Priceline 2011 Annual Report Download - page 99

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 99 of the 2011 Priceline 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 111

  • 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
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111

98
Hinds County, Mississippi; filed December 2011)
The Company has also been informed by counsel to the plaintiffs in certain of the aforementioned actions that various,
undisclosed municipalities or taxing jurisdictions may file additional cases against the Company, Lowestfare.com LLC and
Travelweb LLC in the future.
Judicial Actions Relating to Assessments Issued by Individual Cities, Counties and States
After administrative remedies have been exhausted, the Company may seek judicial review of assessments issued by
an individual city or county. Currently pending actions seeking such a review include:
• Priceline.com, Inc., et al. v. Broward County, Florida (Circuit Court - Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County,
Florida; complaints filed January 2009, August 2009, and May 2011)
• Priceline.com Inc., et al. v. City of Anaheim, California, et al. (Superior Court of California, County of
Orange; filed February 2009); (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles); (California Court of
Appeal, Second District; appeal filed January 2011)
• Priceline.com, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue (Indiana Tax Court; filed March 2009)
• Priceline.com, Inc., et al. v. City of San Francisco, California, et al. (Superior Court of California, County of
San Francisco; filed June 2009); (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles)
• Priceline.com, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, Florida, et al. (Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court for Miami Dade,
County, Florida; filed December 2009)
• Priceline.com Incorporated, et al. v. Osceola County, Florida, et al. (Circuit Court of the Second Judicial
Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida; filed January 2011)
• In the Matter of the Appeal of Travelocity.com LLC, et al. (Hawaii Tax Appeal Court; filed March 2011)
The Company intends to prosecute vigorously its claims in these actions.
Consumer Class Actions
On June 21, 2011 in Chiste, et al. v. priceline.com Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York; filed in December 2008), the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims against it except the breach
of fiduciary claim. On June 21, 2011, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois for resolution of the remaining claim, which was consolidated under Peluso v. Orbitz.com, et al., 11 Civ. 4407 on July
14, 2011. On July 13, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the June 21, 2011 decision in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. On July 25, 2011, the Peluso court granted plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss the claim
against the Company in the Northern District of Illinois. On December 6, 2011, the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.
The Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims in all of the on-going proceedings described above.
Administrative Proceedings and Other Possible Actions
At various times, the Company has also received inquiries or proposed tax assessments from municipalities and other
taxing jurisdictions relating to its charges and remittance of amounts to cover state and local hotel occupancy and other related
taxes. Among others, the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; the City of Phoenix, Arizona (on behalf of itself and 12 other
Arizona cities); the City of St. Louis, Missouri; the City of Paradise Valley, Arizona; the City of Denver, Colorado; City of
Greenwood Village, Colorado; City of Littleton, Colorado; City of Golden, Colorado; and the City of Portland, Oregon and
County of Multnomah, Oregon; and state tax officials from Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have begun formal or informal administrative procedures
or stated that they may assert claims against the Company relating to allegedly unpaid state or local hotel occupancy or related
taxes. Between 2008 and 2010, the Company received audit notices from more than forty cities in the state of California. The
Company has been engaged in audit proceedings in each of those cities. The Company has also been contacted for audit by
five counties in the state of Utah.
Litigation Related to Securities Matters
On March 16, March 26, April 27, and June 5, 2001, respectively, four putative class action complaints were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Jay Walker,
Paul Francis, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., BancBoston Robertson