Thrifty Car Rental 2010 Annual Report Download - page 30

obligated them to pay for loss of use of a vehicle if damaged, and who were charged for loss of use
or an administrative fee related to the vehicle damage claim. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of
contract, violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and for declaratory judgment under the
Colorado Uniform Declaratory Judgment Law related to the assessment of loss of use and
administrative fees in connection with vehicle damage claims against renters. The case is styled:
Susan and Jeffrey Dillon v. DTG Operations, Inc. d/b/a Thrifty Car Rental (Case No. 09CH34874,
Cook County Circuit Court, Chancery Division, Illinois). On July 23, 2010, these actions were
dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on August 19, 2010.
Various class action complaints relating to the now terminated proposed merger transaction with
Hertz have been filed in Oklahoma state court, Oklahoma federal court, and Delaware Chancery
Court against the Company, its directors, and Hertz by various plaintiffs, for themselves and on
behalf of the Company's stockholders, excluding defendants and their affiliates. These complaints
allege that the consideration the Company's stockholders would have received in connection with the
proposed transaction with Hertz is inadequate and that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement. These
complaints also allege that the proxy materials that were sent to the Company's stockholders to
approve the Merger Agreement are materially false and misleading. The cases and their current
status are as follows: 1) Henzel v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., et al. (Consolidated Case
No. CJ-2010-02761, Dist. Ct. Tulsa County, Oklahoma) - the hearing on the Company’s motion for
reconsideration of the Company’s motion to dismiss was set for September 28, 2010, but the parties
agreed that it would not go forward on that day. This case has not been dismissed but is currently
inactive; 2) In Re: Dollar Thrifty Shareholder Litigation (Consolidated Case No. 5458-VCS, Delaware
Court of Chancery) - the Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction on September 8, 2010.
The plaintiffs served a subpoena on Avis Budget on September 27, 2010, and they have by consent
adjourned the time to respond. While this case has not been dismissed, there has been no response
to the subpoena to date; and 3) Rice v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., et al. (Consolidated
Case No. 10-CV-0294-CVE-FHM, U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Northern Dist. of Oklahoma) – the parties
filed a stipulation of dismissal of this action on October 15, 2010, and the court has dismissed the
action with prejudice following the stockholder vote rejecting the proposed Merger Agreement.
Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be
predicted at this time, nor can the amount of ultimate loss, if any, be reasonably estimated.
Various other legal actions, claims and governmental inquiries and proceedings have been in the
past, or may be in the future, asserted or instituted against the Company, including other purported
class actions or proceedings relating to the Hertz transaction or a potential transaction with Avis
Budget, and some that may demand large monetary damages or other relief which could result in
significant expenditures. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of individual
matters is not predictable with assurance. The Company is also subject to potential liability related
to environmental matters. The Company establishes reserves for litigation and environmental
matters when the loss is probable and reasonably estimable. It is reasonably possible that the final
resolution of some of these matters may require the Company to make expenditures, in excess of
established reserves, over an extended period of time and in a range of amounts that cannot be
reasonably estimated. The term “reasonably possible” is used herein to mean that the chance of a
future transaction or event occurring is more than remote but less than probable. Although the final
resolution of any such matters could have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated operating
results for the particular reporting period in which an adjustment of the estimated liability is recorded,
the Company believes that any resulting liability should not materially affect its consolidated financial
position.
ITEM 4. [REMOVED AND RESERVED]
29