CONTINGENCIES-LEGAL MATTERS | 9 Months Ended |
Sep. 30, 2013 |
CONTINGENCIES-LEGAL MATTERS | ' |
CONTINGENCIES-LEGAL MATTERS | ' |
|
12. CONTINGENCIES—LEGAL MATTERS |
|
In March 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo, and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following defendants: (i) Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card Company Defendants"); (ii) 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inns Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, PeopleFindersPro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Shoebuy.com, Inc. (collectively, the "E-Merchant Defendants"); and (iii) Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. ("Trilegiant"), Affinion Group, LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo"). The complaint alleges (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") by all defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (3) violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") by Trilegiant, Affinion and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (5) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17602 by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants; and (6) unjust enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. |
|
In March 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a purported class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following defendants: (i) Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, Vertrue, Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Adaptive Marketing, LLC (collectively, the "Membership Companies"); (ii) 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Peoplefinderspro, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Wells Fargo & Company, and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the "Marketing Companies"); and (iii) Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card Companies"). The complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO by all defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the Credit Card Companies; (3) violations of the ECPA by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (5) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17602 by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies; and (6) unjust enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received from the plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. |
|
In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. In September 2012, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint and named five additional defendants. The defendants have responded to the consolidated amended complaint by joining in motions to dismiss filed by other defendants on December 7, 2012. Those motions were argued before the district court on September 25, 2013, and taken under submission. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, and no trial date has been set. |
|
In addition, in December 2012, David Frank filed a purported class action complaint (the "Frank Class Action") in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following defendants: Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo (collectively, the "Frank Membership Companies"); 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, PeopleFindersPro, Inc., Priceline.com, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., TigerDirect, Inc., United Online, Inc., and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the "Frank Marketing Companies"); Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Paymentech Solutions, LLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively, the "Frank Credit Card Companies"). The complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO by all defendants; (2) aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (3) aiding and abetting commissions of mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (4) violation of the ECPA by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (5) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (6) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17602 by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies; and (7) unjust enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiff, damages, treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. On January 23, 2013, the plaintiff moved to consolidate the Frank Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action. In response, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause as to why, among other things, the plaintiff should be afforded named plaintiff status. The plaintiff filed his response to the order to show cause on February 15, 2013. The court has not yet ruled upon the request for consolidation or the order to show cause. |
|
In December 2008, Interflora, Inc. (in which the Company has a two-thirds ownership interest) and Interflora issued proceedings against Marks and Spencer plc ("Marks and Spencer") seeking injunctive relief, damages, interest, and costs in an action claiming infringement of U.K. trademark registration number 1329840 and European Community trademark registration number 909838, both for the word "Interflora". Marks and Spencer did not make a counterclaim. In July 2009, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (the "High Court"), referred certain questions to the Court of Justice of European Union ("CJEU") for a preliminary ruling. In September 2011, the CJEU handed down its judgment on the questions referred by the High Court. In February 2012, the High Court scheduled the trial for April 2013. In September 2012, Interflora executed an indemnity agreement by which Interflora agreed to indemnify Interflora, Inc. against all losses and expenses arising out of this action which Interflora, Inc. may incur after July 10, 2012. The trial in this matter concluded in April 2013. In May 2013, the High Court ruled that Marks and Spencer infringed the Interflora trademarks. In June 2013, the High Court issued an injunction prohibiting Marks and Spencer from infringing the Interflora trademarks in specified jurisdictions and ordered Marks and Spencer to provide certain disclosures in order for damages to be quantified. The High Court granted Marks and Spencer permission to appeal the ruling. Marks and Spencer has submitted its appeal on the grounds for which permission was granted by the High Court, and is further seeking permission to appeal on additional grounds. |
|
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, FTD.COM and Classmates Online, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Online) 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 consists of the Attorneys General for the following states: Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Washington. The primary focus of the inquiry concerns certain post-transaction sales practices in which these companies previously engaged with certain third-party vendors. 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 these companies 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. The Company has since had ongoing discussions with the Multistate Work Group regarding the non-monetary aspects of a negotiated resolution. The Company is continuing to cooperate with the Multistate Work Group and is providing requested information. There can be no assurances as to the terms on which the Company and the Multistate Work Group may agree to settle this matter, or that any settlement of this matter may be reached. The Company is not able to reasonably estimate the amount of possible loss or range of loss that may arise, if any. In the event that the Company and the Multistate Work Group agree to settle this matter, or if no settlement is reached and there are adverse judgments against the Company in connection with litigation filed by the Attorneys General of the Multistate Work Group, there could be a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. |
|
The Company cannot predict the outcome of these or any other governmental investigations or other legal actions or their potential implications for its business. 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 Separation and Distribution Agreement which was executed between FTD and United Online in connection with the Separation provides United Online with the right to control the litigation and settlement of certain litigation matters that relate to United Online, its predecessors and its consolidated subsidiaries and the Company, its predecessors and its consolidated subsidiaries and which were asserted before the Separation, as well as specified litigation matters which are asserted after the Separation. These matters include the ongoing matters relating to the Company's former post-transaction sales practices or other current or former business practices described above. The Separation and Distribution Agreement also provides for the allocation of liabilities and expenses between United Online and the Company with respect to these matters. It also establishes procedures with respect to claims subject to indemnification, insurance claims and related matters. The Company and United Online may not prevail in existing or future claims and any judgments against the Company, or settlement or resolution of such claims may involve the payment of significant sums, including damages, fines, penalties, or assessments, or changes to the Company's 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. With respect to the other legal matters described above, 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, 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. |
|