COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Except for commitments under operating leases that were assumed in connection with the Ticket Monster and Ideeli acquisitions, as described in Note 2, "Business Combinations," the Company's commitments as of June 30, 2014 did not materially change from the amounts set forth in its 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K. As of June 30, 2014, estimated future payments under operating leases assumed in connection with the Ticket Monster and Ideeli acquisitions for each of the next five years and thereafter are as follows (in thousands):



	Operating leases
2014	$	2,735
2015	5,243
2016	5,034
2017	4,418
2018	2,631
Thereafter	11,110
Total minimum lease payments	$	31,171

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 by stockholders, former employees, intellectual property infringement suits and suits by customers (individually or as class actions) alleging, among other things, violation of 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 the more 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 securities and 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 putative class action 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. The plaintiff filed an amended motion for class certification on December 4, 2013. On March 18, 2014, the court entered a scheduling order setting deadlines for fact discovery by March 13, 2015, expert discovery by August 31, 2015, and dispositive motions by October 30, 2015. On May 2, 2014, defendants filed a motion requesting exclusion of the opinions of plaintiff’s proposed market efficiency expert in resolving the motion for class certification. The hearing on the motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert is scheduled for September 11, 2014.

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 actions. 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 actions. 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 class. Following entry of the 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 into a single case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The consolidated case is 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 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 Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, where the case remains pending. The Company believes that the settlement is valid and intends to oppose the appeal. Plaintiffs also maintain that the settlement is valid and will be opposing the appeal. The settlement, however, is not effective during the pendency of the appeal. The Company does not know when the appeal will be resolved. Depending on the outcome of the appeal, it is possible that the settlement will be rejected, or that there will be further proceedings in the appellate court or district court, or that the settlement will be enforced at that time without further objections or proceedings.

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, 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 several of these claims are currently pending. 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.

The Company establishes an accrued liability for loss contingencies related to legal and regulatory matters when the loss is both probable and estimable. This accrual represents management's best estimate of probable loss and in such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the amounts accrued. For each matter described above, there is 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 of 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 and directors, 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.