Hertz 2013 Annual Report Download - page 132

Table of Contents


Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive loss to earnings during the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011
were as follows (in millions of dollars):







Amortization of actuarial (gain) losses (1)
$14.2
$13.7
$(4.0)
Selling, general and administrative
Tax provision
(5.5)
(4.2)
1.3
Net of tax
$ 8.7
$9.5
$(2.7)

$ 1.3
$—
$—
Other Income

$ 10.0
$9.5
$(2.7)
(1) Included in the computation of net periodic pension / postretirement expenses (see Note 6—Employee Retirement Benefits).
(2) Tax amounts are included in "Provision for taxes on income" in the consolidated statements of operations.

Legal Proceedings
From time to time we are a party to various legal proceedings. Other than with respect to the aggregate claims for public liability and property
damage pending against us, management does not believe that any of the matters resolved, or pending against us, during 2013 are material
to us and our subsidiaries taken as a whole. While we have accrued a liability with respect to claims for public liability and property damage of
$347.7 million at December 31, 2013, management, based on the advice of legal counsel, does not believe any of the other pending matters
described below are material. We have summarized below, for purposes of providing background, various legal proceedings to which we
were and/or are a party during 2013 or the period after December 31, 2013 but before the filing of this Annual Report. In addition to the
following, various other legal actions, claims and governmental inquiries and proceedings are pending or may be instituted or asserted in the
future against us and our subsidiaries.
1. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, or “HERC,” Loss Damage Waiver
On August 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against
HERC in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The parties executed a settlement agreement in March
2013 which was approved by the court in June 2013 and no further action is expected in the case.
2. Concession Fee Recoveries
On October 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, or “Enterprise,” was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada. Enterprise is now a defendant in a separate action and is no longer a defendant in the Sobel
case. The Sobel case purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at airports in
Nevada and were separately charged airport concession recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges. In the complaint,
the plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, restitution of any charges found to be improper and an
injunction prohibiting Hertz from quoting or charging those airport fees that are alleged not to be allowed by Nevada law. The
complaint also seeks attorneys' fees and costs. In 2010, the parties engaged in mediation which resulted in a proposed
settlement. Although the court tentatively approved the settlement in November 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of the proposed settlement in May 2011. Following additional activity in the case, in March 2013, the court granted,
in part, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to restitution and granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification while denying the Company's motion for partial summary judgment. The court further indicated that plaintiffs are
entitled to prejudgment interest from the date of the plaintiffs' first amended complaint. A judgment has not yet been entered in
the case, and there are expected to be further proceedings before the district court. A judgment - which could potentially exceed
$40.0 million - has still not been issued by the court. In September 2013, the court issued an Order that set forth its version of
what a proposed Notice to Class Members would look like and set a schedule for the parties to file objections
128
Source: HERTZ CORP, 10-K, March 31, 2014 Powered by Morningstar® Document Research℠
The information contained herein may not be copied, adapted or distributed and is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. The user assumes all risks for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information,
except to the extent such damages or losses cannot be limited or excluded by applicable law. Past financial performance is no guarantee of future results.