Juno 2013 Annual Report Download - page 31

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 31 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
"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., Shoebuy.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Wells Fargo & Company, and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the "Marketing
Companies"); and (iii) Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the
"Credit Card Companies"). The complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO by all defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit
Card Companies; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the Credit Card Companies;
(3) violations of the ECPA by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit
Card Companies; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding
and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (5) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17602 by the
Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies; and (6) unjust enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution
and disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received from the 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 April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re Trilegiant
Corporation, Inc. In September 2012, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint and named five additional defendants. The defendants
have responded to the consolidated amended complaint by joining in motions to dismiss filed by other defendants in December 2012. Those motions
were argued before the district court in September 2013, and taken under submission. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, and no trial
date has been set.
In addition, in December 2012, David Frank filed a purported class action complaint (the "Frank Class Action") in United States District Court,
District of Connecticut, against the following defendants: Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo (collectively, the "Frank Membership Companies"); 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Hotwire, Inc.,
IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Classmates, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, PeopleFindersPro, Inc., Priceline.com, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., TigerDirect, Inc.,
30