2.2.0.25falsefalse0213 - Disclosure - Commitments, Contingencies and Guaranteestruefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDfalsefalse1/1/2011 - 3/31/2011 USD ($) USD ($) / shares $Jan-01-2011_Mar-31-2011http://www.sec.gov/CIK0001289848duration2011-01-01T00:00:002011-03-31T00:00:00USDStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170USDEPSDividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0SharesStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDUSD$2true0hurn_CommitmentsContingenciesAndGuaranteesAbstracthurnfalsenadurationCommitments, Contingencies and Guarantees.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherxbrli:stringItemTypestringCommitments, Contingencies and Guarantees.falsefalseCommitments, Contingencies and Guarantees [Abstract]3false0hurn_CommitmentsContingenciesAndGuaranteesDisclosureTextBlockhurnfalsenadurationIncludes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. Also Provides pertinent information about each guarantee obligation,...falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseverboselabel1falsefalsefalse00  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>13. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><b>Litigation</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">In August, 2009, the SEC commenced an investigation with respect to the restatement and an investigation into the allocation of time within a certain practice group. We also conducted a separate inquiry, in response to the initial inquiry from the SEC, into the allocation of time within a certain practice group. This matter had no impact on billings to our clients, but could have impacted the timing of when revenue was recognized. Based on our internal inquiry, which is complete, we have concluded that an adjustment to our historical financial statements is not required with respect to this matter. The SEC investigations with respect to the restatement and the allocation of time within a certain practice group are ongoing. We are cooperating fully with the SEC in its investigations. As often happens in these circumstances, the USAO for the Northern District of Illinois has contacted our counsel. The USAO made a telephonic request for copies of certain documents that we previously provided to the SEC, which we have voluntarily provided to the USAO. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">In addition, the following purported shareholder class action complaints were filed in connection with our restatement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: (1) a complaint in the matter of Jason Hughes v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren and Gary L. Burge, filed on August 4, 2009; (2) a complaint in the matter of Dorothy DeAngelis v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge, Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on August 5, 2009; (3) a complaint in the matter of Noel M. Parsons v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge, Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on August 5, 2009; (4) a complaint in the matter of Adam Liebman v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge and Wayne Lipski, filed on August 5, 2009; (5) a complaint in the matter of Gerald Tobin v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on August 7, 2009, (6) a complaint in the matter of Gary Austin v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge and Wayne Lipski, filed on August 7, 2009 and (7) a complaint in the matter of Thomas Fisher v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge, Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on September 3, 2009. On October 6, 2009, Plaintiff Thomas Fisher voluntarily dismissed his complaint. On November 16, 2009, the remaining suits were consolidated and the Public School Teachers’ Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago, the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, the City of Boston Retirement Board, the Cambridge Retirement System and the Bristol County Retirement System were appointed Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on January 29, 2010. The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against Huron Consulting Group, Inc., Gary Holdren and Gary Burge and claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Gary Holdren, Gary Burge and Wayne Lipski. The consolidated complaint contends that the Company and the individual defendants issued false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial results and compliance with GAAP. Lead Plaintiffs request that the action be declared a class action, and seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and reimbursement for fees and expenses incurred in connection with the action, including attorneys’ fees. On March 30, 2010, Huron, Gary Burge, Gary Holdren and Wayne Lipski jointly filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On August 6, 2010, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. On December 6, 2010, we reached an agreement in principle with Lead Plaintiffs to settle the litigation (“the Class Action Settlement”), pursuant to which the plaintiffs will receive total consideration of approximately $39.6 million, comprised of $27.0 million in cash and the issuance by the Company of 474,547 shares of our common stock (the “Settlement Shares”). The Settlement Shares had an aggregate value of approximately $12.6 million based on the closing market price of our common stock on December 31, 2010. As a result of the Class Action Settlement, we recorded a non-cash charge to earnings in the fourth quarter of 2010 of $12.6 million representing the fair value of the Settlement Shares and a corresponding settlement liability. During the first quarter of 2011, we recorded an additional $0.6 million non-cash charge related to the Settlement Shares to reflect the fair value of the Settlement Shares as of March 31, 2011, which totaled $13.2 million, and a corresponding increase to our recorded settlement liability. We will continue to adjust the amount of the non-cash charge and corresponding settlement liability to reflect changes in the fair value of the Settlement Shares until and including the date of issuance, which may result in either additional non-cash charges or non-cash gains. In accordance with the proposed settlement, in the fourth quarter of 2010 we also recorded a receivable for the cash portion of the consideration, which was funded into escrow in its entirety by our insurance carriers in the first quarter of 2011, and a corresponding settlement liability. There was no impact to our Consolidated Statement of Operations for the cash consideration as we concluded that a right of setoff existed in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification Topic 210-20-45, “Other Presentation Matters”. The total amount of insurance coverage under the related policy was $35.0 million and the insurers had previously paid out approximately $8.0 million in claims prior to the final $27.0 million payment discussed above. As a result of the final payment by the insurance carriers, we will not receive any further contributions from our insurance carriers for the reimbursement of legal fees expended on the finalization of the Class Action Settlement or any amounts (including any damages, settlement costs or legal fees) with respect to the SEC investigation with respect to the restatement, the USAO’s request for certain documents and the purported private shareholder class action lawsuit and derivative lawsuits in respect of the restatement (collectively, the “restatement matters”). The proposed Class Action Settlement received preliminary court approval on January 21, 2011 and is subject to final court approval and the issuance of the Settlement Shares. A Fairness Hearing is currently scheduled to consider final approval of the settlement on May 6, 2011. The issuance of the Settlement Shares is expected to occur after final court approval is granted. There can be no assurance that final court approval will be granted. The proposed settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing. Additionally, the Company has the right to terminate the settlement if class members representing more than a specified amount of alleged securities losses elect to opt out of the settlement. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">The Company also has been named as a nominal defendant in two state derivative suits filed in connection with the Company’s restatement, since consolidated in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division on September 21, 2009: (1) a complaint in the matter of Curtis Peters, derivatively on behalf of Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge, Wayne Lipski, each of the members of the Board of Directors and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on August 28, 2009 (the “Peters suit”) and (2) a complaint in the matter of Brian Hacias, derivatively on behalf of Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge and Wayne Lipski, filed on August 28, 2009 (the “Hacias suit”). The consolidated cases are captioned “In Re Huron Consulting Group, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation”. On March 8, 2010, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. The consolidated complaint also alleges claims for professional negligence and breach of contract against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company’s independent auditors. Plaintiffs seek to recoup for the Company unspecified damages allegedly sustained by the Company resulting from the restatement and related matters, disgorgement and reimbursement for fees and expenses incurred in connection with the suits, including attorneys’ fees. Huron filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint on April 22, 2010. On October 25, 2010, the Court granted Huron’s motion to dismiss and dismissed plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint with prejudice. On November 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal to the Appellate Court of Illinois. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">The Company has also been named as a nominal defendant in three Federal derivative suits filed in connection with the Company’s restatement, since consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on November 23, 2009: (1) a complaint in the matter of Oakland County Employees’ Retirement System, derivatively on behalf of Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge, Wayne Lipski and each of the members of the Board of Directors, filed on October 7, 2009 (the “Oakland suit”); (2) a complaint in the matter of Philip R. Wilmore, derivatively on behalf of Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge, Wayne Lipski, David M. Shade, and each of the members of the Board of Directors, filed on October 12, 2009 (the “Wilmore suit”); and (3) a complaint in the matter of Lawrence J. Goelz, derivatively on behalf of Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge, Wayne Lipski, David M. Shade, and each of the members of the Board of Directors, filed on October 12, 2009 (the “Goelz suit”). Oakland County Employees’ Retirement System, Philip R. Wilmore and Lawrence J. Goelz have been named Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on January 15, 2010. The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. Lead Plaintiffs seek to recoup for the Company unspecified damages allegedly sustained by the Company resulting from the restatement and related matters, restitution from all defendants and disgorgement of all profits, benefits or other compensation obtained by the defendants and reimbursement for fees and expenses incurred in connection with the suit, including attorneys’ fees. On April 7, 2010, the Court denied Huron’s motion to stay the Federal derivative suits. On April 8, 2010, Huron filed a motion to stay discovery proceedings in the derivative suits, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, pending the resolution of Huron’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint. The Court granted Huron’s motion to stay discovery proceedings in the derivative suits on April 12, 2010. Huron filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint on April 27, 2010. Huron’s motion to dismiss was granted, judgment entered and the case closed on September 7, 2010. On October 5, 2010, plaintiffs moved for relief from judgment and for leave to file a first amended complaint. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion on October 12, 2010, and plaintiffs filed their amended complaint that same day. Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint on November 5, 2010. On March 22, 2011, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed plaintiffs’ amended complaint with prejudice. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">Given the uncertain nature of the restatement matters, and the uncertainties related to the incurrence and amount of loss, including with respect to the imposition of fines, penalties, damages, administrative remedies and liabilities for additional amounts, with respect to the restatement matters, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the restatement matters, determine whether a liability has been incurred or make a reasonable estimate of the liability that could result from an unfavorable outcome in the restatement matters. Any such liability could be material. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">On December 9, 2009, plaintiff, Associates Against Outlier Fraud, filed a First Amended <i>qui tam</i> complaint against Huron Consulting Group, Inc., and others under the federal and New York state False Claims Act (“FCA”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The federal and state FCA authorize private individuals (known as “relators”) to sue on behalf of the government (known as “<i>qui tam</i>” actions) alleging that false or fraudulent claims were knowingly submitted to the government. Once a <i>qui tam </i>action is filed, the government may elect to intervene in the action. If the government declines to intervene, the relator may proceed with the action. Under the federal and state FCA, the government may recover treble damages and civil penalties (civil penalties of up to $11,000 per violation under the federal FCA and $12,000 per violation under the state FCA). On January 6, 2010, the United States declined to intervene in the lawsuit. On February 2, 2010, Huron filed a motion to dismiss the relator’s federal and state claims. On August 25, 2010, the Court granted Huron’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. On September 29, 2010, relator filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging that Huron and others caused St. Vincent Catholic Medical Center to receive more than $30 million in inflated outlier payments under the Medicare and Medicaid programs in violation of the federal and state FCA and also seeks to recover an unspecified amount of civil penalties. On October 19, 2010 Huron filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which the Court denied on January 3, 2011. The suit is in the pre-trial stage and no trial date has been set. We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">From time to time, we are involved in legal proceedings and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. As of the date of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q, we are not a party to or threatened with any other litigation or legal proceeding that, in the current opinion of management, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. However, due to the risks and uncertainties inherent in legal proceedings, actual results could differ from current expected results. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="center" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt"> <b> </b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Guarantees</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">Guarantees in the form of letters of credit totaling $6.4 million and $6.3 million were outstanding at March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, to support certain office lease obligations as well as Middle East performance and bid bonds. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">In connection with certain business acquisitions, we are required to pay additional purchase consideration to the sellers if specific performance targets and conditions are met over a number of years as specified in the related purchase agreements. These amounts are calculated and payable at the end of each year based on full year financial results. There is no limitation to the maximum amount of additional purchase consideration and the aggregate amount that potentially may be paid could be significant. Additional purchase consideration earned by certain sellers totaled $28.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, of which $3.0 million remains payable as of March 31, 2011. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">To the extent permitted by law, our by-laws and articles of incorporation require that we indemnify our officers and directors against judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement, including attorney’s fees, incurred in connection with civil or criminal action or proceedings, as it relates to their services to us if such person acted in good faith. Although there is no limit on the amount of indemnification, we may have recourse against our insurance carrier for certain payments made. </div> </div>  <!-- Begin Block Tagged NotefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringIncludes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. Also Provides pertinent information about each guarantee obligation, or each group of similar guarantee obligations, including (a) the nature of the guarantee, including its term, how it arose, and the events or circumstances that would require the guarantor to perform under the guarantee; (b) the maximum potential amount of future payments (undiscounted) the guarantor could be required to make under the guarantee; (c) the current carrying amount of the liability, if any, for the guarantor's obligations under the guarantee; and (d) the nature of any recourse provisions under the guarantee, and any assets held either as collateral or by third parties, and any relevant related party disclosure.No authoritative reference available.falsefalseCommitments, Contingencies and Guarantees12Commitments, Contingencies and GuaranteesUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue