Hertz 2013 Annual Report Download - page 133

Table of Contents


and to then further reply to the filed objections. As part of the Order, the court indicated that Hertz should pay for the costs of
sending the proposed Notice - via regular mail - to all class members and the plaintiffs are not being required to post a
corresponding bond. In October 2013, Hertz filed an interlocutory appeal of the court's September 2013 Order with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal has been briefed and a stay of any proceedings at the district court has been
entered. In the meantime, the parties have agreed to participate in a mediation of this case in March 2014 with a mediator
proposed by the Ninth Circuit. We continue to believe the outcome of this case will not be material to our financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.
3. Telephone Consumer Protection Act
On May 3, 2007, Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation was commenced in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. In
January 2013, the parties executed a settlement agreement which was approved by the court in June 2013 and no further action
is expected in the case.
4. California Tourism Assessments
We are currently a defendant in a proceeding that purports to be a class action brought by Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow
against The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.,
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Coast Leasing Corp., The California Travel and Tourism Commission,
and Caroline Beteta.
Originally filed in November of 2007, the action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, and plaintiffs claim to represent a class of individuals or entities that purchased rental car services from a defendant at
airports located in California after January 1, 2007. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants agreed to charge consumers a 2.5%
tourism assessment and not to compete with respect to this assessment, while misrepresenting that this assessment is owed
by consumers, rather than the rental car defendants, to the California Travel and Tourism Commission, or the “CTTC.”
Plaintiffs also allege that defendants agreed to pass through to consumers a fee known as the Airport Concession Fee, which fee
had previously been required to be included in the rental car defendants' individual base rates, without reducing their base rates.
Based on these allegations, the amended complaint seeks treble damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs. Plaintiffs dropped their claims against Caroline Beteta. Plaintiffs' claims against the rental car defendants have
been dismissed, except for the federal antitrust claim. In June 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' antitrust case against the CTTC as a state agency immune from antitrust complaint
because the California Legislature foresaw the alleged price-fixing conspiracy that was the subject of the complaint. The plaintiffs
subsequently filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit seeking a rehearing and that petition was granted. In November 2010, the
Ninth Circuit withdrew its June opinion and instead held that state action immunity was improperly invoked. The Ninth Circuit
reinstated the plaintiffs' antitrust claims and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. In May 2012, the
district court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement of this action; certifying a settlement class; certifying a class
representative and lead counsel; and providing for class notice. In October 2012, the court held a final approval hearing. In
November 2012, the court issued an Order of Final Approval of the settlement of this action. One of the objectors to the
settlement has filed a notice of appeal of this order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Subsequently,
the sole remaining appellant agreed to dismiss the appeal in exchange for a waiver of costs, so in September 2013, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered an Order dismissing the final objector's appeal. As a result, the settlement which
had previously received Final Approval by the trial court has been implemented. We have accrued our best estimate of the
ultimate cost which is not material to our financial condition.
5. Securities Litigation
On November 20, 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey naming Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as
defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through
November 4, 2013, in violation
129
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.