XML 52 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.2.0.727

Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies | Contingencies Legal Proceedings While certain legal proceedings and related indemnification obligations to which we are a party specify the amounts claimed, these claims may not represent reasonably possible losses. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted at this time, nor can the amount of possible loss or range of loss, if any, be reasonably estimated, except in circumstances where an aggregate litigation accrual has been recorded for probable and reasonably estimable loss contingencies. A determination of the amount of accrual required, if any, for these contingencies is made after careful analysis of each matter. The required accrual may change in the future due to new information or developments in each matter or changes in approach such as a change in settlement strategy in dealing with these matters. Litigation and Administrative Audit Proceedings Relating to Hotel Occupancy Taxes On January 23, 2015, we sold Travelocity.com to Expedia. Pursuant to the Travelocity Purchase Agreement entered into with Expedia, we will continue to be liable for pre-closing liabilities of Travelocity, including fees, charges, costs and settlements relating to litigation arising from hotels booked on the Travelocity platform prior to the Expedia SMA (as defined below). Fees, charges, costs and settlements relating to litigation from hotels booked on Travelocity.com subsequent to the Expedia SMA and prior to the date of the sale of Travelocity.com will be shared with Expedia in accordance with the terms that were in the Expedia SMA. We are jointly and severally liable for Travelocity’s indemnification obligations under the Travelocity Purchase Agreement for liabilities that may arise out of these litigation matters, which could adversely affect our cash flow. Over the past ten years, various state and local governments in the United States have filed approximately 70 lawsuits against us and other online travel agencies (“OTAs”) pertaining primarily to whether our discontinued Travelocity segment and other OTAs owe sales or occupancy taxes on the revenues they earn from facilitating hotel reservations using the merchant revenue model. In the merchant revenue model, the customer pays us an amount at the time of booking that includes (i) service fees, which we collect and retain, and (ii) the price of the hotel room and amounts for occupancy or other local taxes, which we pass along to the hotel supplier. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the defendants failed to pay to the relevant taxing authority hotel occupancy taxes on the service fees. Courts have dismissed approximately 30 of these lawsuits, some for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and some on the basis that we are not subject to sales or occupancy tax. The Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits of the United States Courts of Appeals each have ruled in our favor on the merits, as have state appellate courts in Missouri, Alabama, Texas, California, Kentucky, Florida, Colorado and Pennsylvania, and a number of state and federal trial courts. The remaining lawsuits are in various stages of litigation. We have also settled some cases individually, most for amounts not material to our results of operations, and with respect to these settlements, have generally reserved our rights to challenge any effort by the applicable tax authority to impose occupancy taxes in the future. We have received recent favorable decisions pertaining to cases in Florida, North Carolina, California, Montana, Arizona and Colorado. In Florida, Travelocity has been named as a defendant in several proceedings and lawsuits brought by cities and counties in Florida, including the Counties of Leon, Broward, Osceola, and Volusia; and the City of Miami. The suits brought by Leon County and Broward County have been decided on the merits, and both were decided in favor of Travelocity and other OTAs. On February 28, 2013 and February 12, 2014, respectively, those decisions were affirmed by the intermediate court of appeals. On June 11, 2015, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the Leon County judgment in favor of Travelocity and other OTAs, ruling they are not subject to state or local taxes that apply to the renting, leasing, or letting of hotel rooms. On June 26, 2015, Leon County filed a motion for rehearing with the Florida Supreme Court, which remains pending. On August 19, 2014, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in favor of Travelocity and other OTAs after concluding they are not operators of hotels, motel or similar-type businesses and therefore are not subject to hotel occupancy tax. On May 28, 2014, an administrative hearing officer in Arizona ruled that Travelocity is not responsible for collecting or remitting local hotel taxes and set aside assessments made by twelve municipalities, including Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, and Tucson. Those municipalities have appealed the decision to state court. On March 27, 2014, a California court of appeals upheld a trial court ruling that OTAs, including Travelocity, are not subject to the City of San Diego’s transient occupancy tax because they are not hotel operators or managing agents. That case is now pending before the Supreme Court of California. The California court of appeals’ decision marked the third time that a California appellate court has ruled in favor of Travelocity on the question of whether OTAs are subject to transient occupancy taxes in California, the prior two cases being brought by the City of Anaheim and City of Santa Monica. Travelocity also has prevailed at the trial court level in cases brought by San Francisco and Los Angeles, both of which are being appealed by the cities. On March 6, 2014, a Montana trial court ruled by summary judgment that Travelocity and other OTAs are not subject to the State of Montana’s lodging facility use tax or its sales tax on accommodations and vehicles. The lawsuit had been brought by the Montana Department of Revenue, which has appealed the decision. On July 3, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals entered judgment that Travelocity and OTAs are not liable for lodging taxes as claimed by the City of Denver. The City of Denver has petitioned the Supreme Court of Colorado to review the decision. Although we have prevailed in the majority of these lawsuits and proceedings, there have been several adverse judgments or decisions on the merits, some of which are subject to appeal. On April 3, 2014, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed a decision by the Wyoming State Board of Equalization that Travelocity and other OTAs are subject to sales tax on lodging. Similarly, on July 23, 2015 a court of appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the District on its claim that Travelocity and other OTAs are subject to the District’s hotel occupancy tax. We did not record material charges associated with these cases during the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014. As of June 30, 2015, our reserve for these cases totaled $5 million and is included in other accrued liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets. On April 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“W.D.T.”) entered a final judgment against Travelocity and other OTAs in a class action lawsuit filed by the City of San Antonio. The final judgment was based on a jury verdict from October 30, 2009 that the OTAs “control” hotels for purposes of city hotel occupancy taxes. Following that jury verdict, on July 1, 2011, the W.D.T. concluded that fees charged by the OTAs are subject to hotel occupancy taxes and that the OTAs have a duty to collect and remit these taxes. We disagree with the jury’s finding and with the W.D.T.’s conclusions based on the jury finding, and intend to appeal the final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The verdict against us, including penalties and interest, is $4 million which we do not believe we will ultimately pay and therefore have not accrued any loss related to this case. We believe the Fifth Circuit’s resolution of the San Antonio appeal may be affected by a separate Texas state appellate court decision in our favor. On October 26, 2011, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed a trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the OTAs in a case brought by the City of Houston and the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority on a similarly worded tax ordinance as the one at issue in the San Antonio case. The Texas Supreme Court denied the City of Houston’s petition to review the case. We believe this decision should provide persuasive authority to the Fifth Circuit in its review of the San Antonio case. On March 17, 2015, the Supreme Court of Hawaii issued a decision affirming in part and reversing in part a final judgment entered by the Hawaii Tax Appeal Court. In that case, the Tax Appeal Court had ruled that Travelocity and other OTAs are not subject to Hawaii’s transient accommodation tax, but also had ruled in favor of the State of Hawaii on the issue of whether the state’s general excise tax, which is assessed on all business activity in the state, applies to merchant model hotel bookings for the period 2002 to 2011. The State of Hawaii appealed the Tax Appeal Court’s decision that Travelocity is not subject to transient accommodation tax, and Travelocity appealed the decision that we are subject to general excise tax. On March 17, 2015, the Supreme Court of Hawaii issued its decision affirming that Travelocity is not subject to transient accommodation tax, affirming that Travelocity is subject to general excise tax, and reversing the Tax Appeal Court’s decision that Travelocity is liable for general excise tax on the gross receipts collected from customers. Instead, the Hawaii Supreme Court held Travelocity is liable for general excise tax only on its own service fees. On March 27, 2015, the State of Hawaii filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The proceeding in the Hawaii Supreme Court involved all merchant model hotel bookings for the period 2002 to 2011. While that appeal was pending, the State also issued additional assessments of general excise tax, interest, and penalties for merchant model hotel reservations for 2012; merchant model car reservations for the period 2004-2012; and combined merchant model hotel and car reservations for 2013. Further, notwithstanding the Tax Appeal Court’s ruling that Travelocity is not subject to transient accommodation tax, the State issued additional transient accommodation tax assessments for 2012 and 2013. Travelocity has appealed all of the additional assessments to the Tax Appeal Court, which has stayed the assessments pending the Hawaii Supreme Court’s final decision and judgment on the original assessments. We did not record material charges associated with our case with the State of Hawaii during the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014. As of June 30, 2015, we maintained an accrued liability of $11 million included in other accrued liabilities for this case and did not make material payments in the three and six months ended June 30, 2015. Payment of any amount is not an admission that we are subject to the taxes in question. We expect to receive a final ruling on the amounts owed by Travelocity in the third quarter of 2015. At that time, we will adjust our accrued liability to any remaining amounts due for periods and taxes not covered by the court’s rulings. We also expect to receive a refund from the State of Hawaii for a significant portion of the $35 million we previously paid to them to appeal. Any resulting gain will be recognized in our results of discontinued operations and cash flows from discontinued operations in our consolidated statements of operations and consolidated statements of cash flows, respectively. As of June 30, 2015, we have a reserve of $18 million, included in other accrued liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet, for the potential resolution of issues identified related to litigation involving hotel and car sales, occupancy or excise taxes, which includes the $11 million reserve liability for the estimated remaining payments to the State of Hawaii. Our estimated liability is based on our current best estimate but the ultimate resolution of these issues may be greater or less than the amount recorded and, if greater, could adversely affect our results of operations. In addition to the actions by the tax authorities, two consumer class action lawsuits have been filed against us in which the plaintiffs allege that we made misrepresentations concerning the description of the fees received in relation to facilitating hotel reservations. Generally, the consumer claims relate to whether Travelocity provided adequate notice to consumers regarding the nature of our fees and the amount of taxes charged or collected. One of these lawsuits is pending in Texas state court, where the court is currently considering the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action; and the other is pending in federal court, but has been stayed pending the outcome of the Texas state court action. We believe the notice we provided was appropriate. In addition to the lawsuits, a number of state and local governments have initiated inquiries, audits and other administrative proceedings that could result in an assessment of sales or occupancy taxes on fees. If we do not prevail at the administrative level, those cases could lead to formal litigation proceedings. US Airways Antitrust Litigation and DOJ Investigation US Airways Antitrust Litigation In April 2011, US Airways sued us in federal court in the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the Sherman Act Section 1 (anticompetitive agreements) and Section 2 (monopolization). The complaint was filed two months after we entered into a new distribution agreement with US Airways. In September 2011, the court dismissed all claims relating to Section 2. The claims that were not dismissed are claims brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act that relate to our contracts with US Airways, which US Airways says contain anticompetitive provisions, and an alleged conspiracy with the other GDSs, allegedly to maintain the industry structure and not to compete for content. We strongly deny all of the allegations made by US Airways. Document, fact and expert witness discovery are complete. Summary judgment motions were filed in April 2014 and in January 2015, the court issued a ruling eliminating a majority of the alleged damages as well as rejecting a request for injunctive relief. The injunctive relief sought by US Airways could have resulted in the court requiring us to modify language in our customer contracts. The claims that have been dismissed to date are subject to appeal. With respect to the remaining claims in this case, we believe that our business practices and contract terms are lawful, and we will continue to vigorously defend against the remaining claims. If our motion for entry of judgment, described below, is denied, a bench trial for this lawsuit has been set to begin in October 2015. In June 2015, US Airways filed a Second Amended Complaint that limited its request for relief for the remaining claims to an amount not to exceed twenty dollars (post-trebling), plus reasonable costs, attorneys’ fees and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as declaratory relief with respect to those claims, including claims that we acted anticompetitively and maintained alleged market power. In July 2015, we made an offer of judgment to US Airways, in which we offered to pay US Airways twenty dollars plus reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred to date in an amount to be determined by the court. The offer of judgment provided for the entry of a judgment against us on all remaining claims without an admission of liability. US Airways rejected our offer of judgment. We have filed a motion for entry of judgment requesting that the court enter judgment pursuant to the terms of our offer because it provides US Airways with complete relief on all remaining, available claims. US Airways has responded that entry of judgment is not appropriate because our offer does not address US Airways’ claim for declaratory relief, which we contend is moot in light of, among other things, the fact that US Airways’ remaining claims relate to only an expired contract and a past alleged conspiracy. No ruling has been made as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q on our motion for entry of judgment. If the court enters judgment based on the terms of our offer, we would be required to pay US Airways twenty dollars plus reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred as of the date of the offer. To the extent that US Airways appeals the claims that the court previously dismissed, we would continue to defend against those claims. We have and will incur significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as the litigation is ongoing. In addition, litigation by its nature is highly uncertain and fraught with risk, and it is therefore difficult to predict the outcome of any particular matter, including changes to our business. If favorable resolution of the matter is not reached, US Airways would be eligible to be reimbursed by us for its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. We have not made any provisions or recorded any liability for the potential resolution of this matter. Depending on the outcome of the litigation, any of these consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Department of Justice Investigation On May 19, 2011, we received a civil investigative demand (“CID”) from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigating alleged anticompetitive acts related to the airline distribution component of our business. We are fully cooperating with the DOJ investigation and are unable to make any prediction regarding its outcome. The DOJ is also investigating other companies that own GDSs, and has sent CIDs to other companies in the travel industry. Based on its findings in the investigation, the DOJ may (i) close the file, (ii) seek a consent decree to remedy issues it believes violate the antitrust laws, or (iii) file suit against us for violating the antitrust laws, seeking injunctive relief. If injunctive relief were granted, depending on its scope, it could affect the manner in which our airline distribution business is operated and potentially force changes to the existing airline distribution business model. Any of these consequences would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We have not received any communications from the DOJ regarding this matter in over two years; however, we have not been notified that this matter is closed. Putative Class Action Lawsuits On July 14, 2015 and July 20, 2015, two putative class action lawsuits (with virtually identical complaints) were filed against us and two other GDSs, in the Federal District Court of New York, Southern Division. The plaintiffs, who are asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of consumers in various states, are generally alleging that the GDSs conspired to, for example, negotiate for full content from the airlines, resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in violation of various federal and state laws. Although the amount of damages allegedly incurred by the plaintiffs has not been asserted to date, the plaintiffs are also seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. We may incur significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as these litigation matters are ongoing. We intend to vigorously defend against these claims. Insurance Carriers We have disputes against some of our insurance carriers for failing to reimburse defense costs incurred in the American Airlines antitrust litigation, which we settled in October 2012. Both carriers admitted there is coverage, but reserved their rights not to pay should we be found liable for certain of American Airlines’ allegations. Despite their admission of coverage, the insurers have only reimbursed us for a small portion of our significant defense costs. We filed suit against the entities in New York state court alleging breach of contract and a statutory cause of action for failure to promptly pay claims. If we prevail, we may recover some or all amounts already tendered to the insurance companies for payment within the limits of the policies and may be entitled to 18% interest on such amounts, all of which will be recorded in the period cash is received. To date, settlement discussions have been unsuccessful. We are currently in the discovery process. The court has not yet scheduled a trial date though we anticipate trial to begin in the second half of 2015. Indian Income Tax Litigation We are currently a defendant in income tax litigation brought by the Indian Director of Income Tax (“DIT”) in the Supreme Court of India. The dispute arose in 1999 when the DIT asserted that we have a permanent establishment within the meaning of the Income Tax Treaty between the United States and the Republic of India and accordingly issued tax assessments for assessment years ending March 1998 and March 1999, and later issued further tax assessments for assessment years ending March 2000 through March 2006. We appealed the tax assessments and the Indian Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals returned a mixed verdict. We filed further appeals with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, or the ITAT. The ITAT ruled in our favor on June 19, 2009 and July 10, 2009, stating that no income would be chargeable to tax for assessment years ending March 1998 and March 1999, and from March 2000 through March 2006. The DIT appealed those decisions to the Delhi High Court, which found in our favor on July 19, 2010. The DIT has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of India and no trial date has been set. We intend to continue to aggressively defend against these claims. Although we do not believe that the outcome of the proceedings will result in a material impact on our business or financial condition, litigation is by its nature uncertain. If the DIT were to fully prevail on every claim, we could be subject to taxes, interest and penalties of approximately $34 million as of June 30, 2015, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We do not believe this outcome is more likely than not and therefore have not made any provisions or recorded any liability for the potential resolution of this matter. Litigation Relating to Routine Proceedings We are also engaged from time to time in other routine legal and tax proceedings incidental to our business. We do not believe that any of these routine proceedings will have a material impact on the business or our financial condition.

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 commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration