COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

The Company is involved in claims, legal proceedings and governmental inquiries related to alleged contract disputes, business practices, intellectual property and other commercial, employment, regulatory and tax matters. Examples of such matters include but are not limited to allegations:


•	that the Company is vicariously liable for the acts of franchisees under theories of actual or apparent agency;


•	by former franchisees that franchise agreements were breached including improper terminations;


•	that residential real estate sales associates engaged by NRT—in certain states—are potentially employees instead of independent contractors, and therefore may bring claims against NRT for breach of contract, wrongful discharge and negligent supervision and obtain benefits, indemnification and expense reimbursement available to employees;


•	concerning claims for alleged RESPA or state real estate law violations including but not limited to claims challenging the validity of sales associates indemnification and administrative fees;


•	concerning claims generally against the company owned brokerage operations for negligence or breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the performance of real estate brokerage or other professional services; and


•	concerning claims generally against the title company contending that, as the escrow company, the company knew or should have known that a transaction was fraudulent or concerning other title defects or settlement errors.

Legal—Real Estate Business

Bararsani v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company. On November 15, 2012, plaintiff Ali Bararsani filed a putative class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, California, against Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company ("CBRBC") alleging that CBRBC had misclassified current and former affiliated sales associates as independent contractors when they were actually employees. The complaint, as amended, further alleges that, because of the misclassification, CBRBC has violated several sections of the California Labor Code including one for failing to reimburse the plaintiff and purported class for business related expenses and a second for failing to keep proper records. The amended complaint also asserts an Unfair Business Practices claim for misclassifying the sales associates. The Plaintiff, on behalf of a purported class, seeks the benefit of the California labor laws for expenses and other sums, plus asserted penalties, attorneys’ fees and interest. The Company believes that CBRBC has properly classified the sales associates as independent contractors and that it has and continues to operate in a manner consistent with applicable law, and longstanding, widespread industry practice for many decades.

On July 31, 2013, CBRBC filed a Demurrer with the Court seeking to dismiss the amended complaint. The Demurrer asserted that the claims raised by the plaintiff were without basis under California law because the California Business and Professions Code sets out the applicable three-part test for classification of real estate sales associates—as independent contractors—and all elements of the test have been satisfied by CBRBC and the affiliated sales associates. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on August 12, 2013 and a hearing was held on August 28, 2013. The Court denied the Demurrer and stated that it would look to the more complex multi-factor common law test to determine whether the plaintiff was misclassified. CBRBC filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate with the California Court of Appeals seeking its discretionary review of that decision on September 30, 2013 and on November 8, 2013, the Court of Appeal denied the Petition.

The case is now in the discovery phase, as to both class certification and the merits of the case. The Court also has conducted a hearing concerning the validity, for purposes of the case, of arbitration clauses in independent contractor agreements executed by purported members of the class following the commencement of the litigation. In connection with the state of discovery, the Court may soon direct the parties - consistent with practices in California class actions - to mail notices to purported class members notifying them of the case and seeking consent to provide their contact information to Plaintiff's counsel.

The case raises significant classification claims that potentially apply to the real estate industry in general and that have not been previously challenged in any significant manner in California or other jurisdictions. As with all class action litigation, the case is inherently complex and subject to many uncertainties. We believe that CBRBC has properly classified the current and former affiliated sales associates. There can be no assurance, however, that if the action continues and a large class is subsequently certified, the plaintiffs will not seek a substantial damage award, penalties and other remedies. Given the early stage of this case, the novel claims presented and the great uncertainties regarding which sales associates, if any, may be part of a class, if one is certified, we cannot estimate a range of reasonably potential losses for this litigation. The Company believes it has complied with all applicable laws and regulations and will vigorously defend this action.

The Company is involved in certain other claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of our business. Such litigation and other proceedings may include, but are not limited to, actions relating to intellectual property, commercial arrangements, franchising arrangements, actions against our title company alleging it knew or should have known that others were committing mortgage fraud, standard brokerage disputes like the failure to disclose hidden defects in the property such as mold, vicarious liability based upon conduct of individuals or entities outside of our control, including franchisees and independent sales associates, antitrust claims, general fraud claims, employment law claims, including claims challenging the classification of our sales associates as independent contractors, and claims alleging violations of RESPA or state consumer fraud statutes. While the results of such claims and legal actions cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe based on information currently available to us that the final outcome of current proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Legal—Cendant Corporate Litigation

Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement dated as of July 27, 2006 among Cendant, Realogy Group, Wyndham Worldwide and Travelport, each of Realogy Group, Wyndham Worldwide and Travelport have assumed certain contingent and other corporate liabilities (and related costs and expenses), which are primarily related to each of their respective businesses. In addition, Realogy Group has assumed 62.5% and Wyndham Worldwide has assumed 37.5% of certain contingent and other corporate liabilities (and related costs and expenses) of Cendant or its subsidiaries, which are not primarily related to any of the respective businesses of Realogy Group, Wyndham Worldwide, Travelport and/or Cendant’s vehicle rental operations, in each case incurred or allegedly incurred on or prior to the date of the separation of Travelport from Cendant.

* * *

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for legal matters as appropriate. The Company records litigation accruals for legal matters which are both probable and estimable. For legal proceedings for which (1) there is a reasonable possibility of loss (meaning those losses for which the likelihood is more than remote but less than probable) and (2) the Company is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, the Company estimates the range of reasonably possible losses to be between zero and $10 million at December 31, 2013.

Litigation and other disputes are inherently unpredictable and subject to substantial uncertainties and unfavorable resolutions could occur. In addition, class action lawsuits can be costly to defend and, depending on the class size and claims, could be costly to settle. As such, the Company could incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims with liability that are materially in excess of amounts accrued and these settlements could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular period.

Tax Matters

The Company is subject to income taxes in the United States and several foreign jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining the worldwide provision for income taxes and recording related assets and liabilities. In the ordinary course of business, there are many transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. The Company is regularly under audit by tax authorities whereby the outcome of the audits is uncertain. The Company believes there is appropriate support for positions taken on its tax returns. The liabilities that have been recorded represent the best estimates of the probable loss on certain positions and are adequate for all open years based on an assessment of many factors including past experience and interpretations of tax law applied to the facts of each matter. However, the outcomes of tax audits are inherently uncertain.

Under the Tax Sharing Agreement with Cendant, Wyndham Worldwide and Travelport, the Company is generally responsible for 62.5% of payments made to settle claims with respect to tax periods ending on or prior to December 31, 2006 that relate to income taxes imposed on Cendant and certain of its subsidiaries, the operations (or former operations) of which were determined by Cendant not to relate specifically to the respective businesses of Realogy, Wyndham Worldwide, Avis Budget or Travelport.

With respect to any remaining legacy Cendant tax liabilities, the Company and its former parent believe there is appropriate support for the positions taken on Cendant’s tax returns. However, tax audits and any related litigation, including disputes or litigation on the allocation of tax liabilities between parties under the Tax Sharing Agreement, could result in outcomes for the Company that are different from those reflected in the Company’s historical financial statements.

Contingent Liability Letter of Credit

In April 2007, the Company established a standby irrevocable letter of credit for the benefit of Avis Budget Group in accordance with the Separation and Distribution Agreement. The synthetic letter of credit was utilized to support the Company’s payment obligations with respect to its share of Cendant contingent and other corporate liabilities. The stated amount of the standby irrevocable letter of credit is subject to periodic adjustment to reflect the then current estimate of Cendant contingent and other liabilities. The letter of credit was $53 million at December 31, 2013 and $70 million at December 31, 2012. The standby irrevocable letter of credit will be terminated if (i) the Company’s senior unsecured credit rating is raised to BB by Standard and Poor’s or Ba2 by Moody’s or (ii) the aggregate value of the former parent contingent liabilities falls below $30 million.

Escrow and Trust Deposits

As a service to the Company’s customers, it administers escrow and trust deposits which represent undisbursed amounts received for the settlement of real estate transactions. With the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in July 2010, deposits at FDIC-insured institutions are permanently insured up to $250 thousand. These escrow and trust deposits totaled $271 million and $330 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. These escrow and trust deposits are not assets of the Company and, therefore, are excluded from the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. However, the Company remains contingently liable for the disposition of these deposits.

Leases

The Company is committed to making rental payments under noncancelable operating leases covering various facilities and equipment. Future minimum lease payments required under noncancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2013 are as follows:



Year	Amount
2014	$	133
2015	105
2016	67
2017	48
2018	29
Thereafter	126
	$	508

Capital lease obligations were $19 million, net of $2 million of imputed interest, at December 31, 2013 and $12 million, net of $1 million of imputed interest, at December 31, 2012.

The Company incurred rent expense of $165 million, $164 million and $173 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Purchase Commitments and Minimum Licensing Fees

In the normal course of business, the Company makes various commitments to purchase goods or services from specific suppliers, including those related to capital expenditures. The purchase commitments made by the Company as of December 31, 2013 are approximately $73 million.

The Company is required to pay a minimum licensing fee to Sotheby’s which began in 2009 and continues through 2054. The annual minimum licensing fee is approximately $2 million per year. The Company is also required to pay a minimum licensing fee to Meredith Corporation for the licensing of the Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate brand. The annual minimum licensing fee began in 2009 at $0.5 million and will increase to $4 million by 2014 and generally remains the same through 2058.

Future minimum payments for these purchase commitments and minimum licensing fees as of December 31, 2013 are as follows:



Year	Amount
2014	$	48
2015	25
2016	14
2017	9
2018	8
Thereafter	247
	$	351

Standard Guarantees/Indemnifications

In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into numerous agreements that contain standard guarantees and indemnities whereby the Company indemnifies another party for breaches of representations and warranties. In addition, many of these parties are also indemnified against any third-party claim resulting from the transaction that is contemplated in the underlying agreement. Such guarantees or indemnifications are granted under various agreements, including those governing: (i) purchases, sales or outsourcing of assets or businesses, (ii) leases of real estate, (iii) licensing of trademarks, (iv) use of derivatives, and (v) issuances of debt securities. The guarantees or indemnifications issued are for the benefit of the: (i) buyers in sale agreements and sellers in purchase agreements, (ii) landlords in lease contracts, (iii) franchisees in licensing agreements, (iv) financial institutions in derivative contracts, and (v) underwriters in issuances of securities. While some of these guarantees extend only for the duration of the underlying agreement, many survive the expiration of the term of the agreement or extend into perpetuity (unless subject to a legal statute of limitations). There are no specific limitations on the maximum potential amount of future payments that the Company could be required to make under these guarantees, nor is the Company able to develop an estimate of the maximum potential amount of future payments to be made under these guarantees as the triggering events are not subject to predictability. With respect to certain of the aforementioned guarantees, such as indemnifications of landlords against third-party claims for the use of real estate property leased by the Company, the Company maintains insurance coverage that mitigates any potential payments to be made.

Other Guarantees/Indemnifications

In the normal course of business, the Company coordinates numerous events for its franchisees and thus reserves a number of venues with certain minimum guarantees, such as room rentals at hotels local to the conference center. However, such room rentals are paid by each individual franchisee. If the franchisees do not meet the minimum guarantees, the Company is obligated to fulfill the minimum guaranteed fees. Such guarantees in effect at December 31, 2011 extend into 2013 and the maximum potential amount of future payments that the Company may be required to make under such guarantees is approximately $4 million. The Company would only be required to pay this maximum amount if none of the franchisees conducted their planned events at the reserved venues. Historically, the Company has not been required to make material payments under these guarantees.

Insurance and Self-Insurance

At December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Consolidated Balance Sheets include approximately $31 million and $38 million, respectively, of liabilities relating to: (i) self-insured risks for errors and omissions and other legal matters incurred in the ordinary course of business within the Company Owned Real Estate Brokerage Services segment, (ii) vacant dwellings and household goods in transit and storage within the Relocation Services segment, and (iii) premium and claim reserves for the Company’s title underwriting business. The Company may also be subject to legal claims arising from the handling of escrow transactions and closings. The Company’s subsidiary, NRT, carries errors and omissions insurance for errors made during the real estate settlement process of $15 million in the aggregate, subject to a deductible of $1 million per occurrence. In addition, the Company carries an additional errors and omissions insurance policy for Realogy Group and its subsidiaries for errors made for real estate related services up to $35 million in the aggregate, subject to a deductible of $2.5 million per occurrence. This policy also provides excess coverage to NRT creating an aggregate limit of $50 million, subject to the NRT deductible of $1 million per occurrence.

The Company issues title insurance policies which provide coverage for real property mortgage lenders and buyers of real property. When acting as a title agent issuing a policy on behalf of an underwriter, the Company’s insurance risk is limited to the first $5 thousand of claims on any one policy. The title underwriter which the Company acquired in January 2006 typically underwrites title insurance policies of up to $1.5 million. For policies in excess of $1.5 million, the Company typically obtains a reinsurance policy from a national underwriter to reinsure the excess amount.

Fraud, defalcation and misconduct by employees are also risks inherent in the business. The Company is the custodian of cash deposited by customers with specific instructions as to its disbursement from escrow, trust and account servicing files. The Company maintains Fidelity insurance covering the loss or theft of funds of up to $30 million annually in the aggregate, subject to a deductible of $750 thousand per occurrence.

The Company also maintains self-insurance arrangements relating to health and welfare, workers’ compensation, auto and general liability in addition to other benefits provided to the Company’s employees. The accruals for these self-insurance arrangements totaled approximately $19 million and $18 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.