CONTINGENCIES-LEGAL MATTERS | 15. CONTINGENCIES—LEGAL MATTERS In 2010, FTD.COM and Classmates, 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, Nebraska, New Mexico, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. The primary focus of the inquiry concerned certain post transaction sales practices in which these companies previously engaged with certain third party vendors. In the second quarter of 2012, FTD.COM and Classmates, Inc. 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. FTD.COM and Classmates, Inc. rejected the Multistate Work Group’s offer. Following additional discussions with the Multistate Work Group, on December 23, 2014, FTD.COM and Classmates, Inc. submitted a proposal to resolve the matter without admitting liability by making a settlement payment in an aggregate amount of $8 million relating to both companies and $2.5 million restitution by Classmates, Inc. to a group of purchasers of its subscription services. On January 15, 2015, the Multistate Work Group responded to the companies’ December 23, 2014, offer with a counter offer seeking a payment from FTD.COM and Classmates, Inc. of $8 million relating to both companies and restitution from Classmates, Inc. of $3 million. In March 2015, FTD.COM and Classmates, Inc. accepted the Multistate Work Group’s latest counter offer. Final settlement agreements were approved by the respective court in each of the States listed above and the respective settlement payments, totaling $2.8 million, were made by FTD.COM to the various states in 2015. 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 cannot predict the outcome of governmental investigations or other legal actions or their potential implications for its business. The Separation and Distribution Agreement which was executed between FTD and United Online in connection with the Company’s November 2013 separation from United Online (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 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. In May 2015, FTD and United Online entered into an amendment to the Separation and Distribution Agreement providing for the parties to jointly coordinate the litigation and settlement of certain specified litigation matters which are asserted after the Separation. In addition, pursuant to such amendment, the foregoing obligations of the parties will terminate on May 20, 2017, provided that for certain matters that may be pending as of such date, such obligations will terminate no later than May 20, 2019. The Separation and Distribution Agreement also establishes procedures with respect to claims subject to indemnification, insurance claims, and related matters. The Company and United Online may not prevail in 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. 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. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal at a hearing held July 8-10, 2014. On November 5, 2014, the Court of Appeal issued its judgment upholding the appeal but did not determine the case in favor of either party, and instead remitted the case for a retrial by the High Court. On November 12, 2014, the Court of Appeal determined the order from its judgment, which became effective as of November 18, 2014, setting aside the order of the High Court from June of 2013. The part of the order lifting the injunction prohibiting Marks and Spencer from infringing the Interflora trademarks was lifted on December 2, 2014. At a case management conference on June 18, 2015, the High Court ordered that the parties take certain steps to allow it to determine the scope of the evidence at a resumed case management conference in November and ordered that the parties attend court to set a date for a six day retrial before the High Court. In October 2015, this matter was resolved pursuant to the terms of a confidential settlement agreed to by the parties. The confidential settlement is subject to final documentation, and its impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements will be immaterial. Commencing on August 19, 2009, the first of a series of consumer class action lawsuits was brought against Provide Commerce, Inc. and co-defendant Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore Marketing International (“EMI”). These cases were ultimately consolidated during the next three years into Case No. 09 CV 2094 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under the title In re EasySaver Rewards Litigation. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from their online enrollment in subscription based membership programs known as EasySaver Rewards, RedEnvelope Rewards, and Preferred Buyers Pass (collectively the “Membership Programs”). Plaintiffs claim that after they ordered items from certain of Provide Commerce’s websites, they were presented with an offer to enroll in one of the Membership Programs, each of which is offered and administered by EMI. Plaintiffs purport to represent a putative nationwide class of consumers allegedly damaged by Provide Commerce’s purported unauthorized or otherwise allegedly improper transferring of the putative class members’ billing information to EMI, who then posted allegedly unauthorized charges to their credit or debit card accounts for membership fees for the Membership Programs. On February 22, 2010, Provide Commerce and EMI respectively filed motions to dismiss. On August 13, 2010, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motions. Between August 13, 2010 and December 2011, plaintiffs filed various amended complaints and added or dismissed certain named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed the fourth amended complaint on December 14, 2011. The fourth amended complaint is the operative complaint. Plaintiffs assert ten claims against Provide Commerce and EMI in the fourth amended complaint: (1) breach of contract (against Provide Commerce only); (2) breach of contract (against EMI only); (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) fraud; (5) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (against EMI only); (8) invasion of privacy; (9) negligence; and (10) violations of the Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs assert their claims individually and on behalf of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs sought damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Provide Commerce and EMI filed motions to dismiss the claims of plaintiffs Lawler, Walters, Cox, and Dickey on January 24, 2012. The motions to dismiss were fully briefed as of February 23, 2012, but the court had not yet conducted a hearing or ruled on the motions. The parties participated in numerous settlement conferences and mediations throughout the case in an effort to resolve this matter. On April 9, 2012, the parties reached an agreement on the high level terms of a settlement, conditioned on the parties negotiating and executing a complete written agreement. In the weeks following April 9, 2012, the parties negotiated a formal written settlement agreement (“Settlement”). Upon reaching the Settlement, the hearing on the motions to dismiss was vacated, and Provide Commerce and EMI have not answered the fourth amended complaint in light of the Settlement. The court granted the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement on June 13, 2012. After notice to the class and briefing by the parties, the court conducted a final approval hearing (also known as a fairness hearing) on January 28, 2013, and took the matter under submission at the conclusion of the hearing. On February 4, 2013, the court entered its final order approving class action settlement, granting plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive awards, and overruling objections filed by a single objector to the Settlement. The court entered judgment on the settlement on February 21, 2013. The objector filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 4, 2013. After the completion of briefing, the Ninth Circuit set oral argument on the appeal for February 2, 2015. But on January 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order deferring argument and resolution of the appeal pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in a matter captioned Frank v . Netflix , No. 12 15705+. The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Frank v . Netflix , No. 12 15705+ on February 27, 2015, affirming the district court’s approval of a settlement between Walmart and a class of Netflix DVD subscribers. On March 19, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order vacating the judgment in this matter and remanding it to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Frank v. Netflix . The Ninth Circuit’s mandate issued on April 14, 2015, and the matter is now pending before the district court to consider final approval of the Settlement in light of Frank v. Netflix . On April 23, 2015, the district court entered an order reopening the case and ordering the parties to jointly submit a memorandum summarizing the import of the Frank v. Netflix decision and stating their intentions going forward. On May 4, 2015, such memorandum was filed by the parties and the objector also filed his own memorandum regarding these same topics on such date. After receiving the parties and objector’s memoranda, the district court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of final settlement approval on May 21, 2015. The parties filed their respective opening supplemental briefs on June 18, 2015, the objector filed his opposition supplemental brief on July 2, 2015, and the parties filed their respective reply supplemental briefs on July 16, 2015. The district court has not yet set the hearing date for the pending final settlement approval motion. The Company records a liability when it believes that it is both probable that a loss has been 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 September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , the Company had reserves totaling $3.5 million and $5.4 million, respectively, for estimated losses related to certain legal matters. With respect to other legal matters, 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. |