XML 51 R11.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies On September 28, 2012, Metasearch Systems, LLC filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Travelzoo Inc. d/b/a Fly.com alleging infringement of several U.S. patents. Metasearch Systems alleges that the trip-planning metasearch service available on Fly.com infringes one or more claims of the asserted patents. During September 2012, Metasearch Systems filed similar lawsuits against several of Travelzoo's competitors including Expedia, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., Travelocity.com, LP, Priceline.com, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., American Express Company, Kayak Software Corp., and BookIt.com. The action seeks unspecified damages and we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the action. The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends to defend the suit vigorously. On January 27, 2012, a purported shareholder of Travelzoo commenced a suit in the Supreme Court of New York that asserted claims derivatively on behalf of Travelzoo Inc. for breaches of fiduciary duty against Travelzoo’s board of directors. The complaint also asserts claims for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against Ralph Bartel and Azzurro. The complaint challenged Travelzoo’s sale of its Asia Pacific division for $3.6 million to Azzurro and alleged that the transaction was not entirely fair to the Company. On January 21, 2014, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed the action in its entirety with prejudice. The plaintiff did not appeal the decision. Therefore, the matter is closed. On April 21, 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with the State of Delaware resolving all claims relating to an unclaimed property review which began in 2010. The primary issue raised in the preliminary findings from the review, received by the Company on April 12, 2011, concerned the promotional shares which remained unexchanged in the 2002 merger (unexchanged promotional shares) as discussed further in Note 1. In the preliminary findings under the unclaimed property review, up to 3.0 million shares were identified as “demandable” under Delaware escheat laws. While the Company continues to take the position that such shares were a promotional incentive and were issuable only to persons who established their eligibility as stockholders, the Company determined that it was in its best interest to promptly resolve all claims relating to the unclaimed property review. The Company made a $20.0 million cash payment to the State of Delaware on April, 2011 and received a complete release of those claims. As discussed in Note 1 above, since March 2012, the Company has become subject to unclaimed property reviews by most of the other states in the U.S. that relate primarily to the unexchanged promotional shares, which were not covered by the settlement and release by the State of Delaware. During the three months ended March 31, 2012, the Company recorded a $3.0 million charge related to this unexchanged promotional shares contingency. In October 2013, the Company entered into settlement agreements with 35 additional states to resolve those states’ claims related to similar unclaimed property audits. The multi-state settlement relates to approximately 700,000 additional shares of the Company that were not claimed by residents of those states following the merger, which those states claim are subject to escheat. While the Company disputes the states’ claims, the Company determined that it was in its best interest to resolve the disputes and settle with 35 of the states. The remaining states have or may raise claims on approximately 400,000 additional shares that were not claimed following the merger by residents in those states. During the three months ended September 30, 2013, the Company recorded a $22.0 million charge related to the settlements it entered into and for potential future settlements with the remaining states. During the three months ended December 31, 2013 and March 31, 2014, the Company made cash payments of $12.3 million and $1.2 million, respectively, to settled states after completion of the required due diligence. The Company intends to continue to challenge the applicability of escheat rights with the remaining states, in that, among other reasons, the shares of the predecessor Bahamas corporation were offered for free as part of a promotional incentive program to qualified individuals. In addition, there were certain conditions applicable to the issuance of shares to so-called “Netsurfer” stockholders, including requirements that (i) they be at least 18 years of age, (ii) they be residents of the U.S. or Canada, and (iii) they not apply for shares more than once. The Netsurfer stockholders were advised that failure to comply could result in cancellation of their shares in Travelzoo.com Corporation. Travelzoo.com Corporation was not able to verify that the applicants met the requirements referred to above at the time of their applications for issuance of shares, and the remaining Netsurfer stockholders who have not qualified to receive shares in the Company, or who have not participated in the cash payments program referred to below, have not demonstrated their actual compliance with the conditions to the issuance of shares by Travelzoo.com Corporation. The Company does not know how many of the requests for shares originally received by Travelzoo.com Corporation in 1998 were valid, but the Company believes that only a portion of such requests were valid. In response to the pending reviews referred to above, and in response to other persons claiming to be former stockholders of Travelzoo.com Corporation, the Company intends to assert that the claimant must establish that the original Netsurfer stockholders complied with the conditions to issuance of their shares. The ultimate resolution of this matter with the remaining states may take longer than one year; however, we have included the estimated loss for these remaining states potential claims in our reserves. The total amount of exposure of this contingency is dependent upon the manner in which each state applies its unclaimed property laws, including whether penalties and interest are applicable. The Company is continuing its program under which it makes cash payments to people whose shares were not delivered to a state pursuant to the unclaimed property settlements. Such people must establish that they satisfy the conditions to receive shares of Travelzoo.com Corporation and failed to submit requests to convert their shares into shares of Travelzoo Inc. within the required time period. The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements include a charge in general and administrative expenses of $1,000 and $6,000 for these cash payments for the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The total cost of this program is not reliably estimable because it is based on the ultimate number of valid requests received and future levels of the Company’s common stock price, and would be affected by any settlement of the pending unclaimed property reviews referred to above. The Company’s common stock price affects the liability because the amount of cash payments under the program is based in part on the recent level of the stock price at the date valid requests are received. The Company leases office space in Canada, France, Germany, Spain, the U.K., and the U.S. under operating leases which expire between July 31, 2014 and September 17, 2024. The following table summarizes the future minimum lease payments under these operating leases as of March 31, 2014 (in thousands):
| 2014 |  | 2015 |  | 2016 |  | 2017 |  | 2018 |  | Thereafter |  | Total
Operating leases | $ | 3,356 |  |  | $ | 4,853 |  |  | $ | 4,140 |  |  | $ | 3,657 |  |  | $ | 3,146 |  |  | $ | 12,610 |  |  | $ | 31,762 |
Local Deals and Getaways merchant payable included in accounts payable was $24.1 million and $27.2 million, as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively.

X
- 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 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 2: 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 3: 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 4: 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 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