XML 32 R78.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.8
Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments
 3 Months Ended 12 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Dec. 31, 2012
Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments    
Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments
Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments
Off-Balance Sheet Commitments
As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the following guarantees (including indemnification commitments) were issued and outstanding.
Indemnification Obligations
In the ordinary course of business, we execute contracts involving indemnification obligations customary in the relevant industry and indemnifications specific to a transaction such as the sale of a business. These indemnification obligations might include claims relating to the following: environmental matters; intellectual property rights; governmental regulations and employment-related matters; customer, supplier and other commercial contractual relationships; and financial matters. Performance under these indemnification obligations would generally be triggered by a breach of terms of the contract or by a third party claim. We regularly evaluate the probability of having to incur costs associated with these indemnification obligations and have accrued for expected losses that are probable and estimable. The types of indemnification obligations for which payments are possible include the following:
Sponsors; Directors
We have entered into customary indemnification agreements with Hertz Holdings, the Sponsors and Hertz Holdings' stockholders affiliated with the Sponsors, pursuant to which Hertz Holdings and we will indemnify the Sponsors, Hertz Holdings' stockholders affiliated with the Sponsors and their respective affiliates, directors, officers, partners, members, employees, agents, representatives and controlling persons, against certain liabilities arising out of performance of a consulting agreement with Hertz Holdings and each of the Sponsors and certain other claims and liabilities, including liabilities arising out of financing arrangements or securities offerings. We do not believe that these indemnifications are reasonably likely to have a material impact on us. Hertz Holdings has entered into indemnification agreements with each of its directors.
Environmental
We have indemnified various parties for the costs associated with remediating numerous hazardous substance storage, recycling or disposal sites in many states and, in some instances, for natural resource damages. The amount of any such expenses or related natural resource damages for which we may be held responsible could be substantial. The probable expenses that we expect to incur for such matters have been accrued, and those expenses are reflected in our condensed consolidated financial statements. As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the aggregate amounts accrued for environmental liabilities including liability for environmental indemnities, reflected in our condensed consolidated balance sheets in "Accrued liabilities" were $2.6 million and $2.6 million, respectively. The accrual generally represents the estimated cost to study potential environmental issues at sites deemed to require investigation or clean-up activities, and the estimated cost to implement remediation actions, including on-going maintenance, as required. Cost estimates are developed by site. Initial cost estimates are based on historical experience at similar sites and are refined over time on the basis of in-depth studies of the sites. For many sites, the remediation costs and other damages for which we ultimately may be responsible cannot be reasonably estimated because of uncertainties with respect to factors such as our connection to the site, the materials there, the involvement of other potentially responsible parties, the application of laws and other standards or regulations, site conditions, and the nature and scope of investigations, studies, and remediation to be undertaken (including the technologies to be required and the extent, duration, and success of remediation).
Legal Proceedings
From time to time we are a party to various legal proceedings. We are currently a defendant in numerous actions and have received numerous claims on which actions have not yet been commenced for public liability and property damage arising from the operation of motor vehicles and equipment rented from us and our licensees. The obligation for public liability and property damage on self-insured U.S. and international vehicles and equipment, as stated on our balance sheet, represents an estimate for both reported accident claims not yet paid and claims incurred but not yet reported. The related liabilities are recorded on a non-discounted basis. Reserve requirements are based on actuarial evaluations of historical accident claim experience and trends, as well as future projections of ultimate losses, expenses, premiums and costs. At March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 our liability recorded for public liability and property damage matters was $321.0 million and $332.2 million, respectively. We believe that our analysis is based on the most relevant information available, combined with reasonable assumptions, and that we may prudently rely on this information to determine the estimated liability. We note the liability is subject to significant uncertainties. The adequacy of the liability reserve is regularly monitored based on evolving accident claim history and insurance related state legislation changes. If our estimates change or if actual results differ from these assumptions, the amount of the recorded liability is adjusted to reflect these results.
For a detailed description of certain of our legal proceedings please see Note 12 of the Notes to our audited annual consolidated financial statements included in our Form 10-K under the caption "Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data."
The following recent developments pertaining to legal proceedings described in our Form 10-K are furnished on a supplemental basis:
In Davis Landscape, Ltd. et al. v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, the parties executed a settlement agreement in March 2013 and thereafter sought preliminary approval from the court of the proposed class settlement. The court has now tentatively approved the proposed class settlement, approved the parties' notice plan and has set June 18, 2013 as the date for the final approval hearing. We have accrued our best estimate of the ultimate cost, which is not material to our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
On October 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Enterprise is now a defendant in a separate action and is no longer a defendant in the Sobel case. The Sobel case purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at airports in Nevada and were separately charged airport concession recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges. In the complaint, the plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, restitution of any charges found to be improper and an injunction prohibiting Hertz from quoting or charging those airport fees that are alleged not to be allowed by Nevada law. The complaint also seeks attorneys' fees and costs. In 2010, the parties engaged in mediation which resulted in a proposed settlement. Although the court tentatively approved the settlement in November 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the proposed settlement in May 2011. Following additional activity in the case, in March 2013, the court granted, in part, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to restitution and granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, while denying the Company's motion for partial summary judgment. The court further indicated that plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest from the date of the plaintiffs' first amended complaint. A judgment has not yet been entered in the case, and there are expected to be further proceedings before the district court. The amount of a judgment could potentially exceed $40.0 million. The Company intends to appeal or seek other appropriate relief and believes that the court's liability, damages and class certification findings will be reversed. We continue to believe the outcome of this case will not be material to our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Aside from the above mentioned, none of the other legal proceedings described in our Form 10-K have experienced any material changes.
In addition to the above mentioned and those described in our Form 10-K or in our other filings with SEC, various other legal actions, claims and governmental inquiries and proceedings are pending or may be instituted or asserted in the future against us and our subsidiaries. Other than with respect to the aggregate claims for public liability and property damage pending against us, management, based on the advice of legal counsel, does not believe that any of the matters resolved, or pending against us, are material to us and our subsidiaries taken as a whole.
We have established reserves for matters where we believe that the losses are probable and reasonably estimated. Other than with respect to the aggregate reserve established for claims for public liability and property damage, none of those reserves are material. For matters where we have not established a reserve, the ultimate outcome or resolution cannot be predicted at this time, or the amount of ultimate loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of the individual litigated matters is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that certain of the actions, claims, inquiries or proceedings, including those discussed in our Form 10-K or in our other filings with SEC, could be decided unfavorably to us or any of our subsidiaries involved. Accordingly, it is possible that an adverse outcome from such a proceeding could exceed the amount accrued in an amount that could be material to our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period.
Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments
Legal Proceedings
From time to time we are a party to various legal proceedings. Other than with respect to the aggregate claims for public liability and property damage pending against us, management does not believe that any of the matters resolved, or pending against us, during 2012 are material to us and our subsidiaries taken as a whole. While we have accrued a liability with respect to claims for public liability and property damage of $332.2 million at December 31, 2012, management, based on the advice of legal counsel, does not believe any of the other pending matters described below are material. We have summarized below, for purposes of providing background, various legal proceedings to which we were and/or are a party during 2012 or the period after December 31, 2012 but before the filing of this Annual Report. In addition to the following, various other legal actions, claims and governmental inquiries and proceedings are pending or may be instituted or asserted in the future against us and our subsidiaries. As previously disclosed, on June 15, 2011 we received a subpoena from the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or "SEC," seeking production of documents related to our proposed business combination with Dollar Thrifty. On February 14, 2013, we were informed by the staff that the investigation has been completed and that no action was taken by the staff or the SEC.
1.
Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, or “HERC,” Loss Damage Waiver
On August 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against HERC in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In November 2006, the complaint was amended to add another plaintiff, Miguel V. Pro, and more claims. The Davis Landscape matter purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of all persons and business entities who rented equipment from HERC and who paid a Loss Damage Waiver, or “LDW,” or an Environmental Recovery Fee, or “ERF.” The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and injunction prohibiting HERC from engaging in acts with respect to the LDW and ERF charges that violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and claim that the charges violate the Uniform Commercial Code. The plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages with the return of all LDW and ERF charges paid, attorneys' fees and costs as well as other damages. The court has granted class certification, denied our motion for summary judgment and the case is in the discovery stages. In February 2012, we filed separate motions for partial summary judgment on the LDW and ERF claims and we filed a motion to decertify the class. In June 2012, the judge denied our motion for partial summary judgment on the LDW claim and, in July 2012, the judge granted our motion for partial summary judgment on the ERF claim. The court also entered an order referring the case to mediation by private consent of the parties. We have continued to work through the mediator and in direct discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel on an acceptable settlement of this litigation and have accrued our best estimate of the ultimate cost which is not material to our financial condition.
2.
Concession Fee Recoveries
On October 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, or “Enterprise,” was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The plaintiffs agreed to not pursue claims against Enterprise initially and the case only proceeded against Hertz. The Sobel case purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at airports in Nevada and were separately charged airport concession recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, restitution of any charges found to be improper and an injunction prohibiting Hertz from quoting or charging those airport fees that are alleged not to be allowed by Nevada law. The complaint also seeks attorneys' fees and costs. Relevant documents were produced, depositions were taken and pre-trial motions were filed. After the court rendered a mixed ruling on the parties' cross‑motions for summary judgment and after the Lydia Lee case was refiled against Enterprise, the parties engaged in mediation which resulted in a proposed settlement. Although the court tentatively approved the settlement in November 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the proposed settlement in May 2011. Since that time, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification-which we opposed-and discovery has commenced again. A separate action is proceeding against Enterprise, National and Alamo. In May 2012, all briefing was completed on the two outstanding issues—unjust enrichment and damages. The briefing included expert reports as submitted by both sides. In October 2012, the court held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court has since entered a stay order and the parties will again be engaging in mediation.
3.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act
On May 3, 2007, Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly‑situated persons, v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation was commenced in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. The case was subsequently transferred to the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas. The Fun Services matter purports to be a class action on behalf of all persons in Kansas and throughout the United States who, on or after four years prior to the filing of the action, were sent facsimile messages of advertising materials relating to the availability of property, goods or services by HERC and who did not provide express permission for sending such faxes. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, attorney's fees and costs. In August 2009, the court issued an order that stayed all activity in this litigation pending a decision by the Kansas Supreme Court in Critchfield Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Taranto Group, Inc., another Telephone Consumer Protection Act case. The Kansas Supreme Court issued its decision in September 2011. Thereafter, the District Court of Johnson County lifted the stay in the Fun Services case and issued a scheduling order that addresses class certification discovery. In February 2012, HERC filed a Notice of Removal with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas seeking to remove the case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. In March 2012, the federal magistrate entered an order requiring the parties to engage in mediation and report back to her regarding their progress by June 2012. In June 2012, a mediation was held and as a result of the mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this class action. A settlement that addresses compensation to class members, class counsel fees and the claims process was finalized by the parties’ counsel in January 2013. The court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement in January 2013 and the final approval hearing is currently scheduled for April 2013. We have accrued our best estimate of the ultimate cost, which is not material to our financial condition.
4.
California Tourism Assessments
We are currently a defendant in a proceeding that purports to be a class action brought by Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow against The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Coast Leasing Corp., The California Travel and Tourism Commission, and Caroline Beteta.
Originally filed in November of 2007, the action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and plaintiffs claim to represent a class of individuals or entities that purchased rental car services from a defendant at airports located in California after January 1, 2007. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants agreed to charge consumers a 2.5% tourism assessment and not to compete with respect to this assessment, while misrepresenting that this assessment is owed by consumers, rather than the rental car defendants, to the California Travel and Tourism Commission, or the “CTTC.” Plaintiffs also allege that defendants agreed to pass through to consumers a fee known as the Airport Concession Fee, which fee had previously been required to be included in the rental car defendants' individual base rates, without reducing their base rates. Based on these allegations, the amended complaint seeks treble damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs dropped their claims against Caroline Beteta. Plaintiffs' claims against the rental car defendants have been dismissed, except for the federal antitrust claim. In June 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' antitrust case against the CTTC as a state agency immune from antitrust complaint because the California Legislature foresaw the alleged price‑fixing conspiracy that was the subject of the complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit seeking a rehearing and that petition was granted. In November 2010, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its June opinion and instead held that state action immunity was improperly invoked. The Ninth Circuit reinstated the plaintiffs' antitrust claims and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. In May 2012, the district court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement of this action; certifying a settlement class; certifying a class representative and lead counsel; and providing for class notice. In October 2012, the court held a final approval hearing. In November 2012, the court issued an order of final approval of the settlement of this action. One of the objectors to the settlement has filed a notice of appeal of this order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We have accrued our best estimate of the ultimate cost which is not material to our financial condition.
5.
Public Liability and Property Damage
We are currently a defendant in numerous actions and have received numerous claims on which actions have not yet been commenced for public liability and property damage arising from the operation of motor vehicles and equipment rented from us. The obligation for public liability and property damage on self-insured U.S. and international vehicles and equipment, as stated on our balance sheet, represents an estimate for both reported accident claims not yet paid and claims incurred but not yet reported. The related liabilities are recorded on a non-discounted basis. Reserve requirements are based on actuarial evaluations of historical accident claim experience and trends, as well as future projections of ultimate losses, expenses, premiums and administrative costs. At December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 our liability recorded for public liability and property damage matters was $332.2 million and $281.5 million, respectively. We believe that our analysis is based on the most relevant information available, combined with reasonable assumptions, and that we may prudently rely on this information to determine the estimated liability. We note the liability is subject to significant uncertainties. The adequacy of the liability reserve is regularly monitored based on evolving accident claim history and insurance related state legislation changes. If our estimates change or if actual results differ from these assumptions, the amount of the recorded liability is adjusted to reflect these results.
We intend to assert that we have meritorious defenses in the foregoing matters and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously.
We have established reserves for matters where we believe that the losses are probable and reasonably estimated, including for various of the matters set forth above. Other than with respect to the aggregate reserves established for claims for public liability and property damage, none of those reserves are material. For matters, including those described above, where we have not established a reserve, the ultimate outcome or resolution cannot be predicted at this time, or the amount of ultimate loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of the individual litigated matters is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that certain of the actions, claims, inquiries or proceedings, including those discussed above, could be decided unfavorably to us or any of our subsidiaries involved. Accordingly, it is possible that an adverse outcome from such a proceeding could exceed the amount accrued in an amount that could be material to our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period.
Off-Balance Sheet Commitments
As of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the following guarantees (including indemnification commitments) were issued and outstanding.
Indemnification Obligations
In the ordinary course of business, we execute contracts involving indemnification obligations customary in the relevant industry and indemnifications specific to a transaction such as the sale of a business. These indemnification obligations might include claims relating to the following: environmental matters; intellectual property rights; governmental regulations and employment-related matters; customer, supplier and other commercial contractual relationships; and financial matters. Performance under these indemnification obligations would generally be triggered by a breach of terms of the contract or by a third party claim. We regularly evaluate the probability of having to incur costs associated with these indemnification obligations and have accrued for expected losses that are probable and estimable. The types of indemnification obligations for which payments are possible include the following:
Sponsors; Directors
We have entered into customary indemnification agreements with Hertz Holdings, the Sponsors and Hertz Holdings' stockholders affiliated with the Sponsors, pursuant to which Hertz Holdings and Hertz will indemnify the Sponsors, Hertz Holdings' stockholders affiliated with the Sponsors and their respective affiliates, directors, officers, partners, members, employees, agents, representatives and controlling persons, against certain liabilities arising out of performance of a consulting agreement with Hertz Holdings and each of the Sponsors and certain other claims and liabilities, including liabilities arising out of financing arrangements or securities offerings. Hertz Holdings also entered into indemnification agreements with each of its directors. We do not believe that these indemnifications are reasonably likely to have a material impact on us.
Environmental
We have indemnified various parties for the costs associated with remediating numerous hazardous substance storage, recycling or disposal sites in many states and, in some instances, for natural resource damages. The amount of any such expenses or related natural resource damages for which we may be held responsible could be substantial. The probable expenses that we expect to incur for such matters have been accrued, and those expenses are reflected in our condensed consolidated financial statements. As of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the aggregate amounts accrued for environmental liabilities including liability for environmental indemnities, reflected in our condensed consolidated balance sheets in "Accrued liabilities" were $2.6 million and $1.5 million, respectively. The accrual generally represents the estimated cost to study potential environmental issues at sites deemed to require investigation or clean-up activities, and the estimated cost to implement remediation actions, including on-going maintenance, as required. Cost estimates are developed by site. Initial cost estimates are based on historical experience at similar sites and are refined over time on the basis of in-depth studies of the sites. For many sites, the remediation costs and other damages for which we ultimately may be responsible cannot be reasonably estimated because of uncertainties with respect to factors such as our connection to the site, the materials there, the involvement of other potentially responsible parties, the application of laws and other standards or regulations, site conditions, and the nature and scope of investigations, studies, and remediation to be undertaken (including the technologies to be required and the extent, duration, and success of remediation).