Avis 2010 Annual Report Download - page 35

Table of Contents
Our principal executive offices are located at leased offices at 6 Sylvan Way, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 pursuant to a lease expiring in
2023. Supplemental office space that we previously occupied at 10 Sylvan Way and 3 Century Drive in Parsippany, New Jersey is currently
vacant, and the related leases will expire or may be terminated in 2011 and 2013, respectively. We also own a facility in Virginia Beach,
Virginia, which serves as a satellite administrative facility for our car and truck rental operations. Office space is also leased in Greenwood
Village, Colorado and Tulsa, Oklahoma pursuant to leases expiring in 2015 and 2022, respectively. These locations primarily provide
operational services for both brands, including contact center operations. In addition, there are approximately seven other leased office locations
in the United States used for administrative activities, regional sales and operations activities.
We lease or have vehicle rental concessions for both the Avis and Budget brands at locations throughout the world. Avis operates approximately
950 locations in the United States and approximately 300 locations outside the United States. Of those locations, approximately 225 in the
United States and approximately 100 outside the United States are at airports. Budget operates at approximately 600 locations in the United
States of which approximately 180 are at airports. Budget also operates at approximately 150 locations outside the United States of which
approximately 60 are at airports. Typically, an airport receives a percentage of vehicle rental revenue, with a guaranteed minimum. Because
there is a limit to the number of vehicle rental locations in an airport, vehicle rental companies frequently bid for the available locations, usually
on the basis of the size of the guaranteed minimums. We believe that our properties are sufficient to meet our present needs and we do not
anticipate any difficulty in securing additional space, as needed, on acceptable terms.
Vehicle Rental Litigation
We, along with our subsidiaries, are involved from time to time in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business, including the cases
described below.
On November 14, 2007, two California residents filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Michael Shames et al. v. The Hertz Corp. et al. ,
No. 07 CV 2174H (S.D. Cal.), against the Company, six other rental car companies, the California Travel and Tourism Commission (the
“CTTC”) and the CTTC’s Executive Director, alleging that the defendants violated federal antitrust law and California’s Unfair Competition
Law and False Advertising Law by allegedly agreeing to pass on airport concession fees and a state tourism commission assessment to passenger
car renters in California. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. We filed a motion to dismiss
the Shames suit, and on April 8, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the motions to dismiss the putative
class action lawsuit, on the ground that plaintiffs failed to state claims for which relief could be granted. An amended complaint was filed in May
2008 against the Company and six other rental car companies, as well as the CTTC, and contained claims that the defendants had violated
federal antitrust law and California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law by allegedly agreeing to pass on airport concession
fees and a state tourism commission assessment to passenger car renters in California. In July 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the CTTC’
s motion to dismiss all claims asserted against it, granted our motions to dismiss with respect to the state
law claims and denied our motion to dismiss with respect to the federal antitrust claim. We are currently undergoing discovery. In June 2010 the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the CTTC. In August 2010, the Company and the other rental car companies named in
the suit filed a motion to dismiss in district court. In November 2010, the Ninth Circuit reversed its prior dismissal of all claims against the
CTTC, and replaced its June 2010 opinion with a superseding opinion reversing the district court’s dismissal of claims against the CTTC,
making the CTTC again a party to the district court proceedings. The Company has denied the allegations and intends to continue to defend the
case.
30
ITEM 2.
PROPERTIES
ITEM 3.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS