Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	14. Contingencies Value Added Tax Receivables We generate Value Added Tax (“VAT”) refund claims, recorded as receivables, in multiple jurisdictions through the normal course of our business. Audits related to these claims are in various stages of investigation. If the results of the audit or litigation were to become unfavorable, the uncollectible amounts could be material to our results of operations. In previous years, the right to recover certain VAT receivables associated with European businesses has been questioned by tax authorities. We believe that our claims are valid under applicable law and as such we will continue to pursue collection, possibly through litigation. We assess VAT receivables for collectability and may be required to record reserves in the future. Our VAT receivables totaled $24 million and $23 million as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, and are included in other receivables in our consolidated balance sheets. Litigation and Risks Relating to Value Added Taxes Holiday Autos, a discontinued operation (see Note 3, Discontinued Operations and Dispositions), conducted a cross border car rental brokering business that involved substantial sums of VAT receivables and payable from the period 2007 to 2009. Certain of the VAT receivables were challenged by tax authorities and successfully defended. In France, however, the Court of Appeal ruled against us on June 18, 2013 in respect of outstanding VAT refund claims of $4 million made for the periods 2007 through 2009. We believe our claims are valid and have appealed the decision to the Supreme Court in France. Due to litigation, significant delays and other factors impacting our settlement of these claims, we have recorded an allowance for losses relating to such events in assets of discontinued operations in our consolidated balance sheets. The allowances recorded as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, in respect of the French claims subject to litigation, were $4 million. Our VAT receivables, net of reserves, associated with Holiday Autos totaled $5 million and $6 million as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, and are included in assets of discontinued operations in our consolidated balance sheets. As we dissolve subsidiaries associated with discontinued operations, tax authorities may or have initiated audits that could result in challenges to our refund claims and assessments of additional taxes. We believe the merits of our claims are valid and will aggressively defend any denial of our claims. In the United Kingdom, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) had asserted that our subsidiary, Secret Hotels2 Limited (formerly Med Hotels Limited), failed to account for United Kingdom VAT on margins relating to hotels located within the European Union (“EU”). This business was sold in February 2009 to a third-party and we account for it as a discontinued operation. Because the sale was structured as an asset sale, we retained the potential tax liabilities of Secret Hotels2 Limited. HMRC issued assessments of tax totaling approximately $11 million. We appealed the assessments and as a result of an unfavorable ruling against us in the penultimate appeal court, we accrued $17 million of expense included in discontinued operations in the fourth quarter of 2012. On March 5, 2014 judgment was given in favor of Secret Hotels2 Limited. This judgment cannot be further appealed. We therefore reversed our reserve in 2013 in discontinued operations. HMRC had started a review of other parts of our lastminute.com business in the United Kingdom. Following the favorable judgment in March 2014 associated with Secret Hotels2 Limited, HMRC ceased its review activity and withdrew its VAT claims against lastminute.com. Legal Proceedings While certain legal proceedings and related indemnification obligations to which we are a party specify the amounts claimed, these claims may not represent reasonably possible losses. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted at this time, nor can the amount of possible loss or range of loss, if any, be reasonably estimated, except in circumstances where an aggregate litigation accrual has been recorded for probable and reasonably estimable loss contingencies. A determination of the amount of accrual required, if any, for these contingencies is made after careful analysis of each matter. The required accrual may change in the future due to new information or developments in each matter or changes in approach such as a change in settlement strategy in dealing with these matters. Litigation and Administrative Audit Proceedings Relating to Hotel Occupancy Taxes Over the past ten years, various state and local governments in the United States have filed approximately 70 lawsuits against us and other OTAs pertaining primarily to whether Travelocity and other OTAs owe sales or occupancy taxes on some or all of the revenues they earn from facilitating hotel reservations using the merchant revenue model. In the merchant revenue model, the customer pays us an amount at the time of booking that includes (i) service fees, which we collect, and (ii) the price of the hotel room and amounts for occupancy or other local taxes, which we pass along to the hotel supplier. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the defendants failed to pay to the relevant taxing authority hotel accommodations taxes on the service fees. Courts have dismissed approximately 30 of these lawsuits, some for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and some on the basis that we are not subject to the sales or occupancy tax at issue based on the construction of the language in the ordinance. The Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits of the United States Courts of Appeals each have ruled in our favor on the merits, as have state appellate courts in Missouri, Alabama, Texas, California, Kentucky, Florida, Colorado and Pennsylvania, and a number of state and federal trial courts. The remaining lawsuits are in various stages of litigation. We have also settled some cases individually, most for nuisance value, and with respect to these settlements, have generally reserved our rights to challenge any effort by the applicable tax authority to impose occupancy taxes in the future. We have received recent favorable decisions pertaining to cases in North Carolina, California, Montana, Arizona and Colorado. On August 19, 2014, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in favor of Travelocity and other OTAs after concluding they are not operators of hotels, motel or similar-type businesses and therefore are not subject to hotel occupancy tax. The plaintiffs have filed a petition for discretionary review with the North Carolina Supreme Court. On May 28, 2014, an administrative hearing officer in Arizona ruled that Travelocity is not responsible for collecting or remitting local hotel taxes and set aside assessments made by twelve municipalities in Arizona, including Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, and Tucson. On March 27, 2014, a California court of appeals upheld a trial court ruling that OTAs, including Travelocity, are not subject to the City of San Diego’s transient occupancy tax because they are not hotel operators or managing agents. The City of San Diego has filed a petition asking the Supreme Court of California to review the case. This marked the third time that a California appellate court has ruled in favor of Travelocity on the question of whether OTAs are subject to transient occupancy taxes in California, the prior two cases being brought by the City of Anaheim and City of Santa Monica. Travelocity also has prevailed at the trial court level in cases brought by San Francisco and Los Angeles, both of which are being appealed by the cities. On March 6, 2014, a Montana trial court ruled by summary judgment that Travelocity and other OTAs are not subject to the State of Montana’s lodging facility use tax or its sales tax on accommodations and vehicles. The lawsuit had been brought by the Montana Department of Revenue, which has appealed the decision. On July 3, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed a final judgment that Travelocity and OTAs are not liable for lodging taxes as claimed by the City of Denver. The City of Denver has petitioned the Supreme Court of Colorado to review the decision. Although we have prevailed in the majority of these lawsuits and proceedings, there have been several adverse judgments or decisions on the merits, some of which are subject to appeal. On April 3, 2014, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed a decision by the Wyoming State Board of Equalization that Travelocity and other OTAs are subject to sales tax on lodging. Similarly, on March 4, 2014, a trial court in Washington D.C. entered final judgment in favor of the District of Columbia on its claim that Travelocity and other OTAs are subject to the District’s hotel occupancy tax. Travelocity has appealed the trial court’s decision. We did not record material charges associated with these cases during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013. As of September 30, 2014, our reserve for these cases totaled $6 million and is included in other accrued liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets. On November 21, 2013, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled against Travelocity and other OTAs, holding that New York City’s hotel occupancy tax, which was amended in 2009 to capture revenue from fees charged to customers by third-party travel companies, is constitutional because such fees constitute rent as they are a condition of occupancy. Travelocity had been collecting and remitting taxes under the statute, so the ruling did not impact its financial results in that regard. On June 21, 2013, a state trial court in Cook County, Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Chicago and against Travelocity and other OTAs, ruling that Chicago’s hotel tax applies to the fees retained by the OTAs because, according to the trial court, OTAs act as hotel “managers” when facilitating hotel reservations. Travelocity subsequently settled the lawsuit prior to the entry of final judgment or any ruling on damages for an amount not material to our results of operations. On April 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“W.D.T.”) entered a final judgment against Travelocity and other OTAs in a class action lawsuit filed by the City of San Antonio. The final judgment was based on a jury verdict from October 30, 2009 that the OTAs “control” hotels for purposes of city hotel occupancy taxes. Following that jury verdict, on July 1, 2011, the W.D.T. concluded that fees charged by the OTAs are subject to city hotel occupancy taxes and that the OTAs have a duty to assess, collect and remit these taxes. We disagree with the jury’s finding that we “control” hotels, and with the W.D.T.’s conclusions based on the jury finding, and intend to appeal the final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The verdict against us, including penalties and interest, is $4 million which we do not believe we will ultimately pay and therefore have not accrued any loss related to this case. We believe the Fifth Circuit’s resolution of the San Antonio appeal may be affected by a separate Texas state appellate court decision in our favor. On October 26, 2011, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed a trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the OTAs in a case brought by the City of Houston and the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority on a similarly worded tax ordinance as the one at issue in the San Antonio case. The Texas Supreme Court denied the City of Houston’s petition to review the case. We believe this decision should provide persuasive authority to the Fifth Circuit in its review of the San Antonio case. In late 2012, the Tax Appeal Court of the State of Hawaii granted summary judgment in favor of Travelocity and other OTAs on the issue of whether Hawaii’s transient accommodation tax applies to the merchant revenue model. However, in January 2013, the same court granted summary judgment in favor of the State of Hawaii and against Travelocity and other OTAs on the issue of whether the state’s general excise tax, which is assessed on all business activity in the state, applies to the merchant revenue model for the period from 2002 to 2011. We recorded charges of $1 million and $17 million in cost of revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively, which represents the amount we would owe to the State of Hawaii, prior to appealing the Tax Appeal Court’s ruling, in back excise taxes, penalties and interest based on the court’s interpretation of the statute. As of September 30, 2014, we maintained an accrued liability of $9 million for this case and have not made material payments in the nine months ended September 30, 2014. Payment of such amount is not an admission that we believe we are subject to the taxes in question. The State of Hawaii has appealed the Tax Appeal Court’s decision that Travelocity is not subject to transient accommodation tax, and Travelocity has likewise appealed the Tax Appeal Court’s determination that we are subject to general excise tax, as we believe the decision is incorrect and inconsistent with the same court’s prior rulings. If any excise tax is in fact owed (which we dispute), we believe the correct amount should be under $10 million. The ultimate resolution of these contingencies may differ from the liabilities recorded. To the extent our appeal is successful in reducing or eliminating the assessed excise tax amounts, the State of Hawaii would be required to refund such amounts, plus interest. On May 20, 2013, the State of Hawaii issued additional assessments of general excise tax and hotel occupancy tax for the calendar year 2012. Travelocity has appealed these assessments to the Tax Appeal Court, and these assessments have been stayed pending a final appellate decision on the original assessments. On December 9, 2013, the State of Hawaii also issued assessments of general excise tax for merchant rental car bookings facilitated by Travelocity and other OTAs for the period 2001 to 2012 for which we recorded a $2 million reserve in the fourth quarter of 2013. Travelocity has appealed the assessment to the Tax Appeal Court, which ordered a stay of the assessment pending a final appellate decision on the original assessments. On July 18, 2014, the State of Hawaii also issued additional assessments of general excise tax and hotel occupancy tax for the calendar year 2013. Travelocity has appealed those assessments to the Tax Appeal Court and intends to request a stay of the assessments pending a final appellate decision on the original assessments. As of September 30, 2014, we have a reserve of $20 million, included in other accrued liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet, for the potential resolution of issues identified related to litigation involving hotel sales, occupancy or excise taxes, which includes the $11 million liability for the remaining payments to the State of Hawaii. As of December 31, 2013, the reserve for litigation involving hotel sales, occupancy or excise taxes was $18 million. Our estimated liability is based on our current best estimate but the ultimate resolution of these issues may be greater or less than the amount recorded and, if greater, could adversely affect our results of operations. In addition to the actions by the tax authorities, four consumer class action lawsuits have been filed against us in which the plaintiffs allege that we made misrepresentations concerning the description of the fees received in relation to facilitating hotel reservations. Generally, the consumer claims relate to whether Travelocity provided adequate notice to consumers regarding the nature of our fees and the amount of taxes charged or collected. One of these lawsuits was dismissed by the trial court and this dismissal was subsequently affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court; one was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs; one is pending in Texas state court, where the court is currently considering the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action; and the last is pending in federal court, but has been stayed pending the outcome of the Texas state court action. We believe the notice we provided was appropriate. In addition to the lawsuits, a number of state and local governments have initiated inquiries, audits and other administrative proceedings that could result in an assessment of sales or occupancy taxes on fees. If we do not prevail at the administrative level, those cases could lead to formal litigation proceedings. Pursuant to our Expedia SMA, we continue to be liable for fees, charges, costs and settlements relating to litigation arising from hotels booked on the Travelocity platform operated by Travelocity prior to the full implementation of the Expedia SMA. However, fees, charges, costs and settlements relating to litigation from hotels booked subsequent to the Expedia SMA will be shared with Expedia according to the terms of the Expedia SMA. Under the Expedia SMA, we are also required to guarantee Travelocity’s indemnification obligations to Expedia for any liabilities arising out of historical claims with respect to this type of litigation. US Airways Antitrust Litigation and DOJ Investigation US Airways Antitrust Litigation In April 2011, US Airways sued us in federal court in the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the Sherman Act Section 1 (anticompetitive agreements) and Section 2 (monopolization). The complaint was filed two months after we entered into a new distribution agreement with US Airways. In September 2011, the court dismissed all claims relating to Section 2. The claims that were not dismissed are claims brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act that relate to our contracts with airlines, especially US Airways itself, which US Airways says contain anticompetitive content-related provisions, and an alleged conspiracy with the other GDSs, allegedly to maintain the industry structure and not to implement US Airways’ preferred system of distributing its Choice Seats product. We strongly deny all of the allegations made by US Airways. US Airways quantifies its damages at either $317 million or $482 million (before trebling), depending on certain assumptions. We believe both estimates are based on faulty assumptions and analysis and therefore are highly overstated. In the event US Airways were to prevail on the merits of its claim, we believe any monetary damages awarded (before trebling) would be significantly less than either of US Airways’ proposed damage amounts. Document, fact and expert witness discovery are complete. Summary judgment motions were filed in April 2014 and we are awaiting a ruling. No trial date has been set and we anticipate the most likely trial date would be in the first half of 2015, assuming no delays with the court’s schedule and that we do not prevail completely with our summary judgment motions. We have and will incur significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as the litigation is ongoing. In addition, litigation by its nature is highly uncertain and fraught with risk, and it is therefore difficult to predict the outcome of any particular matter. If favorable resolution of the matter is not reached, any monetary damages are subject to trebling under the antitrust laws and US Airways would be eligible to be reimbursed by us for its costs and attorneys’ fees. Depending on the amount of any such judgment, if we do not have sufficient cash on hand, we may be required to seek financing through the issuance of additional equity or from private or public financing. Additionally, US Airways can and has sought injunctive relief, though we believe injunctive relief for US Airways is precluded by the settlement agreement we reached with American Airlines in 2012, which covers affiliates, including through merger, of American Airlines. If injunctive relief were granted, depending on its scope, it could affect the manner in which our airline distribution business is operated and potentially force changes to the existing airline distribution business model. Any of these consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Department of Justice Investigation On May 19, 2011, we received a civil investigative demand (“CID”) from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigating alleged anticompetitive acts related to the airline distribution component of our business. We are fully cooperating with the DOJ investigation and are unable to make any prediction regarding its outcome. The DOJ is also investigating other companies that own GDSs, and has sent CIDs to other companies in the travel industry. Based on its findings in the investigation, the DOJ may (i) close the file, (ii) seek a consent decree to remedy issues it believes violate the antitrust laws, or (iii) file suit against us for violating the antitrust laws, seeking injunctive relief. If injunctive relief were granted, depending on its scope, it could affect the manner in which our airline distribution business is operated and potentially force changes to the existing airline distribution business model. Any of these consequences would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Insurance Carriers We have disputes against two of our insurance carriers for failing to reimburse defense costs incurred in the American Airlines antitrust litigation, which we settled in October 2012. Both carriers admitted there is coverage, but reserved their rights not to pay should we be found liable for certain of American Airlines’ allegations. Despite their admission of coverage, the insurers have only reimbursed us for a small portion of our significant defense costs. We filed suit against the entities in New York state court alleging breach of contract and a statutory cause of action for failure to promptly pay claims. If we prevail, we may recover some or all amounts already tendered to the insurance companies for payment within the limits of the policies and may be entitled to 18% interest on such amounts. To date, settlement discussions have been unsuccessful. We are currently in the discovery process. The court has not yet scheduled a trial date though we anticipate trial to begin in the second half of 2015. Hotel Related Antitrust Proceedings On August 20, 2012, two individuals alleging to represent a putative class of bookers of online hotel reservations filed a complaint against Sabre Holdings, Travelocity.com LP, and several other online travel companies and hotel chains in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging federal and state antitrust and related claims. The complaint alleges generally that the defendants conspired to enter into illegal agreements relating to the price of hotel rooms. Over 30 copycat suits were filed in various courts in the United States. In December 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralized these cases in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas, which subsequently consolidated them. The proposed class period is January 1, 2003 through May 1, 2013. On June 15, 2013, the court granted Travelocity’s motion to compel arbitration of claims involving Travelocity bookings made on or after February 4, 2010. While all claims from February 4, 2010 through May 1, 2013 are now excluded from the lawsuit and must be arbitrated if pursued at all, the lawsuit still covers claims from January 1, 2003 through February 3, 2010. Together with the other defendants, Travelocity and Sabre filed a motion to dismiss. On February 18, 2014, the court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims without prejudice. The plaintiffs had moved for leave to file an amended complaint but the judge denied the motion on October 27, 2014. The plaintiffs will have an opportunity to appeal. We deny any conspiracy or any anti-competitive actions and we intend to aggressively defend against the claims. Even if we are ultimately successful in defending ourselves in this matter, we are likely to incur significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as it is ongoing. In addition, litigation by its nature is highly uncertain and fraught with risk, and it is difficult to predict the outcome of any particular matter. If favorable resolution of the matter is not reached, we could be subject to monetary damages, including treble damages under the antitrust laws, as well as injunctive relief. If injunctive relief were granted, depending on its scope, it could affect the manner in which our Travelocity business is operated and potentially force changes to the existing business model. Any of these consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Litigation Relating to Patent Infringement In April 2010, CEATS, Inc. (“CEATS”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against several ticketing companies and airlines, including JetBlue, in the Eastern District of Texas. CEATS alleged that the mouse-over seat map that appears on the defendants’ websites infringes certain of its patents. JetBlue’s website is provided by our Airline Solutions business under the SabreSonic Web service. On June 11, 2010, JetBlue requested that we indemnify and defend it for and against the CEATS lawsuit based on the indemnification provision in our agreement with JetBlue, and we agreed to a conditional indemnification. CEATS claimed damages of $0.30 per segment sold on JetBlue’s website during the relevant time period which totaled $10 million. A jury trial began on March 12, 2012, which resulted in a jury verdict invalidating the CEATS’ patents. Final judgment was entered and the plaintiff appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s decision in our favor on April 26, 2013. CEATS did not appeal the Federal Circuit’s decision, and its deadline to do so has passed. On June 28, 2013, the Eastern District denied CEATS’ previously filed motion to vacate the judgment based on an alleged conflict of interest with a mediator. CEATS appealed that decision and the Federal Circuit heard the appeal on May 5, 2014, and subsequently denied the appeal. On July 22, 2014, CEATs filed a motion for rehearing en banc before the Federal Circuit which was denied on September 5, 2014. CEATS has ninety days from the denial to file a petition for a review with the Supreme Court. Indian Income Tax Litigation We are currently a defendant in income tax litigation brought by the Indian Director of Income Tax (“DIT”) in the Supreme Court of India. The dispute arose in 1999 when the DIT asserted that we have a permanent establishment within the meaning of the Income Tax Treaty between the United States and the Republic of India and accordingly issued tax assessments for assessment years ending March 1998 and March 1999, and later issued further tax assessments for assessment years ending March 2000 through March 2006. We appealed the tax assessments and the Indian Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals returned a mixed verdict. We filed further appeals with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, or the ITAT. The ITAT ruled in our favor on June 19, 2009 and July 10, 2009, stating that no income would be chargeable to tax for assessment years ending March 1998 and March 1999, and from March 2000 through March 2006. The DIT appealed those decisions to the Delhi High Court, which found in our favor on July 19, 2010. The DIT has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of India and no trial date has been set. We intend to continue to aggressively defend against these claims. Although we do not believe that the outcome of the proceedings will result in a material impact on our business or financial condition, litigation is by its nature uncertain. If the DIT were to fully prevail on every claim, we could be subject to taxes, interest and penalties of approximately $26 million as of September 30, 2014, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We do not believe this outcome is probable and therefore have not made any provisions or recorded any liability for the potential resolution of this matter. Litigation Relating to Routine Proceedings We are also engaged from time to time in other routine legal and tax proceedings incidental to our business. We do not believe that any of these routine proceedings will have a material impact on the business or our financial condition.

14. Contingencies

Value Added Tax Receivables

We generate Value Added Tax (“VAT”) refund claims, recorded as receivables, in multiple jurisdictions through the normal course of our business. Audits related to these claims are in various stages of investigation. If the results of the audit or litigation were to become unfavorable, the uncollectible amounts could be material to our results of operations. In previous years, the right to recover certain VAT receivables associated with European businesses has been questioned by tax authorities. We believe that our claims are valid under applicable law and as such we will continue to pursue collection, possibly through litigation. We assess VAT receivables for collectability and may be required to record reserves in the future. Our VAT receivables totaled $24 million and $23 million as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, and are included in other receivables in our consolidated balance sheets.

Litigation and Risks Relating to Value Added Taxes

Holiday Autos, a discontinued operation (see Note 3, Discontinued Operations and Dispositions), conducted a cross border car rental brokering business that involved substantial sums of VAT receivables and payable from the period 2007 to 2009. Certain of the VAT receivables were challenged by tax authorities and successfully defended. In France, however, the Court of Appeal ruled against us on June 18, 2013 in respect of outstanding VAT refund claims of $4 million made for the periods 2007 through 2009. We believe our claims are valid and have appealed the decision to the Supreme Court in France. Due to litigation, significant delays and other factors impacting our settlement of these claims, we have recorded an allowance for losses relating to such events in assets of discontinued operations in our consolidated balance sheets. The allowances recorded as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, in respect of the French claims subject to litigation, were $4 million. Our VAT receivables, net of reserves, associated with Holiday Autos totaled $5 million and $6 million as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, and are included in assets of discontinued operations in our consolidated balance sheets.

As we dissolve subsidiaries associated with discontinued operations, tax authorities may or have initiated audits that could result in challenges to our refund claims and assessments of additional taxes. We believe the merits of our claims are valid and will aggressively defend any denial of our claims.

In the United Kingdom, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) had asserted that our subsidiary, Secret Hotels2 Limited (formerly Med Hotels Limited), failed to account for United Kingdom VAT on margins relating to hotels located within the European Union (“EU”). This business was sold in February 2009 to a third-party and we account for it as a discontinued operation. Because the sale was structured as an asset sale, we retained the potential tax liabilities of Secret Hotels2 Limited. HMRC issued assessments of tax totaling approximately $11 million. We appealed the assessments and as a result of an unfavorable ruling against us in the penultimate appeal court, we accrued $17 million of expense included in discontinued operations in the fourth quarter of 2012. On March 5, 2014 judgment was given in favor of Secret Hotels2 Limited. This judgment cannot be further appealed. We therefore reversed our reserve in 2013 in discontinued operations.

HMRC had started a review of other parts of our lastminute.com business in the United Kingdom. Following the favorable judgment in March 2014 associated with Secret Hotels2 Limited, HMRC ceased its review activity and withdrew its VAT claims against lastminute.com.

Legal Proceedings

While certain legal proceedings and related indemnification obligations to which we are a party specify the amounts claimed, these claims may not represent reasonably possible losses. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted at this time, nor can the amount of possible loss or range of loss, if any, be reasonably estimated, except in circumstances where an aggregate litigation accrual has been recorded for probable and reasonably estimable loss contingencies. A determination of the amount of accrual required, if any, for these contingencies is made after careful analysis of each matter. The required accrual may change in the future due to new information or developments in each matter or changes in approach such as a change in settlement strategy in dealing with these matters.

Litigation and Administrative Audit Proceedings Relating to Hotel Occupancy Taxes

Over the past ten years, various state and local governments in the United States have filed approximately 70 lawsuits against us and other OTAs pertaining primarily to whether Travelocity and other OTAs owe sales or occupancy taxes on some or all of the revenues they earn from facilitating hotel reservations using the merchant revenue model. In the merchant revenue model, the customer pays us an amount at the time of booking that includes (i) service fees, which we collect, and (ii) the price of the hotel room and amounts for occupancy or other local taxes, which we pass along to the hotel supplier. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the defendants failed to pay to the relevant taxing authority hotel accommodations taxes on the service fees. Courts have dismissed approximately 30 of these lawsuits, some for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and some on the basis that we are not subject to the sales or occupancy tax at issue based on the construction of the language in the ordinance. The Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits of the United States Courts of Appeals each have ruled in our favor on the merits, as have state appellate courts in Missouri, Alabama, Texas, California, Kentucky, Florida, Colorado and Pennsylvania, and a number of state and federal trial courts. The remaining lawsuits are in various stages of litigation. We have also settled some cases individually, most for nuisance value, and with respect to these settlements, have generally reserved our rights to challenge any effort by the applicable tax authority to impose occupancy taxes in the future.

We have received recent favorable decisions pertaining to cases in North Carolina, California, Montana, Arizona and Colorado. On August 19, 2014, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in favor of Travelocity and other OTAs after concluding they are not operators of hotels, motel or similar-type businesses and therefore are not subject to hotel occupancy tax. The plaintiffs have filed a petition for discretionary review with the North Carolina Supreme Court. On May 28, 2014, an administrative hearing officer in Arizona ruled that Travelocity is not responsible for collecting or remitting local hotel taxes and set aside assessments made by twelve municipalities in Arizona, including Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, and Tucson. On March 27, 2014, a California court of appeals upheld a trial court ruling that OTAs, including Travelocity, are not subject to the City of San Diego’s transient occupancy tax because they are not hotel operators or managing agents. The City of San Diego has filed a petition asking the Supreme Court of California to review the case. This marked the third time that a California appellate court has ruled in favor of Travelocity on the question of whether OTAs are subject to transient occupancy taxes in California, the prior two cases being brought by the City of Anaheim and City of Santa Monica. Travelocity also has prevailed at the trial court level in cases brought by San Francisco and Los Angeles, both of which are being appealed by the cities. On March 6, 2014, a Montana trial court ruled by summary judgment that Travelocity and other OTAs are not subject to the State of Montana’s lodging facility use tax or its sales tax on accommodations and vehicles. The lawsuit had been brought by the Montana Department of Revenue, which has appealed the decision. On July 3, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed a final judgment that Travelocity and OTAs are not liable for lodging taxes as claimed by the City of Denver. The City of Denver has petitioned the Supreme Court of Colorado to review the decision.

Although we have prevailed in the majority of these lawsuits and proceedings, there have been several adverse judgments or decisions on the merits, some of which are subject to appeal. On April 3, 2014, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed a decision by the Wyoming State Board of Equalization that Travelocity and other OTAs are subject to sales tax on lodging. Similarly, on March 4, 2014, a trial court in Washington D.C. entered final judgment in favor of the District of Columbia on its claim that Travelocity and other OTAs are subject to the District’s hotel occupancy tax. Travelocity has appealed the trial court’s decision. We did not record material charges associated with these cases during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013. As of September 30, 2014, our reserve for these cases totaled $6 million and is included in other accrued liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets.

On November 21, 2013, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled against Travelocity and other OTAs, holding that New York City’s hotel occupancy tax, which was amended in 2009 to capture revenue from fees charged to customers by third-party travel companies, is constitutional because such fees constitute rent as they are a condition of occupancy. Travelocity had been collecting and remitting taxes under the statute, so the ruling did not impact its financial results in that regard.

On June 21, 2013, a state trial court in Cook County, Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Chicago and against Travelocity and other OTAs, ruling that Chicago’s hotel tax applies to the fees retained by the OTAs because, according to the trial court, OTAs act as hotel “managers” when facilitating hotel reservations. Travelocity subsequently settled the lawsuit prior to the entry of final judgment or any ruling on damages for an amount not material to our results of operations.

On April 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“W.D.T.”) entered a final judgment against Travelocity and other OTAs in a class action lawsuit filed by the City of San Antonio. The final judgment was based on a jury verdict from October 30, 2009 that the OTAs “control” hotels for purposes of city hotel occupancy taxes. Following that jury verdict, on July 1, 2011, the W.D.T. concluded that fees charged by the OTAs are subject to city hotel occupancy taxes and that the OTAs have a duty to assess, collect and remit these taxes. We disagree with the jury’s finding that we “control” hotels, and with the W.D.T.’s conclusions based on the jury finding, and intend to appeal the final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The verdict against us, including penalties and interest, is $4 million which we do not believe we will ultimately pay and therefore have not accrued any loss related to this case.

We believe the Fifth Circuit’s resolution of the San Antonio appeal may be affected by a separate Texas state appellate court decision in our favor. On October 26, 2011, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed a trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the OTAs in a case brought by the City of Houston and the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority on a similarly worded tax ordinance as the one at issue in the San Antonio case. The Texas Supreme Court denied the City of Houston’s petition to review the case. We believe this decision should provide persuasive authority to the Fifth Circuit in its review of the San Antonio case.

In late 2012, the Tax Appeal Court of the State of Hawaii granted summary judgment in favor of Travelocity and other OTAs on the issue of whether Hawaii’s transient accommodation tax applies to the merchant revenue model. However, in January 2013, the same court granted summary judgment in favor of the State of Hawaii and against Travelocity and other OTAs on the issue of whether the state’s general excise tax, which is assessed on all business activity in the state, applies to the merchant revenue model for the period from 2002 to 2011.

We recorded charges of $1 million and $17 million in cost of revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively, which represents the amount we would owe to the State of Hawaii, prior to appealing the Tax Appeal Court’s ruling, in back excise taxes, penalties and interest based on the court’s interpretation of the statute. As of September 30, 2014, we maintained an accrued liability of $9 million for this case and have not made material payments in the nine months ended September 30, 2014. Payment of such amount is not an admission that we believe we are subject to the taxes in question.

The State of Hawaii has appealed the Tax Appeal Court’s decision that Travelocity is not subject to transient accommodation tax, and Travelocity has likewise appealed the Tax Appeal Court’s determination that we are subject to general excise tax, as we believe the decision is incorrect and inconsistent with the same court’s prior rulings. If any excise tax is in fact owed (which we dispute), we believe the correct amount should be under $10 million. The ultimate resolution of these contingencies may differ from the liabilities recorded. To the extent our appeal is successful in reducing or eliminating the assessed excise tax amounts, the State of Hawaii would be required to refund such amounts, plus interest. On May 20, 2013, the State of Hawaii issued additional assessments of general excise tax and hotel occupancy tax for the calendar year 2012. Travelocity has appealed these assessments to the Tax Appeal Court, and these assessments have been stayed pending a final appellate decision on the original assessments.

On December 9, 2013, the State of Hawaii also issued assessments of general excise tax for merchant rental car bookings facilitated by Travelocity and other OTAs for the period 2001 to 2012 for which we recorded a $2 million reserve in the fourth quarter of 2013. Travelocity has appealed the assessment to the Tax Appeal Court, which ordered a stay of the assessment pending a final appellate decision on the original assessments.

On July 18, 2014, the State of Hawaii also issued additional assessments of general excise tax and hotel occupancy tax for the calendar year 2013. Travelocity has appealed those assessments to the Tax Appeal Court and intends to request a stay of the assessments pending a final appellate decision on the original assessments.

As of September 30, 2014, we have a reserve of $20 million, included in other accrued liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet, for the potential resolution of issues identified related to litigation involving hotel sales, occupancy or excise taxes, which includes the $11 million liability for the remaining payments to the State of Hawaii. As of December 31, 2013, the reserve for litigation involving hotel sales, occupancy or excise taxes was $18 million. Our estimated liability is based on our current best estimate but the ultimate resolution of these issues may be greater or less than the amount recorded and, if greater, could adversely affect our results of operations.

In addition to the actions by the tax authorities, four consumer class action lawsuits have been filed against us in which the plaintiffs allege that we made misrepresentations concerning the description of the fees received in relation to facilitating hotel reservations. Generally, the consumer claims relate to whether Travelocity provided adequate notice to consumers regarding the nature of our fees and the amount of taxes charged or collected. One of these lawsuits was dismissed by the trial court and this dismissal was subsequently affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court; one was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs; one is pending in Texas state court, where the court is currently considering the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action; and the last is pending in federal court, but has been stayed pending the outcome of the Texas state court action. We believe the notice we provided was appropriate.

In addition to the lawsuits, a number of state and local governments have initiated inquiries, audits and other administrative proceedings that could result in an assessment of sales or occupancy taxes on fees. If we do not prevail at the administrative level, those cases could lead to formal litigation proceedings.

Pursuant to our Expedia SMA, we continue to be liable for fees, charges, costs and settlements relating to litigation arising from hotels booked on the Travelocity platform operated by Travelocity prior to the full implementation of the Expedia SMA. However, fees, charges, costs and settlements relating to litigation from hotels booked subsequent to the Expedia SMA will be shared with Expedia according to the terms of the Expedia SMA. Under the Expedia SMA, we are also required to guarantee Travelocity’s indemnification obligations to Expedia for any liabilities arising out of historical claims with respect to this type of litigation.

US Airways Antitrust Litigation and DOJ Investigation

US Airways Antitrust Litigation

In April 2011, US Airways sued us in federal court in the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the Sherman Act Section 1 (anticompetitive agreements) and Section 2 (monopolization). The complaint was filed two months after we entered into a new distribution agreement with US Airways. In September 2011, the court dismissed all claims relating to Section 2. The claims that were not dismissed are claims brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act that relate to our contracts with airlines, especially US Airways itself, which US Airways says contain anticompetitive content-related provisions, and an alleged conspiracy with the other GDSs, allegedly to maintain the industry structure and not to implement US Airways’ preferred system of distributing its Choice Seats product. We strongly deny all of the allegations made by US Airways. US Airways quantifies its damages at either $317 million or $482 million (before trebling), depending on certain assumptions. We believe both estimates are based on faulty assumptions and analysis and therefore are highly overstated. In the event US Airways were to prevail on the merits of its claim, we believe any monetary damages awarded (before trebling) would be significantly less than either of US Airways’ proposed damage amounts.

Document, fact and expert witness discovery are complete. Summary judgment motions were filed in April 2014 and we are awaiting a ruling. No trial date has been set and we anticipate the most likely trial date would be in the first half of 2015, assuming no delays with the court’s schedule and that we do not prevail completely with our summary judgment motions.

We have and will incur significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as the litigation is ongoing. In addition, litigation by its nature is highly uncertain and fraught with risk, and it is therefore difficult to predict the outcome of any particular matter. If favorable resolution of the matter is not reached, any monetary damages are subject to trebling under the antitrust laws and US Airways would be eligible to be reimbursed by us for its costs and attorneys’ fees. Depending on the amount of any such judgment, if we do not have sufficient cash on hand, we may be required to seek financing through the issuance of additional equity or from private or public financing. Additionally, US Airways can and has sought injunctive relief, though we believe injunctive relief for US Airways is precluded by the settlement agreement we reached with American Airlines in 2012, which covers affiliates, including through merger, of American Airlines. If injunctive relief were granted, depending on its scope, it could affect the manner in which our airline distribution business is operated and potentially force changes to the existing airline distribution business model. Any of these consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Department of Justice Investigation

On May 19, 2011, we received a civil investigative demand (“CID”) from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigating alleged anticompetitive acts related to the airline distribution component of our business. We are fully cooperating with the DOJ investigation and are unable to make any prediction regarding its outcome. The DOJ is also investigating other companies that own GDSs, and has sent CIDs to other companies in the travel industry. Based on its findings in the investigation, the DOJ may (i) close the file, (ii) seek a consent decree to remedy issues it believes violate the antitrust laws, or (iii) file suit against us for violating the antitrust laws, seeking injunctive relief. If injunctive relief were granted, depending on its scope, it could affect the manner in which our airline distribution business is operated and potentially force changes to the existing airline distribution business model. Any of these consequences would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Insurance Carriers

We have disputes against two of our insurance carriers for failing to reimburse defense costs incurred in the American Airlines antitrust litigation, which we settled in October 2012. Both carriers admitted there is coverage, but reserved their rights not to pay should we be found liable for certain of American Airlines’ allegations. Despite their admission of coverage, the insurers have only reimbursed us for a small portion of our significant defense costs. We filed suit against the entities in New York state court alleging breach of contract and a statutory cause of action for failure to promptly pay claims. If we prevail, we may recover some or all amounts already tendered to the insurance companies for payment within the limits of the policies and may be entitled to 18% interest on such amounts. To date, settlement discussions have been unsuccessful. We are currently in the discovery process. The court has not yet scheduled a trial date though we anticipate trial to begin in the second half of 2015.

Hotel Related Antitrust Proceedings

On August 20, 2012, two individuals alleging to represent a putative class of bookers of online hotel reservations filed a complaint against Sabre Holdings, Travelocity.com LP, and several other online travel companies and hotel chains in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging federal and state antitrust and related claims. The complaint alleges generally that the defendants conspired to enter into illegal agreements relating to the price of hotel rooms. Over 30 copycat suits were filed in various courts in the United States. In December 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralized these cases in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas, which subsequently consolidated them. The proposed class period is January 1, 2003 through May 1, 2013. On June 15, 2013, the court granted Travelocity’s motion to compel arbitration of claims involving Travelocity bookings made on or after February 4, 2010. While all claims from February 4, 2010 through May 1, 2013 are now excluded from the lawsuit and must be arbitrated if pursued at all, the lawsuit still covers claims from January 1, 2003 through February 3, 2010. Together with the other defendants, Travelocity and Sabre filed a motion to dismiss. On February 18, 2014, the court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims without prejudice. The plaintiffs had moved for leave to file an amended complaint but the judge denied the motion on October 27, 2014. The plaintiffs will have an opportunity to appeal. We deny any conspiracy or any anti-competitive actions and we intend to aggressively defend against the claims.

Even if we are ultimately successful in defending ourselves in this matter, we are likely to incur significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as it is ongoing. In addition, litigation by its nature is highly uncertain and fraught with risk, and it is difficult to predict the outcome of any particular matter. If favorable resolution of the matter is not reached, we could be subject to monetary damages, including treble damages under the antitrust laws, as well as injunctive relief. If injunctive relief were granted, depending on its scope, it could affect the manner in which our Travelocity business is operated and potentially force changes to the existing business model. Any of these consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Litigation Relating to Patent Infringement

In April 2010, CEATS, Inc. (“CEATS”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against several ticketing companies and airlines, including JetBlue, in the Eastern District of Texas. CEATS alleged that the mouse-over seat map that appears on the defendants’ websites infringes certain of its patents. JetBlue’s website is provided by our Airline Solutions business under the SabreSonic Web service. On June 11, 2010, JetBlue requested that we indemnify and defend it for and against the CEATS lawsuit based on the indemnification provision in our agreement with JetBlue, and we agreed to a conditional indemnification. CEATS claimed damages of $0.30 per segment sold on JetBlue’s website during the relevant time period which totaled $10 million. A jury trial began on March 12, 2012, which resulted in a jury verdict invalidating the CEATS’ patents. Final judgment was entered and the plaintiff appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s decision in our favor on April 26, 2013. CEATS did not appeal the Federal Circuit’s decision, and its deadline to do so has passed. On June 28, 2013, the Eastern District denied CEATS’ previously filed motion to vacate the judgment based on an alleged conflict of interest with a mediator. CEATS appealed that decision and the Federal Circuit heard the appeal on May 5, 2014, and subsequently denied the appeal. On July 22, 2014, CEATs filed a motion for rehearing en banc before the Federal Circuit which was denied on September 5, 2014. CEATS has ninety days from the denial to file a petition for a review with the Supreme Court.

Indian Income Tax Litigation

We are currently a defendant in income tax litigation brought by the Indian Director of Income Tax (“DIT”) in the Supreme Court of India. The dispute arose in 1999 when the DIT asserted that we have a permanent establishment within the meaning of the Income Tax Treaty between the United States and the Republic of India and accordingly issued tax assessments for assessment years ending March 1998 and March 1999, and later issued further tax assessments for assessment years ending March 2000 through March 2006. We appealed the tax assessments and the Indian Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals returned a mixed verdict. We filed further appeals with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, or the ITAT. The ITAT ruled in our favor on June 19, 2009 and July 10, 2009, stating that no income would be chargeable to tax for assessment years ending March 1998 and March 1999, and from March 2000 through March 2006. The DIT appealed those decisions to the Delhi High Court, which found in our favor on July 19, 2010. The DIT has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of India and no trial date has been set.

We intend to continue to aggressively defend against these claims. Although we do not believe that the outcome of the proceedings will result in a material impact on our business or financial condition, litigation is by its nature uncertain. If the DIT were to fully prevail on every claim, we could be subject to taxes, interest and penalties of approximately $26 million as of September 30, 2014, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We do not believe this outcome is probable and therefore have not made any provisions or recorded any liability for the potential resolution of this matter.

Litigation Relating to Routine Proceedings

We are also engaged from time to time in other routine legal and tax proceedings incidental to our business. We do not believe that any of these routine proceedings will have a material impact on the business or our financial condition.