Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended |
Mar. 31, 2015 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
The Company's commitments as of March 31, 2015 did not materially change from the amounts set forth in the Company's 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K. |
Legal Matters |
From time to time, the Company is party to various legal proceedings incident to the operation of its business. For example, the Company is currently involved in proceedings brought by stockholders, former employees and merchants, intellectual property infringement suits and suits by customers (individually or as class actions) alleging, among other things, violations of the federal securities laws, the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act and state laws governing gift cards, stored value cards and coupons. Additionally, the Company is subject to general customer complaints seeking monetary damages, particularly in its Rest of World segment. The following is a brief description of significant legal proceedings. |
On February 8, 2012, the Company issued a press release announcing its expected financial results for the fourth quarter of 2011. After finalizing its year-end financial statements, the Company announced on March 30, 2012 revised financial results, as well as a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting related to deficiencies in its financial statement close process. The revisions resulted in a reduction to fourth quarter 2011 revenue of $14.3 million. The revisions also resulted in an increase to fourth quarter operating expenses that reduced operating income by $30.0 million, net income by $22.6 million and earnings per share by $0.04. Following this announcement, the Company and several of its current and former directors and officers were named as parties to the following outstanding putative securities class action and purported stockholder derivative lawsuits all arising out of the same alleged events and facts. |
The Company is currently a defendant in a proceeding pursuant to which, on October 29, 2012, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed against the Company, certain of its directors and officers, and the underwriters that participated in the initial public offering of the Company's Class A common stock. Originally filed in April 2012, the case is currently pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation. The complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Allegations in the consolidated amended complaint include that the Company and its officers and directors made untrue statements or omissions of material fact by issuing inaccurate financial statements for the fiscal quarter and the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 and by failing to disclose information about the Company's financial controls in the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial public offering of Class A common stock and in the Company's subsequently-issued earnings release dated February 8, 2012. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in connection with the actions, including attorneys' fees, and various other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief. On September 25, 2014, the district court entered an order granting plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Company has filed a petition for leave to appeal that order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On March 6, 2015, the magistrate judge entered an order denying defendants' motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of the plaintiff's proposed market efficiency expert. On March 20, 2015, defendants filed objections to the magistrate judge's order with the district court, which are currently pending. Those objections have now been fully briefed by the parties and are currently pending. The Seventh Circuit is holding the petition for leave to appeal. Meanwhile, the parties continue to be engaged in discovery, including depositions. |
In addition, federal and state purported stockholder derivative lawsuits have been filed against certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers. The federal purported stockholder derivative lawsuit was originally filed in April 2012, and a consolidated stockholder derivative complaint, filed on July 30, 2012, is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: In re Groupon Derivative Litigation. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of control. The state derivative cases are currently pending before the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois: Orrego v. Lefkofsky, et al., was filed on April 5, 2012; and Kim v. Lefkofsky, et al., was filed on May 25, 2012. The state derivative complaints generally allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by purportedly mismanaging the Company's business by, among other things, failing to utilize proper accounting controls and, in the case of one of the state derivative lawsuits, by engaging in alleged insider trading of the Company's Class A common stock and misappropriating information. In addition, one state derivative case asserts a claim for unjust enrichment. The derivative lawsuits purport to seek to recoup for the Company an unspecified amount of monetary damages allegedly sustained by the Company, restitution from defendants, reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in connection with the actions, including attorneys' fees, and various other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief. On June 20, 2012, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion requesting that the court stay the consolidated federal derivative action pending resolution of the consolidated federal class action. On July 31, 2012, the court granted defendants' motion in part, and stayed the consolidated federal derivative action pending a separate resolution of upcoming motions to dismiss in the consolidated federal class action. On June 15, 2012, the state plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the state derivative actions, which was granted on July 2, 2012, and on July 5, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for appointment of co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel, which was granted on July 27, 2012. No consolidated complaint has been filed in the state derivative action. On September 14, 2012, the court granted a motion filed by the parties requesting that the court stay the state derivative actions pending the federal court's resolution of anticipated motions to dismiss in the consolidated federal class action. On April 18, 2013, the state court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved its selection of lead counsel and local counsel for the purported derivative action. Following entry of the federal court's order denying defendants' motions to dismiss in In re Groupon Securities Litigation, the courts in both the state and federal derivative actions granted motions requesting that the respective courts extend the litigation stays currently in place pending further developments in In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation. |
The Company intends to defend all of the securities and stockholder derivative lawsuits vigorously. |
In 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a series of class actions that came to be consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The consolidated actions are referred to as In re Groupon Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The Company denies liability, but the parties agreed to settle the litigation for $8.5 million before any determination had been made on the merits or with respect to class certification. Because the case had been filed as a class action, the parties were required to provide proper notice to the settlement class and obtain court approval for the settlement. During that process, certain individuals asserted various objections to the settlement. The parties to the case opposed the objections and on December 14, 2012, the district court approved the settlement over the various objections. |
Subsequent to the entry of the order approving settlement, certain of the objectors filed a notice of appeal, contesting the settlement and appealing the matter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company and the Plaintiffs opposed the appeal and sought confirmation of the settlement approved by the District Court. On February 19, 2015, the Court of Appeals vacated the settlement and remanded the case for further proceedings concerning the proposed settlement consistent with the Court of Appeals' opinion. The litigation is now pending in the District Court. |
The parties have the right to terminate the settlement. Pursuant to an agreement of the parties and an order of the court, the parties have until June 22, 2015 to make this election or supplement the record consistent with the opinion from the Court of Appeals in an effort to seek re-approval of the settlement. The Company is presently analyzing its options with respect to this matter. |
In addition, third parties have from time to time claimed, and others may claim in the future, that the Company has infringed their intellectual property rights. The Company is subject to intellectual property disputes, including patent infringement claims, and expects that it will increasingly be subject to intellectual property infringement claims as its services expand in scope and complexity. The Company has in the past litigated such claims, and the Company is presently involved in several patent infringement and other intellectual property-related claims, including pending litigation, some of which could involve potentially substantial claims for damages. The Company may also become more vulnerable to third party claims as laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act are interpreted by the courts, and as the Company becomes subject to laws in jurisdictions where the underlying laws with respect to the potential liability of online intermediaries are either unclear or less favorable. The Company believes that additional lawsuits alleging that it has violated patent, copyright or trademark laws will be filed against it. Intellectual property claims, whether meritorious or not, are time consuming and costly to resolve, could require expensive changes in the Company's methods of doing business, or could require it to enter into costly royalty or licensing agreements. |
The Company is also subject to, or in the future may become subject to, a variety of regulatory inquiries across the jurisdictions where the Company conducts its business, including, for example, consumer protection, marketing practices, tax and privacy rules and regulations. Any regulatory actions against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, damage awards, injunctive relief or increased costs of doing business through adverse judgment or settlement, require the Company to change its business practices in expensive ways, require significant amounts of management time, result in the diversion of significant operational resources or otherwise harm the Company's business. |
Certain foreign tax authorities have issued assessments totaling $41.7 million to subsidiaries of the Company for additional value-added taxes (VAT) covering periods ranging from January 2011 to May 2014, including interest and penalties through the date of the assessments. Those tax authorities are alleging that, for VAT purposes, the Company's revenues from voucher sales should reflect the total amounts collected from purchasers of those vouchers, rather than the amounts that the Company retains after deducting the portion that is payable to the featured merchants. The Company believes that the assessments are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters. |
|
The Company establishes an accrued liability for loss contingencies related to legal and regulatory matters when the loss is both probable and estimable. These accruals represent management's best estimate of probable losses and in such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the amounts accrued. For each matter described above, there are inherent and significant uncertainties based on, among other factors, the stage of the proceedings, developments in the applicable facts of law, or the lack of a specific damage claim. In addition, for some matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, an estimate of the amount of loss or range of loss is not possible, and we may be unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of non-monetary remedies. Currently, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount of reasonably possible losses in excess of the amounts accrued for the securities and stockholder derivative lawsuits. For the remaining matters described above, the Company believes that the amount of reasonably possible losses in excess of the amounts accrued would not have a material adverse effect on its business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The Company's accrued liabilities for loss contingencies related to legal and regulatory matters may change in the future as a result of new developments, including, but not limited to, the occurrence of new legal matters, changes in the law or regulatory environment, adverse or favorable rulings, newly discovered facts relevant to the matter, or changes in the strategy for the matter. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. |
Indemnifications |
In the normal course of business to facilitate transactions related to its operations, the Company indemnifies certain parties, including employees, lessors, service providers and merchants, with respect to various matters. The Company has agreed to hold certain parties harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations or covenants, or other claims made against those parties. These agreements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim. The Company is also subject to increased exposure to various claims as a result of its acquisitions, particularly in cases where the Company is entering into new businesses in connection with such acquisitions. The Company may also become more vulnerable to claims as it expands the range and scope of its services and is subject to laws in jurisdictions where the underlying laws with respect to potential liability are either unclear or less favorable. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its officers, directors and underwriters, and the Company's bylaws contain similar indemnification obligations to agents. |
It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, any payments that the Company has made under these agreements have not had a material impact on the operating results, financial position or cash flows of the Company. |