CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
CONTINGENCIES
CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 12—CONTINGENCIES Overview We are involved in legal proceedings on an ongoing basis. If we believe that a loss arising from such matters is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we accrue the estimated liability in our financial statements. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, we accrue an amount within the range that, in our judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue the low end of the range. For those proceedings in which an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, we have disclosed an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses or we have concluded that an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses arising directly from the proceeding (i.e., monetary damages or amounts paid in judgment or settlement) are not material. In assessing the materiality of a legal proceeding, we evaluate, among other factors, the amount of monetary damages claimed, as well as the potential impact of non-monetary remedies sought by plaintiffs (e.g., injunctive relief) that may require us to change our business practices in a manner that could have a material adverse impact on our business. With respect to the matters disclosed in this Note 12, unless otherwise indicated, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of such non-monetary remedies. During 2012 and 2011, (gains) provisions for litigation settlements of $(3.1) million and $5.7 million, respectively, were recorded in litigation settlements and contingencies in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. The balance of the related liability was $0.6 million and $3.1 million at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The litigation matters were either settled or we extended a firm offer for settlement, thereby establishing an accrual amount that is both probable and reasonably estimable. Specific Matters Intellectual Property Litigation On September 8, 2010, the Company filed an action for patent infringement in the US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against Zillow, Inc., Nextag, Inc., Quinstreet, Inc., Quinstreet Media, Inc. and Adchemy, Inc. The complaint was amended to include Leadpoint, Inc. d/b/a Securerights on September 24, 2010. The complaint alleges that each of the defendants infringe one or both of the Company's patents—U.S. Patent No. 6,385,594, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet," and U.S. Patent No. 6,611,816, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet." Collectively, the asserted patents cover computer hardware and software used in facilitating business between computer users and multiple lenders on the internet. The defendants in this action asserted various counterclaims against the Company, including the assertion by certain of the defendants of counterclaims alleging illegal monopolization via our maintenance of the asserted patents. In July 2011, the Company reached a settlement agreement with Leadpoint, Inc. On July 20, 2011, all claims against Leadpoint, Inc. and all counter-claims against the Company by Leadpoint, Inc. were dismissed. In November 2012, the Company reached a settlement agreement with Quinstreet, Inc. and Quinstreet Media, Inc. (collectively, the Quinstreet Parties); all claims against the QuinStreet Parties and all counterclaims against the Company by the Quinstreet Parties were dismissed. The remaining parties are presently involved in discovery. Trial is currently expected in early 2014. The Company intends to vigorously defend all such counterclaims. Other Litigation *Boschma* On May 25, 2007, Boschma filed a putative class action against HLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs allege that HLC sold them an option "ARM" (adjustable-rate mortgage) loan but failed to disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner, among other things, that the interest rate was not fixed, that negative amortization could occur and that the loan had a prepayment penalty. Based upon these factual allegations, Plaintiffs asserted violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act, violations of the Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all individuals who between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2007 obtained through HLC an option ARM loan on their primary residence located in California, and seek rescission, damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have filed a total of eight complaints in connection with this lawsuit. Each of the first seven complaints has been dismissed by the federal and state courts. Plaintiffs filed the eighth complaint (a Second Amended Complaint) in Orange County (California) Superior Court on March 4, 2010 alleging only the fraud and Unfair Competition Law claims. As with each of the seven previous versions of Plaintiffs' complaint, the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed in April 2010. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and on August 10, 2011, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and directed the trial court to overrule the demurrer. The case has been remanded to superior court and the parties are presently involved in discovery. The class certification hearing is currently scheduled for September 2013. The Company believes plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously. *Mortgage Store, Inc.* On November 30, 2006, The Mortgage Store, Inc. and Castleview Home Loans, Inc. filed this putative class action against HLC in the California Superior Court for Orange County. Plaintiffs, two former network lenders, alleged that HLC interfered with LendingTree's contracts with network lenders by taking referrals from LendingTree without adequately disclosing the relationship between them and that HLC charged Plaintiffs higher rates and fees than they otherwise would have been charged. Based upon these factual allegations, Plaintiffs assert claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and California Business and Professions Code § 17500. Plaintiffs purport to represent all network lenders from December 14, 2004 to date, and seek damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and punitive damages. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted April 29, 2010. On October 17, 2011, the Court granted HLC's motion for summary judgment. Judgment was entered in favor of HLC on April 9, 2012. On June 15, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. Plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on December 17, 2012. The Company believes Plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously. *Dijkstra* On November 7, 2008 Plaintiff filed this putative class action in Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc., HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to close mortgage loans. Plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (CCPA), violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act, civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in October 2011. On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment, contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class includes consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. Discovery in this matter is ongoing. The Company believes that Plaintiff's allegations lack merit and we intend to defend against this action vigorously. *Massachusetts Division of Banks* The Massachusetts Division of Banks (the "Division") delivered to LendingTree, LLC on February 11, 2011 a Report of Examination/Inspection which identified various alleged violations of Massachusetts and federal laws, including the alleged insufficient delivery by LendingTree, LLC of various disclosures to its customers. On October 14, 2011, the Division provided a proposed Consent Agreement and Order to settle the Division's allegations, which the Division had shared with other state mortgage lending regulators. Thirty-four of such state mortgage lending regulators (the "Joining Regulators") indicated that if LendingTree, LLC would enter into the Consent Agreement and Order, they would agree not to pursue any analogous allegations that they otherwise might assert. As of the date of this report, none of the Joining Regulators have asserted any such allegations. The proposed Consent Agreement and Order calls for a fine to be allocated among the Division and the Joining Regulators and for LendingTree, LLC to adopt various new procedures and practices. We have commenced negotiations toward an acceptable Consent Agreement and Order. We do not believe our mortgage business violates any federal or state mortgage lending laws; nor do we believe that any past operations of the mortgage business have resulted in a material violation of any such laws. Should the Division or any Joining Regulator bring any actions relating to the matters alleged in the February 2011 Report of Examination/Inspection, we intend to defend against such actions vigorously. The range of possible loss is estimated to be between $0.5 million and $6.5 million, and a reserve of $0.5 million has been established for this matter as of December 31, 2012.

NOTE 12—CONTINGENCIES

Overview

We are involved in legal proceedings on an ongoing basis. If we believe that a loss arising from such matters is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we accrue the estimated liability in our financial statements. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, we accrue an amount within the range that, in our judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue the low end of the range. For those proceedings in which an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, we have disclosed an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses or we have concluded that an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses arising directly from the proceeding (i.e., monetary damages or amounts paid in judgment or settlement) are not material.

In assessing the materiality of a legal proceeding, we evaluate, among other factors, the amount of monetary damages claimed, as well as the potential impact of non-monetary remedies sought by plaintiffs (e.g., injunctive relief) that may require us to change our business practices in a manner that could have a material adverse impact on our business. With respect to the matters disclosed in this Note 12, unless otherwise indicated, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of such non-monetary remedies.

During 2012 and 2011, (gains) provisions for litigation settlements of $(3.1) million and $5.7 million, respectively, were recorded in litigation settlements and contingencies in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. The balance of the related liability was $0.6 million and $3.1 million at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The litigation matters were either settled or we extended a firm offer for settlement, thereby establishing an accrual amount that is both probable and reasonably estimable.

Specific Matters

Intellectual Property Litigation

On September 8, 2010, the Company filed an action for patent infringement in the US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against Zillow, Inc., Nextag, Inc., Quinstreet, Inc., Quinstreet Media, Inc. and Adchemy, Inc. The complaint was amended to include Leadpoint, Inc. d/b/a Securerights on September 24, 2010. The complaint alleges that each of the defendants infringe one or both of the Company's patents—U.S. Patent No. 6,385,594, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet," and U.S. Patent No. 6,611,816, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet." Collectively, the asserted patents cover computer hardware and software used in facilitating business between computer users and multiple lenders on the internet. The defendants in this action asserted various counterclaims against the Company, including the assertion by certain of the defendants of counterclaims alleging illegal monopolization via our maintenance of the asserted patents. In July 2011, the Company reached a settlement agreement with Leadpoint, Inc. On July 20, 2011, all claims against Leadpoint, Inc. and all counter-claims against the Company by Leadpoint, Inc. were dismissed. In November 2012, the Company reached a settlement agreement with Quinstreet, Inc. and Quinstreet Media, Inc. (collectively, the Quinstreet Parties); all claims against the QuinStreet Parties and all counterclaims against the Company by the Quinstreet Parties were dismissed. The remaining parties are presently involved in discovery. Trial is currently expected in early 2014. The Company intends to vigorously defend all such counterclaims.

Other Litigation

Boschma

On May 25, 2007, Boschma filed a putative class action against HLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs allege that HLC sold them an option "ARM" (adjustable-rate mortgage) loan but failed to disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner, among other things, that the interest rate was not fixed, that negative amortization could occur and that the loan had a prepayment penalty. Based upon these factual allegations, Plaintiffs asserted violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act, violations of the Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all individuals who between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2007 obtained through HLC an option ARM loan on their primary residence located in California, and seek rescission, damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have filed a total of eight complaints in connection with this lawsuit. Each of the first seven complaints has been dismissed by the federal and state courts. Plaintiffs filed the eighth complaint (a Second Amended Complaint) in Orange County (California) Superior Court on March 4, 2010 alleging only the fraud and Unfair Competition Law claims. As with each of the seven previous versions of Plaintiffs' complaint, the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed in April 2010. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and on August 10, 2011, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and directed the trial court to overrule the demurrer. The case has been remanded to superior court and the parties are presently involved in discovery. The class certification hearing is currently scheduled for September 2013. The Company believes plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously.

Mortgage Store, Inc.

On November 30, 2006, The Mortgage Store, Inc. and Castleview Home Loans, Inc. filed this putative class action against HLC in the California Superior Court for Orange County. Plaintiffs, two former network lenders, alleged that HLC interfered with LendingTree's contracts with network lenders by taking referrals from LendingTree without adequately disclosing the relationship between them and that HLC charged Plaintiffs higher rates and fees than they otherwise would have been charged. Based upon these factual allegations, Plaintiffs assert claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and California Business and Professions Code § 17500. Plaintiffs purport to represent all network lenders from December 14, 2004 to date, and seek damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and punitive damages.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted April 29, 2010. On October 17, 2011, the Court granted HLC's motion for summary judgment. Judgment was entered in favor of HLC on April 9, 2012. On June 15, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. Plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on December 17, 2012. The Company believes Plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously.

Dijkstra

On November 7, 2008 Plaintiff filed this putative class action in Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc., HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to close mortgage loans. Plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (CCPA), violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act, civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in October 2011. On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment, contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class includes consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. Discovery in this matter is ongoing. The Company believes that Plaintiff's allegations lack merit and we intend to defend against this action vigorously.

Massachusetts Division of Banks

The Massachusetts Division of Banks (the "Division") delivered to LendingTree, LLC on February 11, 2011 a Report of Examination/Inspection which identified various alleged violations of Massachusetts and federal laws, including the alleged insufficient delivery by LendingTree, LLC of various disclosures to its customers. On October 14, 2011, the Division provided a proposed Consent Agreement and Order to settle the Division's allegations, which the Division had shared with other state mortgage lending regulators. Thirty-four of such state mortgage lending regulators (the "Joining Regulators") indicated that if LendingTree, LLC would enter into the Consent Agreement and Order, they would agree not to pursue any analogous allegations that they otherwise might assert. As of the date of this report, none of the Joining Regulators have asserted any such allegations.

The proposed Consent Agreement and Order calls for a fine to be allocated among the Division and the Joining Regulators and for LendingTree, LLC to adopt various new procedures and practices. We have commenced negotiations toward an acceptable Consent Agreement and Order. We do not believe our mortgage business violates any federal or state mortgage lending laws; nor do we believe that any past operations of the mortgage business have resulted in a material violation of any such laws. Should the Division or any Joining Regulator bring any actions relating to the matters alleged in the February 2011 Report of Examination/Inspection, we intend to defend against such actions vigorously. The range of possible loss is estimated to be between $0.5 million and $6.5 million, and a reserve of $0.5 million has been established for this matter as of December 31, 2012.