XML 52 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.6.0.2

CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
CONTINGENCIES | CONTINGENCIES Overview LendingTree is involved in legal proceedings on an ongoing basis. In assessing the materiality of a legal proceeding, the Company evaluates, among other factors, the amount of monetary damages claimed, as well as the potential impact of non-monetary remedies sought by plaintiffs (e.g., injunctive relief) that may require it to change its business practices in a manner that could have a material and adverse impact on the business. With respect to the matters disclosed in this Note 13, unless otherwise indicated, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of such non-monetary remedies. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company has a litigation settlement accrual of $0.7 million and $0.6 million, respectively, in continuing operations and $4.0 million and $3.6 million, respectively, in discontinued operations. The litigation settlement accrual relates to litigation matters that were either settled or a firm offer for settlement was extended, thereby establishing an accrual amount that is both probable and reasonably estimable. Specific Matters Intellectual Property Litigation Zillow LendingTree v. Zillow, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-439. On September 8, 2010, the Company filed an action for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against Zillow, Inc., Nextag, Inc., Quinstreet, Inc., Quinstreet Media, Inc. and Adchemy, Inc. The complaint was amended to include Leadpoint, Inc. d/b/a Securerights on September 24, 2010. The complaint alleged that each of the defendants infringed one or both of the Company's patents—U.S. Patent No. 6,385,594, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet," and U.S. Patent No. 6,611,816, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet." The defendants in this action asserted various defenses and counterclaims against the Company, including the assertion by certain of the defendants of counterclaims alleging illegal monopolization via the Company's maintenance of the asserted patents. Defendant NexTag asserted defenses of laches and equitable estoppel. In July 2011, the Company reached a settlement agreement with Leadpoint, Inc., pursuant to which all claims against Leadpoint, Inc. and all counterclaims against the Company by Leadpoint, Inc. were dismissed. In November 2012, the Company reached a settlement agreement with Quinstreet, Inc. and Quinstreet Media, Inc. (collectively, the "Quinstreet Parties"), pursuant to which all claims against the Quinstreet Parties and all counterclaims against the Company by the Quinstreet Parties were dismissed. After an unsuccessful attempt to reach settlement through mediation with the remaining parties, this matter went to trial beginning in February 2014, and on March 12, 2014, the jury returned a verdict. The jury found that the defendants Zillow, Inc., Adchemy, Inc., and NexTag, Inc. did not infringe the two patents referenced above and determined that those patents are invalid due to an inventorship defect, and the court found that NexTag was entitled to defenses of laches and equitable estoppel. The jury found in the Company’s favor on the defendants' counterclaims alleging inequitable conduct and antitrust violations. Judgment was entered on March 31, 2014. After the court entered judgment, on May 27, 2014, the Company reached a settlement agreement with defendant Adchemy, Inc., including an agreement to dismiss and withdraw all claims, counterclaims, and motions between the Company and Adchemy, Inc. As a result, a joint and voluntary dismissal was filed June 12, 2014 with respect to claims between the Company and Adchemy. The parties filed various post-trial motions; in particular, defendants collectively sought up to $9.7 million in fees and costs. On October 9, 2014, the court denied the Company's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and denied Zillow's post-trial motions for sanctions and attorneys' fees. The court also denied in part and granted in part NexTag's post-trial motion for attorneys' fees, awarding NexTag a portion of its attorneys' fees and costs totaling $2.3 million, plus interest. In November 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with respect to the jury verdict concerning Zillow, Inc. and Nextag, Inc. and the award of attorneys' fees. In March 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the Company's motion to stay appellate briefing pending an en banc review by such court of the laches defense in an unrelated patent infringement matter and ruled in favor of Zillow, Inc. on an immaterial amount of costs related to the trial process. In June 2015, the Company reached a settlement agreement for $1.1 million with defendant NexTag pursuant to which the Company dismissed its appeal of the jury verdict and the award of attorney's fees concerning NexTag, and NexTag dismissed its cross-appeal and claims relating to the jury verdict and the award of attorneys' fees. In July 2015, the stay was lifted on the Company's appeal with respect to the jury verdict concerning Zillow, Inc. The appeal was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in June 2016, and in July 2016 the Court determined that certain of the claims of the two patents referenced above were directed to ineligible subject matter and thus such claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. With respect to the remaining claims that the Court did not hold were ineligible, the Court granted a remand to the federal district court to allow LendingTree to file a motion to vacate the judgment of invalidity for incorrect inventorship. Legal Matters Next Advisor Continued, Inc. Next Advisor Continued, Inc. v. LendingTree, Inc. and LendingTree, LLC, No. 15-cvs-20775 (N.C. Super. Ct.). On November 6, 2015, the plaintiff filed this action against LendingTree, Inc. and LendingTree, LLC (together “LendingTree”). The plaintiff generally alleges that LendingTree breached a non-disclosure agreement and misappropriated trade secrets in the context of a potential business acquisition of the plaintiff by LendingTree. Based upon these allegations, the plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The plaintiff seeks damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. On December 16, 2015, LendingTree filed its answer to the plaintiff's complaint, denying the material allegations and asserting numerous defenses thereto. In June 2016, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and ordered that LendingTree cease any utilization of confidential and trade secret information of plaintiff and cease marketing its credit card product via certain third party content marketing platforms until the judge finally determines the facts in this matter and the appropriate relief, if any, to be granted with respect thereto. LendingTree believes that the plaintiff's allegations lack merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. In July 2016, LendingTree filed a notice of interlocutory appeal with respect to the order granting plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction to the North Carolina Supreme Court; the interlocutory appeal was dismissed in December 2016. In February 2017, LendingTree filed a motion for partial summary judgment. An estimated liability of $0.1 million for this matter is included in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016. Legal Matters Massachusetts Division of Banks On February 11, 2011, the Massachusetts Division of Banks (the "Division") delivered a Report of Examination/Inspection to LendingTree, LLC, which identified various alleged violations of Massachusetts and federal laws, including the alleged insufficient delivery by LendingTree, LLC of various disclosures to its customers. On October 14, 2011, the Division provided a proposed Consent Agreement and Order to settle the Division's allegations, which the Division had shared with other state mortgage lending regulators. Thirty-four of such state mortgage lending regulators (the "Joining Regulators") indicated that if LendingTree, LLC would enter into the Consent Agreement and Order, they would agree not to pursue any analogous allegations that they otherwise might assert. None of the Joining Regulators have asserted any such allegations. The proposed Consent Agreement and Order calls for a fine to be allocated among the Division and the Joining Regulators and for LendingTree, LLC to adopt various new procedures and practices. The Company has commenced negotiations toward an acceptable Consent Agreement and Order. It does not believe its mortgage marketplace business violated any federal or state mortgage lending laws; nor does it believe that any past operations of the mortgage business have resulted in a material violation of any such laws. Should the Division or any Joining Regulator bring any actions relating to the matters alleged in the February 2011 Report of Examination/Inspection, the Company intends to defend against such actions vigorously. The range of possible loss is estimated to be between $0.5 million and $6.5 million, and an estimated liability of $0.5 million has been established for this matter in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016. Litigation Related to Discontinued Operations Residential Funding Company Residential Funding Company, LLC v Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 13-cv-3451 (U.S. Dist. Ct., Minn.). On or about December 16, 2013, Home Loan Center, Inc. was served in the above captioned matter. Generally, Residential Funding Company, LLC ("RFC") seeks damages for breach of contract and indemnification for certain residential mortgage loans as well as residential mortgage-backed securitizations ("RMBS") containing mortgage loans. RFC asserts that, beginning in 2008, RFC faced massive repurchase demands and lawsuits from purchasers or insurers of the loans and RMBS that RFC had sold. RFC filed for bankruptcy protection in May 2012. Plaintiff alleges that, after RFC filed for Chapter 11 protection, hundreds of proofs of claim were filed, many of which mirrored the litigation filed against RFC prior to its bankruptcy. In December 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered an Order confirming the Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan Proposed by Residential Capital, LLC et al. and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Plaintiff then began filing substantially similar complaints against approximately 80 of the loan originators from whom RFC had purchased loans, including Home Loan Center, in federal and state courts in Minnesota and New York. In each case, Plaintiff claims that the defendant is liable for a portion of the global settlement in RFC’s bankruptcy. Plaintiff asserts two claims against HLC: (1) breach of contract based on HLC’s alleged breach of representations and warranties concerning the quality and characteristics of the mortgage loans it sold to RFC (Count One); and (2) contractual indemnification for alleged liabilities, losses, and damages incurred by RFC arising out of purported defects in loans that RFC purchased from HSBC and sold to third parties (Count Two). Plaintiff alleges that the “types of defects” contained in the loans it purchased from HLC included “income misrepresentation, employment misrepresentation, appraisal misrepresentations or inaccuracies, undisclosed debt, and missing or inaccurate documents.” HLC filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, a Motion for More Definite Statement under Rule 12(e). On June 25, 2015 the judge denied HLC's motion. On July 9, 2015, HLC filed its answer to RFC’s complaint, denying the material allegations of the complaint and asserting numerous defenses thereto. Discovery is ongoing in this matter. HLC intends to vigorously defend this action. An estimated liability of $3.0 million for this matter is included in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016. Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. Demand Letter Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. 1 st Advantage Mortgage, LLC et al., Case No. 08-13555 (SCC) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). In February 2016, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) filed an Adversary Complaint against Home Loan Center and approximately 149 other defendants (the “Complaint”). The Complaint generally seeks (1) a declaratory judgment that the settlements entered by LBHI with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as part of LBHI’s bankruptcy proceedings gave rise to LBHI’s contractual indemnification claims against defendants alleged in the Complaint; (2) indemnification from HLC and the other defendants for losses allegedly incurred by LBHI in respect of defective mortgage loans sold by defendants to LBHI or its affiliates; and (3) interest, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by LBHI in the litigation. HLC intends to defend this action vigorously. HLC had previously received a demand letter (the “Letter”) from LBHI in December 2014 with respect to 64 loans (the “Loans”) that LBHI alleged were sold by HLC to Lehman Brothers Bank FSB (“LBB”) between 2004 and 2008 pursuant to a loan purchase agreement (the “LPA”) between HLC and LBB. The Letter generally sought indemnification from HLC in accordance with the LPA for certain claims that LBHI alleged it allowed in its bankruptcy with respect to the Loans. An estimated liability of $1.0 million for this matter is included in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration