Juno 2013 Annual Report Download - page 145

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 145 of the 2013 Juno 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 339

  • 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
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • 154
  • 155
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160
  • 161
  • 162
  • 163
  • 164
  • 165
  • 166
  • 167
  • 168
  • 169
  • 170
  • 171
  • 172
  • 173
  • 174
  • 175
  • 176
  • 177
  • 178
  • 179
  • 180
  • 181
  • 182
  • 183
  • 184
  • 185
  • 186
  • 187
  • 188
  • 189
  • 190
  • 191
  • 192
  • 193
  • 194
  • 195
  • 196
  • 197
  • 198
  • 199
  • 200
  • 201
  • 202
  • 203
  • 204
  • 205
  • 206
  • 207
  • 208
  • 209
  • 210
  • 211
  • 212
  • 213
  • 214
  • 215
  • 216
  • 217
  • 218
  • 219
  • 220
  • 221
  • 222
  • 223
  • 224
  • 225
  • 226
  • 227
  • 228
  • 229
  • 230
  • 231
  • 232
  • 233
  • 234
  • 235
  • 236
  • 237
  • 238
  • 239
  • 240
  • 241
  • 242
  • 243
  • 244
  • 245
  • 246
  • 247
  • 248
  • 249
  • 250
  • 251
  • 252
  • 253
  • 254
  • 255
  • 256
  • 257
  • 258
  • 259
  • 260
  • 261
  • 262
  • 263
  • 264
  • 265
  • 266
  • 267
  • 268
  • 269
  • 270
  • 271
  • 272
  • 273
  • 274
  • 275
  • 276
  • 277
  • 278
  • 279
  • 280
  • 281
  • 282
  • 283
  • 284
  • 285
  • 286
  • 287
  • 288
  • 289
  • 290
  • 291
  • 292
  • 293
  • 294
  • 295
  • 296
  • 297
  • 298
  • 299
  • 300
  • 301
  • 302
  • 303
  • 304
  • 305
  • 306
  • 307
  • 308
  • 309
  • 310
  • 311
  • 312
  • 313
  • 314
  • 315
  • 316
  • 317
  • 318
  • 319
  • 320
  • 321
  • 322
  • 323
  • 324
  • 325
  • 326
  • 327
  • 328
  • 329
  • 330
  • 331
  • 332
  • 333
  • 334
  • 335
  • 336
  • 337
  • 338
  • 339

Table of Contents



units and 52,000 stock options in the first half of 2014. In addition, the Company paid $1.1 million to these executive officers in connection with their
2013 annual bonuses.

In June 2011, Memory Lane, Inc., a California corporation, filed a complaint in United States District Court, Central District of California, against
Classmates International, Inc., Classmates Online, Inc. and Classmates, Inc. (then known as Memory Lane, Inc.) ("Classmates"), alleging false
designation of origin under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1125, and state and common law unfair competition. The complaint included requests
for an award of damages and for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Notwithstanding the request for preliminary injunctive relief, no motion
for such relief was filed. Classmates responded to the complaint in September 2011. In October 2011, the plaintiff amended its complaint to, among
other things, dismiss Classmates International, Inc. and add United Online, Inc. as a defendant. The trial commenced on February 11, 2014. On
February 20, 2014, the jury issued a verdict for the defendants, concluding that the defendants did not infringe the trademark.
In March 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo, and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported class action
complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following defendants: (i) Chase Bank
USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card Company
Defendants"); (ii) 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Classmates, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inns
Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, PeopleFindersPro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc.,
IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Shoebuy.com, Inc. (collectively, the "E-Merchant Defendants"); and (iii) Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. ("Trilegiant"), Affinion
Group, LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo"). The complaint alleges (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO") by all defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (2) aiding and
abetting violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (3) violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") by Trilegiant, Affinion and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the
Credit Card Company Defendants; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant
Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (5) violation of California Business and
Professions Code section 17602 by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants; and (6) unjust enrichment by all defendants. The
plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiffs, damages, treble
damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any
amounts awarded.
In March 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a purported class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in United States District
Court, District of Connecticut, against the following defendants: (i) Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, Vertrue, Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Adaptive
Marketing, LLC (collectively, the "Membership Companies"); (ii) 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates
International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Classmates, Inc., Peoplefinderspro, Inc., Rakuten
USA, Inc.,
F-50