XML 30 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3

Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies | 10. 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. Antitrust Litigation and Investigations US Airways Antitrust Litigation In April 2011, US Airways filed suit against 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 fewer than 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, relating to our contracts with US Airways, which US Airways claims 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. Sabre filed summary judgment motions in April 2014. In January 2015, the court issued an order granting Sabre's summary judgment motions in part, eliminating a majority of US Airways' alleged damages and rejecting its request for injunctive relief by which US Airways sought to bar Sabre from enforcing certain provisions in our contracts. In September 2015, the court also dismissed US Airways' claim for declaratory relief. In February 2017, US Airways sought reconsideration of the court's opinion dismissing the claim for declaratory relief, which the court denied in March 2017. The trial on the remaining claims commenced in October 2016. In December 2016, the jury issued a verdict in favor of US Airways with respect to its claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act regarding Sabre's contract with US Airways and awarded it $5 million in single damages. The jury rejected US Airways' claim alleging a conspiracy with the other GDSs. We continue to believe that our business practices and contract terms are lawful. Based on the jury’s verdict, in March 2017 the court entered final judgment in favor of US Airways in the amount of $15 million, which is three times the jury’s award of $5 million as required by the Sherman Act. As a result of the jury's verdict, US Airways was also entitled to receive reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Sherman Act. As such, it filed a motion seeking approximately $125 million in attorneys’ fees and costs, the amount of which we strongly dispute. In January 2018, the court denied US Airways' motion seeking attorneys' fees and costs, without prejudice. In the fourth quarter of 2016, we accrued a loss of $32 million, which represented the court's final judgment of $15 million, plus our estimate of $17 million for US Airways' reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs. In April 2017, we filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking a reversal of the judgment. US Airways also filed a counter-appeal challenging earlier court orders, including the above-referenced orders dismissing and/or issuing summary judgment as to portions of its claims and damages. In connection with this appeal, we posted an appellate bond equal to the aggregate amount of the $15 million judgment entered plus interest, which stayed the judgment pending the appeal. The Second Circuit heard oral arguments on this matter in December 2018. In September 2019, the Second Circuit issued its Order and Opinion. The Second Circuit vacated the judgment with respect to US Airways’ claim under Section 1, reversed the trial court’s dismissal of US Airways’ claims relating to Section 2, and remanded the case to district court for a new trial. In addition, the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling limiting US Airways’ damages. The judgment in our favor on US Airways' conspiracy claim remains intact. The lawsuit has been remanded to federal court in the Southern District of New York for further proceedings. Currently, no trial date has been set. As a result of the Second Circuit’s opinion, we believe that the claims associated with this case are not probable; therefore, in the third quarter of 2019, we reversed our previously accrued loss of $32 million and do no t have any losses accrued for this matter as of September 30, 2019. 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 any changes to our business that may be required as a result of the litigation. If favorable resolution of the matter is not reached upon remand, any monetary damages are subject to trebling under the antitrust laws and US Airways would be eligible to be reimbursed by us for its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. Depending on the amount of any such judgment, if we do not have sufficient cash on hand, we may be required to seek private or public financing. 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 Lawsuit on Farelogix Acquisition On August 20, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a complaint in federal court in the District of Delaware, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Sabre from acquiring Farelogix, Inc. ("Farelogix"), alleging that the proposed acquisition is likely to substantially lessen competition in violation of federal antitrust law. Sabre disputes the government allegations and believes the acquisition is pro-competition and ultimately will be completed. Trial will commence on January 27, 2020. Sabre and Farelogix have extended the termination date of their acquisition agreement to April 30, 2020, allowing time to resolve the challenge by the DOJ. In addition, the U.K. Competitions and Market Authority ("CMA") has referred its review of the acquisition for a Phase 2 investigation. Under the acquisition agreement, as amended, we have agreed to advance certain attorneys’ fees incurred by Farelogix in responding to certain governmental reviews of the acquisition and in defending against certain antitrust proceedings, which have totaled $16 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2019. These advances will be applied against the purchase price upon closing. The acquisition agreement, as amended, contains certain customary termination rights, including the right of either party to terminate the acquisition agreement if the acquisition has not occurred by April 30, 2020. If a termination were to occur, we could be obligated to pay Farelogix up to an additional $30 million, either in the form of additional advances or in the form of a termination fee depending on the circumstances. Lawsuit on Antitrust Claims In July 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us and two other GDSs, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, who sought to assert claims on behalf of a putative class of consumers in various states, generally alleged that the GDSs conspired to negotiate for full content from the airlines, resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in violation of various federal and state laws. The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages in connection with their state law claims, and they requested injunctive relief in connection with their federal claim. In July 2016, the court granted, in part, our motion to dismiss the lawsuit, finding that plaintiffs’ state law claims were preempted by federal law, thereby precluding their claims for damages. The court declined to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim seeking an injunction under federal antitrust law. In October 2018, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification with prejudice. We subsequently settled with each of the individual plaintiffs for a nominal amount, and on September 26, 2019, the court dismissed the remaining claims in the case with prejudice. European Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition ("EC") Investigation On November 23, 2018, the EC announced that it has opened an investigation of us and another GDS to assess whether our respective agreements with airlines and travel agents may restrict competition in breach of European Union antitrust rules. We are fully cooperating with the EC’s investigation and are unable to make any prediction regarding its outcome at this time. There is no legal deadline for the EC to bring an antitrust investigation to an end, and the duration of the investigation is uncertain. Depending on the findings of the EC, the outcome of the investigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We may incur significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as this investigation is ongoing. We intend to vigorously defend against any allegations of anticompetitive activity by the EC. Department of Justice Investigation On May 19, 2011, we received a civil investigative demand (“CID”) from the 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 for several years; however, we have not been notified that this matter is closed. 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. The DIT has continued to issue further tax assessments on a similar basis for subsequent years; however, the tax assessments for assessment years ending March 2007 and later are no longer material. We appealed the tax assessments for assessment years ending March 1998 through March 2006 and the Indian Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals returned a mixed verdict. We filed further appeals with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“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. Our case has been listed for hearing with the Supreme Court, and it has not yet been presented. We have appealed the tax assessments for the assessment years ended March 2013 to March 2016 with the ITAT and no trial date has been set for these subsequent years. In addition, Sabre Asia Pacific Pte Ltd ("SAPPL") is currently a defendant in similar income tax litigation brought by the DIT. The dispute arose when the DIT asserted that SAPPL has a permanent establishment within the meaning of the Income Tax Treaty between Singapore and India and accordingly issued tax assessments for assessment years ending March 2000 through March 2005. SAPPL appealed the tax assessments, and the Indian Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) returned a mixed verdict. SAPPL filed further appeals with the ITAT. The ITAT ruled in SAPPL’s favor, finding that no income would be chargeable to tax for assessment years ending March 2000 through March 2005. The DIT appealed those decisions to the Delhi High Court. No hearing date has been set. The DIT also assessed taxes on a similar basis for assessment years ending March 2006 through March 2014 and appeals for assessment years ending March 2006 through 2014 are pending before the ITAT. If the DIT were to fully prevail on every claim against us, including SAPPL, we could be subject to taxes, interest and penalties of approximately $43 million as of September 30, 2019. We intend to continue to aggressively defend against each of the foregoing 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. 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 any of these claims. Indian Service Tax Litigation SAPPL's Indian subsidiary is also subject to litigation by the India Director General (Service Tax) ("DGST"), which has assessed the subsidiary for multiple years related to its alleged failure to pay service tax on marketing fees and reimbursements of expenses. Indian courts have returned verdicts favorable to the Indian subsidiary. The DGST has appealed the verdict to the Indian Supreme Court. We do not believe that an adverse outcome is probable and therefore have not made any provisions or recorded any liability for the potential resolution of any of these claims. 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. Other SynXis Central Reservation System As previously disclosed, we became aware of an incident involving unauthorized access to payment information contained in a subset of hotel reservations processed through the Sabre Hospitality Solutions SynXis Central Reservation System (the “HS Central Reservation System”). Our investigation was supported by third party experts, including a leading cybersecurity firm. Our investigation determined that an unauthorized party: obtained access to account credentials that permitted access to a subset of hotel reservations processed through the HS Central Reservation System; used the account credentials to view a credit card summary page on the HS Central Reservation System and access payment card information (although we use encryption, this credential had the right to see unencrypted card data); and first obtained access to payment card information and some other reservation information on August 10, 2016. The last access to payment card information was on March 9, 2017. The unauthorized party was able to access information for certain hotel reservations, including cardholder name; payment card number; card expiration date; and, for a subset of reservations, card security code. The unauthorized party was also able, in some cases, to access certain information such as guest name(s), email, phone number, address, and other information if provided to the HS Central Reservation System. Information such as Social Security, passport, or driver’s license number was not accessed. The investigation did not uncover forensic evidence that the unauthorized party removed any information from the system, but it is a possibility. We took successful measures to ensure this unauthorized access to the HS Central Reservation System was stopped and is no longer possible. There is no indication that any of our systems beyond the HS Central Reservation System, such as Sabre’s Airline Solutions and Travel Network platforms, were affected or accessed by the unauthorized party. We notified law enforcement and the payment card brands and engaged a payment card industry data ("PCI") forensic investigator to investigate this incident at the payment card brands' request. We have notified customers and other companies that use or interact with, directly or indirectly, the HS Central Reservation System about the incident. We are also cooperating with various governmental authorities that are investigating this incident. Separately, in November 2017, Sabre Hospitality Solutions observed a pattern of activity that, after further investigation, led it to believe that an unauthorized party improperly obtained access to certain hotel user credentials for purposes of accessing the HS Central Reservation System. We deactivated the compromised accounts and notified law enforcement of this activity. We also notified the payment card brands, and at their request, we have engaged a PCI forensic investigator to investigate this incident. We have not found any evidence of a breach of the network security of the HS Central Reservation System, and we believe that the number of affected reservations represents only a fraction of 1% of the bookings in the HS Central Reservation System. Although the costs related to these incidents, including any associated penalties assessed by any governmental authority or payment card brand or indemnification obligations to our customers, as well as any other impacts or remediation related to this incident, may be material, it is not possible at this time to determine whether we will incur, or to reasonably estimate the amount of, any liabilities in connection with them. We maintain insurance that covers certain aspects of cyber risks, and we continue to work with our insurance carriers in these matters. Other Tax Matters We operate in numerous jurisdictions in which taxing authorities may challenge our position with respect to income and non-income-based taxes. We routinely receive inquiries and may also from time to time receive challenges or assessments from these taxing authorities. With respect to non-income-based taxes, we recognize liabilities when we believe it is probable that amounts will be owed to the taxing authorities and such amounts are estimable. For example, in most countries we pay and collect Value Added Tax (“VAT”) when procuring goods and services, or providing services, within the normal course of business. VAT receivables are established in jurisdictions where VAT paid exceeds VAT collected and are recoverable through the filing of refund claims. These receivables have inherent audit and collection risks unique to the specific jurisdictions that evaluate our refund claims. As of September 30, 2019, we have approximately $21 million in VAT receivables for which refund claims have been filed with the Greek government. Although we have paid these amounts and believe we are entitled to a refund, the Greek tax authorities have challenged our position. In Greece, as in other jurisdictions, we intend to vigorously defend our positions against any claims that are not insignificant, including through litigation when necessary. As of September 30, 2019, we do not believe that an adverse outcome is probable with respect to the claims of the Greek tax authorities or any other jurisdiction; as a result, we have not accrued any material amounts for exposure related to such contingencies or adverse decisions. Nevertheless, we may incur expenses in future periods related to such matters, including litigation costs and possible pre-payment of a portion of any assessed tax amount to defend our position, and if our positions are ultimately rejected, it could have a material impact to our results of operations.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration