Item 3. Legal Proceedings

| --- | --- | --- |

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to threats of litigation and are involved in actual litigation and damage claims arising in the ordinary course of business, such as actions related to injuries, property damage, and handling or disposal of vehicles. The material pending legal proceedings to which we are party to, or of which our property is subject to include the following matters.

On November 1, 2013, we filed suit against Sparta Consulting, Inc. (now known as “KPIT”) in the 44th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, alleging fraud, fraudulent inducement, and/or promissory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair business practices pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17200, breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and attorney’s fees. We seek compensatory and exemplary damages, disgorgement of amounts paid, attorney’s fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, and a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights, duties, and obligations under the Implementation Services Agreement dated October 6, 2011. The suit arises out of our September 17, 2013 decision to terminate the Implementation Services Agreement, under which KPIT was to design, implement, and deliver a customized replacement enterprise resource planning system for us. On January 2, 2014, KPIT removed this suit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On August 11, 2014, the Northern District of Texas transferred the suit to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California for convenience. On January 8, 2014, KPIT filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, account stated, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. KPIT

seeks compensatory and exemplary damages, prejudgment interest, costs of suit, and a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights, duties, and obligations under the Implementation Services Agreement. We are zealously pursuing our claim for damages, and vigorously defending KPIT’s claim for damages.

In connection with our response to Hurricane Sandy, we entered into various short-term lease/license agreements with certain land owners in New York and New Jersey to marshal and store storm damaged vehicles until they were sold. In November and December 2012, various actions were commenced against us and land owners. In New York, actions were brought by the Town of Southampton, the County of Suffolk, the Town of Brookhaven, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (the DEC), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as civil penalties, in connection with alleged violations of local zoning, land use and environmental regulations. The claims by the various plaintiffs have been mitigated with the removal of vehicles from the various short-term storage locations in New York. The claims brought by the DEC have all been resolved through entering into consent orders, which included administrative payments in amounts that are not material to us, and restoration of premises, which we are undertaking. We are defending the remaining New York claim and believe we have bona fide legal defenses.

We have provided for costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The effect of the outcome of these matters on our future consolidated results of operations and cash flows cannot be predicted because any such effect depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing of the resolution of such matters. We believe that any ultimate liability will not have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. However, the amount of the liabilities associated with these claims, if any, cannot be determined with certainty. We maintain insurance which may or may not provide coverage for claims made against us. There is no assurance that there will be insurance coverage available when and if needed. Additionally, the insurance that we carry requires that we pay for costs and/or claims exposure up to the amount of the insurance deductibles negotiated when the insurance is purchased.

Governmental Proceedings

The Georgia Department of Revenue, or DOR, conducted a sales and use tax audit of our operations in Georgia for the period from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011. As a result of the audit, the DOR issued a notice of proposed assessment for uncollected sales taxes in which it asserted that we failed to remit sales taxes totaling $73.8 million, including penalties and interest. In issuing the notice of proposed assessment, the DOR stated its policy position that sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers are subject to Georgia sales and use tax.

We have engaged a Georgia law firm and outside tax advisors to review the conduct of our business operations in Georgia, the notice of assessment, and the DOR’s policy position. In particular, our outside legal counsel has provided us an opinion that the sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers should not be subject to Georgia sales and use tax. In rendering its opinion, our counsel noted that non-U.S. registered resellers are unable to comply strictly with technical requirements for a Georgia certificate of exemption but concluded that our sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers should not be subject to Georgia sales and use tax notwithstanding this technical inability to comply.

Based on the opinion from our outside law firm and advice from outside tax advisors, we have adequately provided for the payment of a possible assessment in our consolidated financial statements. We believe we have strong defenses to the DOR’s notice of proposed assessment and intend to defend this matter. We have filed a request for protest or administrative appeal with the State of Georgia. There can be no assurance that this matter will be resolved in our favor or that we will not ultimately be required to make a substantial payment to the Georgia DOR. We understand that Georgia law and DOR regulations are ambiguous on many of the points at issue in the audit, and litigating and defending the matter in Georgia could be expensive and time-consuming and result in substantial management distraction. If the matter were to

be resolved in a manner adverse to us, it could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position, and cash flows.