and OTCs, including Orbitz, violated antitrust and consumer protection laws by entering into agreements in which OTCs agree not to facilitate the reservation of hotel rooms at prices that are less than those found on the hotel chain websites. Following the filing of the initial complaint on August 20, 2012, several dozen additional putative consumer class action complaints were filed in federal courts across the country. These cases were then consolidated for pretrial purposes by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation and transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On May 1, 2013, counsel for the Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. On July 1, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On February 16, 2014, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss all of the Claims in the Consolidated Amended Complaint without prejudice. We cannot currently estimate a range of our potential loss if we do not prevail in this litigation. |
|
We cannot estimate our aggregate range of loss in the cases for which we have not recorded an accrual, except to the extent taxing authorities have issued assessments against us. Although we believe it is unlikely that an adverse outcome will result from these proceedings, an adverse outcome could be material to us with respect to earnings or cash flows in any given reporting period. |
|
Financing Arrangements |
|
We are required to issue letters of credit and similar instruments to support certain suppliers, commercial agreements, leases and non-U.S. regulatory and governmental agencies primarily to satisfy consumer protection requirements. We believe we have access to sufficient letter of credit availability to meet our short- and long-term requirements through a combination of $50.0 million in proceeds from our March 2013 refinancing held as restricted cash and designated to be used to cash collateralize letters of credit or similar instruments, our $65.0 million revolving credit facility through which our revolving lenders have agreed to issue up to $55.0 million in letters of credit, our $25.0 million multi-currency letter of credit facility, and cash from our balance sheet which can be used to support letters of credit and similar instruments. |
|
The following table shows the amount of letters of credit and similar instruments outstanding by facility, as well as the amounts of our restricted cash balances: |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 31-Mar-14 | | 31-Dec-13 |
| Letters of Credit and Other Credit Support | | Restricted Cash | | Letters of Credit and Other Credit Support | | Restricted Cash |
| (in thousands) |
Multi-currency letter of credit facility | $ | 21,909 | | | $ | 22,733 | | | $ | 21,863 | | | $ | 22,670 | |
|
Uncommitted letter of credit facilities and surety bonds | 92,405 | | | 97,475 | | | 91,033 | | | 96,091 | |
|
Total | $ | 114,314 | | | $ | 120,208 | | | $ | 112,896 | | | $ | 118,761 | |
|
|
Total letter of credit fees were less than $0.1 million and $1.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013. |