I'd recommend all customers to check out Priceline. Comis present legal procedures data per their 10K, yearly statement processing using the SEC for financial year ended December 31 BEFORE scheduling with this particular company. They've roughly 17 pages of appropriate procedures, with 2 customer class-action lawsuits previously (view page 47 for customer class-action lawsuits).
Link:
Http://phx. Corporate-ir.net/phoenix. Zhtml? C=72780&p=irol-SECText&TEXT=aHR0cDovL2lyLmludC53ZXN0bGF3YnVzaW5lc3MuY29tL2RvY3VtZW50L3YxLzAwMDExMDQ2NTktMTAtMDA4MDAyL3htbA=#Item3_LegalProceedings_123550
Customer Course Actions: (per Priceline's 10K SEC processing, for financial year ended on December 31)
Listed Here Is wording straight from that Priceline 10K filing:
"Two proposed class activities introduced by customers were pending against us":
"Marshall, ETAL. V. Priceline.com, Inc.: On February 17, a putative class-action criticism was submitted within the Superior Court of Their State of De for New Castle Region by Jeanne Marshall and three additional people with respect to themselves along with a putative course of presumably similarly found customers nationwide against us. The problem alleged that people broke the De Consumer Fraud Act, Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, § 2511, et seq., associated with our reports and costs to clients to protect taxes under-city motel occupancy tax laws nationwide, and service costs. We shifted to ignore the criticism on April 21. On June 10, plaintiffs submitted an amended problem that claims claims underneath the De Consumer Fraud Work as well as for violation of agreement and also the intended responsibility of great faith and honest working. On October 31, the judge given simply and refused simply our movement to ignore. The judge ignored all states arising underneath the De Consumer Fraud Act. The judge likewise ignored all statements for violation of agreement and also the intended responsibility of great faith and fair-dealing that relate solely to our costs for service costs. The judge refused our movement to ignore the break of agreement and intended responsibility of great faith and fair-dealing statements because they relate solely to our costs to customers to protect fees under-city motel occupancy tax laws. On February 1, two of the four plaintiffs voluntarily ignored their claims against us. On February 29, the rest of the plaintiffs moved for leave to modify their criticism to say extra statements for violation of agreement and also the intended responsibility of great faith and fair-dealing claiming that people involved a hidden payment inside the room fee cost. On August 28, the judge given plaintiffs’ movement for leave to modify. The plaintiffs submitted their next amended problem on September 12, and we responded that criticism on June 26. The parties’ summary judgment movements have now been posted along with a reading occured in January; we're expecting the court’s ruling."
"Chiste, ETAL. V. Priceline.com Inc., et al.: On December 11, a putative class-action was submitted by plaintiff Matthew R. Chiste and two additional people with respect to themselves along with a putative course of presumably similarly found customers nationwide against us, Lowestfare.com, Inc. And Travelweb, LLC. The complaint claims the defendants overcharge customers by gathering Hotel Occupancy and revenue fees in addition to that essential to spend the particular fees about the accommodation reserved from the client. The problem says claims for misleading business methods, declaratory and injunctive relief, transformation, break of fiduciary responsibility, and break of agreement. Defendants moved to ignore the criticism on March 6. Briefing was finished on July 3. The events are expecting the court’s choice."
0 comments