Orbitz 2011 Annual Report Download - page 26

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 26 of the 2011 Orbitz annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 108

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108

26
City or County Filing Litigation Date Litigation Instituted Court Where Litigation is Pending
Hamilton County, Ohio August 23, 2010 United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio
Montana Department of Revenue November 8, 2010 Montana First Judicial District, Louis and Clark County
Montgomery County, Maryland December 21, 2010 United States District Court for the District of Maryland
McAllister (Consumer Action) February 22, 2011 Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas
Washington, DC April 22, 2011 Superior Court for the District of Columbia
Volusia County, Florida May 11, 2011 Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Volusia County, Florida
Breckenridge, Colorado* July 25, 2011 District Court for Summit County, Colorado
Nassau County, New York* September 26, 2011 Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County
County of Kent, Michigan November 30, 2011 Circuit Court for the County of Kent, Michigan
State of Mississippi January 6, 2012 Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds
County, Mississippi
*Indicates purported class action filed on behalf of named City or County and other (unnamed) cities, counties,
governments or other taxing authorities with similar tax ordinances.
**Indicates court certified class action on behalf of named City or County and other (unnamed) cities, counties,
governments or other taxing authorities with similar tax ordinances.
Procedurally, the cases listed above are at various stages, ranging from cases that were recently filed to ones in which the
trial court has issued a final judgment that is in the process of being appealed. Final judgments in which trial courts have held
that online travel companies are not subject to hotel occupancy taxes (or related taxes) have been issued in the following cases:
Findlay, Ohio; the Cities of Dayton and Columbus, Ohio; Branson, Missouri; Houston, Texas; Birmingham, Alabama; Santa
Monica, California; and Goodlettsville, Tennessee. The various plaintiffs either are in the process of appealing these cases, or
we expect that they will appeal. Non-final, preliminary rulings that have held that the online travel companies are not subject to
hotel occupancy taxes (or related taxes) have been issued in City of Gallup, New Mexico; Orange County, Florida; and
Hamilton County, Ohio. The defendants have moved for summary judgment in the Gallup and Orange County cases. Non-final
rulings that have held that the defendants are subject to the municipality's hotel occupancy tax ordinance have been issued in
the San Antonio and City of Baltimore cases. In the San Antonio case, in November 2011, the online travel companies filed a
motion with the court in which they requested that the court amend its findings of fact and conclusions of law to provide that
defendants' services are not subject to local hotel occupancy tax, as recently held by the Texas Court of Appeals in City of
Houston v. Hotels.com. In the City of Baltimore case, the defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment in which they
have asserted various affirmative defenses. In the City of Atlanta case, the trial court held, and the Georgia Supreme Court
affirmed, that the online travel companies are subject to Atlanta's hotel occupancy tax ordinance on a prospective basis. The
City of Atlanta case has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The remaining cases on the list are pending at
the trial court level.
The following legal proceedings relating to hotel occupancy taxes previously reported by us were dismissed since
October 1, 2011:
On October 25, 2011, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals for the State of Texas affirmed the granting of the online travel
companies' motion for summary judgment on the complaint filed by Houston, Texas. The plaintiffs are seeking review from the
Texas Supreme Court.
On November 10, 2011, Anne Gannon, Palm Beach County Tax Collector, on behalf of Palm Beach County executed a
settlement agreement with the online travel companies in which she agreed to dismiss her lawsuit against the online travel
companies pending in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida.
On January 20, 2012, the City of Jacksonville, Florida, in accordance with the parties' settlement agreement, filed their
notice of dismissal of its complaint in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida.
On January 28, 2012, the Thirty-First Judicial Circuit Court, Greene County, Missouri granted the online travel
companies' motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Branson, Missouri. The plaintiffs are appealing this decision.
On February 17, 2012, the Kentucky Supreme Court denied review of the final judgment made in favor of the