Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 56
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE TRAVELZOO INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Civil Action No.: 1 1-CV-5531 (GBD)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CONSOLIDATED AND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1. Lead Plaintiffs Michele Minnick and Jan Frazer ("Lead Plaintiffs" or "Plaintiffs")
allege the following upon information and belief, except as to those allegations concerning Lead
Plaintiffs, which are alleged upon personal knowledge. Lead Plaintiffs' information and belief
are based upon, among other things, Lead Counsel's investigation, which includes without
limitation, review and analysis of filings with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"), press releases, news articles, and analyst reports. Lead Plaintiffs believe
that substantial additional evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a
reasonable opportunity for discovery.
2. This is a federal class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Travelzoo
Inc. ("Travelzoo" or the "Company") between March 16, 2011, and July 21, 2011, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"). As alleged herein, Defendants published a series of materially false and
misleading statements that Defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded were materially false
and misleading at the time of such publication, and that omitted to reveal material information
necessary to make Defendants' statements, in light of such material omissions, not materially
false and misleading.
52043 vi
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 56
3. Travelzoo is a global Internet media company founded in 1998 by Defendant
Ralph Bartel. Travelzoo informs over 23 million subscribers worldwide, as well as millions of
website users, about travel, entertainment and local deals available from thousands of companies.
4. Travelzoo has two branches: (i) its core travel business, which publishes email
newsletters that offer sharply discounted travel deals in return for up-front advertising fees paid
by hotels, airlines, or cruises; and (ii) its Local Deals business, which was launched in August
2010, through which Travelzoo subscribers can purchase vouchers for deals from local
businesses such as spas and restaurants through the Travelzoo website. A portion of the fee from
the voucher is paid to the merchant, usually 60-70%, and the remainder is paid to Travelzoo.
Local Deals grew quickly after the first quarter of its introduction, which was the third quarter of
2010. In fact, from the first to second quarter of its operations, Local Deals' gross revenues
increased approximately 1000%.
5. Travelzoo launched Local Deals Getaways ("Getaways"), a branch of Local Deals
relating to travel, in March 2011 - but, tellingly, Defendants did not disclose the launch of
Getaways until June 1, 2011. Getaways differed from the usual Local Deals offers which sold
vouchers for, e.g., spas, restaurants, or other entertainment. Getaways, in contrast, sold vouchers
for hotels and travel, catering to subscribers who wanted a getaway local to them. Getaways was
thus a hybrid between Local Deals and the Company's core travel business. Getaways typically
paired a hotel stay with a spa or restaurant deal, often in driving distance from the subscriber.
6. During the Class Period, Getaways' business began to eat into Travelzoo's core
travel business, adversely affecting Travelzoo revenue growth and bottom line revenues in the
second quarter of 2011. Hotel rooms are limited and there were not an infinite amount of deals
that could be offered at any hotel. Thus, as confirmed by Defendant Loughlin after the Class
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 3 of 56
Period, offering a Getaway deal at a local hotel to subscribers who lived nearby was often at the
expense of offering a deal through the core travel branch.
7. Getaways adversely affected revenue growth and bottom line revenues because,
although both Getaways and core travel businesses related to hotel deals, advertising revenue
received by the core travel business was, in certain circumstances, superior to voucher revenue
received through Getaways. As noted, revenue was paid to the Company differently in the two
branches, core travel and Getaways. In the core travel part of the business, advertising revenue
was paid up front by hotels, airlines, or cruises in return for placing their business on Travelzoo's
email lists which were sent to its worldwide subscribers. In the Getaways business, revenue,
only 30-40% of which went to Travelzoo, was paid by a customer for a voucher that could be
redeemed at a local hotel.
8. For example, if Travelzoo offered a Getaways deal at a London hotel, to
Travelzoo customers who were in driving distance of (or a very short flight from) London, for
$1,000, and ten customers signed up, that would equal $10,000 in gross revenue. If Travelzoo' s
take rate was 40%, the Company would receive $4,000 in net revenue. If, in contrast, Travelzoo
offered a deal at the same hotel on its core travel side through its Top 20 email list to subscribers
worldwide (who would travel, often from far away, to London for this deal), the Company would
generally receive between $5,000 and $10,000 from the hotel in advertising revenue. Thus,
revenues were often not simply taken from one branch (core travel) and given to another
(Getaways) - overall revenues dropped as Getaways cannibalized core travel revenues, as
disclosed at the end of the Class Period.
9. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants were aware of such inevitable
cannibalization of growth and revenue by Getaways. Indeed, Defendant CEO Loughlin admitted
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 4 of 56
after the Class Period that he was aware of that danger but proceeded with Getaways anyway -
without communicating the effect such cannibalization would have on revenues, growth and
earnings to investors. Defendant Loughlin also admitted that revenue cannibalization caused
lower core travel revenue growth. Certain analysts put the rest together, realizing that the
revenue cannibalization had also, in part, caused lower overall revenues.
10. Although the Company does not issue specific guidance on earnings and
revenues, Defendants knew full well what analysts were reporting about the Company. A few
weeks before the start of the Class Period, on March 2, 2011, Defendant Loughlin appeared on
Jim Cramer's Mad Money on CNBC. Defendant Loughlin stated that "the analysts give
guidance. But you know what? We beat them.... It is a growth story and it's a very exciting
opportunity."
11. Indeed, Travelzoo met or exceeded analysts' estimates for seven straight quarters.
The shortfall in the second quarter 2011, the subject of this case, was the first shortfall since the
second quarter of 2009.
12. Defendants have made revenues and earnings growth Travelzoo's story from the
beginning. And Travelzoo's growth was astronomical. Between 2002 and 2010, Travelzoo's
annual revenues increased from $9.9 million to $112.8 million, and its net income grew from
$850,000 to $13.2 million. The Company repeatedly emphasized in very particular terms the
importance of continual growth, including revenue growth. In press release after press release,
conference call after conference call, the story was the same - the Company's meteoric and
unbroken growth. The Company's continued drumbeat on growth is significant because it
conditioned the market to view Travelzoo as a growth company, and growth companies
generally trade at premiums because their growth is taken into account when valuing the
11
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 5 of 56
company. Further, for any company, but particularly for a growth company - which is precisely
how Defendants repeatedly described Travelzoo - what is significant is what lies ahead rather
than what lies behind.
13. Thus, after analysts reacted to Defendants' repeated statements concerning
growth, Defendants cannot claim that they had nothing to do with analyst expectations -
Defendants created such expectations with their own continuous and glowing statements about
growth.
14. On July 21, 2011, Travelzoo announced lower than-expected revenues caused, in
part, by Getaways' cannibalization of revenues and growth from the Company's core business
branch. This revelation caused Travelzoo stock to collapse from approximately $90 per share to
approximately $60 per share - over 30% - losing approximately $220 million in market
capitalization in one day. Travelzoo stock currently trades around $25 per share.
15. Defendants' motive to commit fraud is clear from the unmistakable pattern,
suspicious timing, and overwhelming amount, of insider sales: Defendant CEO Christopher
Loughlin, who had never sold one Travelzoo share, suddenly sold 100% of his Travelzoo shares
- which he had slowly bought for years - on May 2, 2011, just weeks after a stellar first quarter
earnings and revenue announcement, and a week before he was selling the Company's growth on
Mad Money. Likewise, Defendant director and Company founder Ralph Bartel, after selling no
Travelzoo shares for over four and a half years, unloaded a whopping $186 million worth of
Company shares during just seven weeks of the Class Period. Finally, Defendant Kelly Urso
sold about 95% of her Travelzoo shares during the Class Period on the heels of the stellar first
quarter earnings announcement. Further, Defendant Urso had sold shares only once in the
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 6 of 56
previous six years. In total, these Defendants sold almost 2.5 million Travelzoo shares for
proceeds of almost $190 million.
16. Lead Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class suffered substantial harm by
Defendants' fraud, losing hundreds of millions of dollars.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17. The claims asserted herein arise under and pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule lOb-S promulgated thereunder by
the SEC [17 C.F.R. § 240.1Ob-5].
18. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337, and Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78aa].
19. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act, and
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Travelzoo maintains its principal place of business in this District and
many of the acts and practices complained of herein occurred in substantial part in this District.
20. In connection with the acts alleged in this complaint, Defendants, directly or
indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including, but not
limited to, the mails, interstate telephone communications and the facilities of the national
securities markets.
PARTIES
21. Lead Plaintiffs, as set forth in the certifications accompanying their motion to be
appointed as Lead Plaintiffs, incorporated by reference herein, purchased the common stock of
Travelzoo at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and have been damaged thereby.
22. Additional named plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30
Pension Fund ("IUOE") purchased the common stock of Travelzoo at artificially inflated prices
no
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 7 of 56
during the Class Period and has been damaged thereby. IUOE's certification was submitted in
connection with its motion for appointment as lead plaintiff.
23. Defendant Travelzoo Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Delaware, which maintains its principal place of business at 590 Madison Avenue - 37th Floor,
New York, NY 10022.
24. Defendant Ralph Bartel is the founder of the Company. He founded Travelzoo in
May 1998, and has served as a Director since July 2010. Defendant Bartel signed the 2010 Form
10-K. He was also the Chairman of the Board of Directors from May 1998 to June 2010 and
Travelzoo's Chief Executive Officer and President from May 1998 to September 2008. Ralph
Bartel also indirectly owns 100% of Azzurro Capital Inc. Throughout the Class Period, Azzurro
Capital Inc., held 10.9 million shares of Travelzoo common stock through the Ralph Bartel 2005
Trust, representing approximately 66% of the Company's outstanding shares, as of March 31,
2011. During the Class Period, Defendant Ralph Bartel sold and/or disposed of over 2.436
million Travelzoo shares that he owned or controlled to reap illicit proceeds of over $ 186.536
million, while in possession of material adverse non-public information about the Company.
25. Defendant Christopher J. Loughlin ("Loughlin") is, and during the Class Period
was, Chief Executive Officer of the Company. During the Class Period, Defendant Loughlin
certified the Company's First Quarter 2011 Form 10-Q and 2010 Form 10-K. Also during the
Class Period, Defendant Loughlin sold 12,640 Travelzoo shares that he owned or controlled to
reap illicit proceeds of approximately $1.02 million, while in possession of material adverse non-
public information about the Company. Defendant Loughlin has served as Chief Executive
Officer since July 2010, after serving as Executive Vice President, Europe since May 2005.
Defendant Loughlin joined the Company in 2001.
7
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 8 of 56
26. Defendant Wayne Lee ("Lee") was, during the Class Period, Travelzoo's Chief
Financial Officer. Defendant Lee announced that he was leaving the Company, to be replaced
by Glen Ceremony, in May 2011. During the Class Period, Defendant Lee signed and certified
the Company's First Quarter 2011 Form 10-Q and 2010 Form 10-K.
27. Defendant Kelly Urso ("Urso") was, during the Class Period, a director of
Travelzoo. Defendant Urso has served as a Travelzoo director since February 1999. Defendant
Urso signed the 2010 Form 10-K. During the Class Period, Defendant Urso sold approximately
$900,000 of Travelzoo stock while in the possession of nonpublic, material information.
28. The Defendants referenced above in ¶J 24-27 are referred to herein as the
"Individual Defendants."
29. The Individual Defendants, because of their positions with the Company,
possessed the power and authority to control the contents of Travelzoo' s annual and quarterly
reports, press releases, and presentations to securities analysts, money and portfolio managers
and institutional investors, i.e., the market. They were provided with copies of the Company's
reports and press releases alleged herein to be misleading prior to or shortly after their issuance
and had the ability and opportunity to prevent their issuance or cause them to be corrected.
Because of their positions with the Company, and their access to material non-public information
available to them but not to the public, the Individual Defendants knew that the adverse facts
specified herein had not been disclosed to and were being concealed from the public and that the
positive representations being made were then materially false and misleading. The Individual
Defendants are liable for the false and misleading statements pleaded herein.
30. Each of the Defendants is liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and course
of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Travelzoo securities by
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 9 of 56
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse
facts. The scheme: (i) deceived the investing public regarding Travelzoo ' s business, operations,
and the intrinsic value of Travelzoo securities; (ii) enabled Defendants to artificially inflate the
price of Travelzoo shares; (iii) enabled Travelzoo insiders to sell almost $190 million dollars of
their privately held Travelzoo shares while in possession of material adverse non-public
information about the Company; and (iv) caused Plaintiffs and other members of the Class to
purchase Travelzoo securities at artificially inflated prices.
PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
31. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a Class, consisting of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Travelzoo between March 16, 2011 and July 21, 2011,
inclusive (the "Class") and who were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are
Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their
immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.
32. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. Throughout the Class Period, Travelzoo common shares were actively traded on
the Nasdaq. As of May 5, 2011, the Company had over 16.461 million shares of common stock
issued and outstanding. While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs at
this time and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiffs believe that there
are hundreds or thousands of members in the proposed Class. Record owners and other members
of the Class may be identified from records maintained by Travelzoo or its transfer agent and
may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail, using the form of notice similar to that
customarily used in securities class actions.
9
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 10 of 56
33. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class as all
members of the Class are similarly affected by Defendants' wrongful conduct in violation of
federal law that is complained of herein.
34. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the
Class and have retained counsel competent and experienced in class and securities litigation.
35. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and
predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. Among the
questions of law and fact common to the Class are:
(a) whether the federal securities laws were violated by Defendants'
acts as alleged herein;
(b) whether statements made by Defendants to the investing public
during the Class Period misrepresented material facts about the business and operations of
Travelzoo; and
(c) to what extent the members of the Class have sustained damages
and the proper measure of damages.
36. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. Furthermore, as
the damages suffered by individual Class members may be relatively small, the expense and
burden of individual litigation make it impossible for members of the Class to individually
redress the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as
a class action.
10
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 11 of 56
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
Background of the Company
37. Travelzoo is a global Internet media company founded in 1998 by Defendant
Bartel. Travelzoo informs over 23 million subscribers worldwide, as well as millions of website
users, about travel, entertainment and local deals available from thousands of companies. The
Company's deal experts source, research and test-book offers, recommending only those that
meet Company standards. Travelzoo provides travel companies, entertainment companies, and
local businesses with a fast, flexible, and cost effective way to reach millions of consumers.
Travelzoo' s revenues are generated primarily from advertising fees through the Company's core
travel branch.
38. The Company's publications and products include the Travelzoo websites
(www.travelzoo.com , www.travelzoo.ca , www.travelzoo.co.uk , www.travelzoo.de ,
www.travelzoo.es , www.travelzoo.fr , among others), the Travelzoo Top 20 e-mail newsletter,
the Newsflash e-mail alert service, the SuperSearch pay-per-click travel search tool, and the
Travelzoo Network, a network of third-party websites that list deals published by Travelzoo.
Travelzoo also operates Fly.com , a travel search engine that allows users to quickly and easily
find the best prices on flights from hundreds of airlines and online travel agencies.
39. More than 2,000 companies use Travelzoo's services, including American
Airlines, Avis Rent A Car, British Airways, Harrah' s Entertainment, Expedia, Fairmont Hotels
and Resorts, Interstate Hotels & Resorts, JetBlue Airways, Kimpton Hotels, Liberty Travel,
Marriott Hotels, Royal Caribbean, Spirit Airlines, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide,
United Airlines, and Virgin Atlantic.
40. Travelzoo's principal revenues, which it receives through its core travel business,
are advertising revenues, and consist primarily of listing fees paid by travel companies,
11
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 12 of 56
entertainment companies and local businesses to advertise their offers on Travelzoo's media
properties. Listing fees are based on audience reach, placement, number of listings, number of
impressions, number of click-throughs, number of referrals, or percentage of the face value of
vouchers sold. Advertising insertion orders are typically for periods between one month and
twelve months and are not automatically renewed.
Local Deals Is Launched
41. In August 2010, the Company expanded its business, launching Local Deals, a
new service that allows Travelzoo subscribers to purchase vouchers for deals from local
businesses such as spas and restaurants through the Travelzoo website. Vouchers are redeemable
at the local businesses during the promotional period. The Company receives a percentage of the
face value of the vouchers. In the Local Deals business, Travelzoo contracts with local
businesses to offer deep discounts for potential customers (Travelzoo's existing subscribers).
Then Travelzoo sells the discounts (in the form of a voucher for goods or services) and keeps
between 30 to 40% of total revenue the Company sells as commission.
42. Unlike revenue Travelzoo receives through its core travel business, which is
straight advertising revenue paid up front by merchants, Local Deals revenue is dependent on the
amount of vouchers sold.
Growth Has Been Travelzoo's Driver For Many Years
43. The Company has repeatedly emphasized the necessity of growth for Travelzoo.
For example, Travelzoo stated in its Form 10-K for fiscal year 2010, filed on March 16, 2011:
Since the commencement of our operations, we have experienced a period of rapid growth. In order to execute our business plan, we must continue to grow significantly. As of December 31, 2010, we had 255 employees, up from 193 employees as of December 31, 2009. We expect that the number of our employees will continue to increase for the foreseeable future. (Emphasis added).
12
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 13 of 56
44. Travelzoo has also repeatedly stated that its growth strategy involved continued
growth in revenue through both core travel and Local Deals. For example, in the Third Quarter
2010 Form 10-Q, filed on November 9, 2010, the Company stated:
Growth Strategy
Our growth strategy has three main elements:
• International expansion: We want to grow our revenue and operating profit through replicating the Travelzoo business in attractive international markets in Europe and in North America. We want to develop a strong competitive position through building a strong global brand and unique global content.
• Expand scope of the Travelzoo business: We want to grow our revenue and operating profit through expanding the Travelzoo product offerings and content into entertainment and lifestyle (e.g., Broadway shows, sporting events, restaurants and spas).
• Fly.com: We want to grow revenue and operating profits through building up Fly.com , our new meta-search engine for airfares. We have identified meta-search as an opportunity with attractive economics and great synergies with Travelzoo.
We launched the Travelzoo business in the U.K. in 2005, in Canada in 2006, in Germany in 2006, in France in 2007, and in Spain in 2008. We began developing and offering entertainment content and related advertising services in 2008. We launched Fly.com in February 2009. In August 2010, we launched Local Deals, a new service that allows our subscribers to purchase vouchers for deals from local businesses such as spas and restaurants. The vouchers are then redeemable at the local businesses during the promotional period in which the deals are offered. (Emphasis added).
45. Though not mentioned by name, the reference above to "Broadway events,
sporting events, restaurants, and spas" refers to Local Deals offers.
13
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 14 of 56
46. Defendants made substantially similar statements about Travelzoo' s growth
strategy, and with particular reference to revenue growth, in the August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q, May
10, 2010 Form 10-Q, and May 6, 2010 Form 10-K/A.
47. Defendants did not mention Local Deals offers in the filings listed in the previous
paragraph because Local Deals was only launched in August 2010, and in its first quarter of
operations Local Deals netted only a small amount of revenue.
Local Deals' Role in Travelzoo's Growth
48. In the first quarter of its operation, which was the third quarter of 2010, Local
Deals started slowly, with gross revenue of approximately $800,000.
49. In a conference call for the third quarter of 2010, held with analysts on October
20, 2010, Defendant Loughlin discussed the launch of Local Deals:
Slide 23 focuses on our new business, Local Deals. We established Local Deals as a separate entity, Travelzoo Local Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Travelzoo Inc. on Aug 24 to handle all aspects of publishing and selling Local Deals' vouchers. Local Deals is generally a new type of content for Travelzoo and include restaurants, spas and local festivals. We allure our subscribers to these Local Deals within their area, and then they buy a voucher from a merchant via the Travelzoo Web site.
We report the revenue from Local Deals on a net basis. In Q3, we published 44 deals in 11 cities most of them were published in September, and we sold approximately 25,000 vouchers, our average selling price is $33. Overall, revenue from Local Deals in Q3 was not significant, and we generated a small loss from the business as we incurred start-up costs. One notable aspect of Local Deals is that they can go viral very quickly, and here you can see some Twitter announcements where people are talking about Local Deals, and this is partly due to the fact that they are local by nature so locally interesting, and also that we (inaudible) that they have to reach in order for the deal to be activated.
14
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 15 of 56
50. On February 3, 2011, Defendant Loughlin discussed Local Deals with analysts on
the fourth quarter 2010 conference call. By its second quarter of operations, the fourth quarter of
2010, Local Deals had grown significantly, with gross revenues up approximately 1000%:
Revenues accelerated in North America year-over-year to 14%. Within that growth rate, we saw excellent growth in our Local Deals business where we far exceeded our expectations for the quarter, but we also saw a decline in revenues from SuperSearch and Fly. corn versus the previous quarter, as we decreased marketing spend in these search businesses. We did this in anticipation of greater investment in Local Deals.... [S]o the growth in the gross [revenue] [for Local Deals] was somewhere in the region of between eight to nine times. So just shy of 10 times growth quarter-over quarter. So just under 1000% growth.
51. Local Deals continued to grow. On March 1, 2011, Wedbush analyst Edward
Woo wrote a report stating:
Travelzoo continues to quickly ramp up its Local Deals business, generating an estimated $2.1 million in net revenues in February. This compares with estimates net revenues of $1.3 million in January, $1.5 million in December, $1 million in November, and $650,000 in October.
Getaways
52. Travelzoo launched Getaways, a subset of its Local Deals Branch, in March 2011.
However, as noted, Defendants did not disclose the existence of Getaways until two months later
on June 1, 2011. Getaways deals usually include a night or two at a relatively high-end hotel or
resort within a two-hour drive or short flight from subscribers' homes and include a fine-dining
experience or resort credit plus other extras.
53. Travelzoo originally offered 40 Getaways in locations across North America and
Europe, including: The Borgata in Atlantic City, Essex Resort & Spa in Vermont, Timberline
Lodge in Oregon, Vintners Inn in Santa Rosa, Portola Hotel & Spa in Monterey Bay, Ravella at
Lake Las Vegas, The Ellis Hotel in Atlanta, Woodmark Hotel on Lake Washington near Seattle,
15
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 16 of 56
Sedona Rouge Hotel & Spa, The Canary Hotel in Santa Barbara, The Keating Hotel by
Pininfarina in San Diego, Cambria Pines Lodge in California, the Dundee Resort & Golf Club in
Nova Scotia, Solis Lough Eske Castle in Donegal, Ireland, Hotel Termes Carlemany in Andorra,
the Radisson Blu in Cannes, Hotel Imperator Concorde Nimes, France, La Clairiere Bio et Spa
Hotel in Alsace, France, l'Hotel Roussi'hotel in France, The Feathers in Cotswolds, England,
Hotel Villa Lutece Port Royal in Paris, Pestana Hotel Berlin Tiergarten, Furstenhof Celle in
Hanover, Schlosshotel Lerbach near Koln, Princeotel in Barcelona, Royal Spa Kitzbuhel Hotel in
Austria and Ryad Mogador Agdal in Marrakesh.
54. As with the other Local Deals, Getaways deals are available for a set duration.
Subscribers purchase a voucher on a Travelzoo website and redeem them at the hotel or resort.
For example, Travelzoo offered a one-night stay today for two people in the four-star The
Chelsea Hotel in Atlantic City, N.J., with a 3-course dinner for two at The Chelsea Prime
restaurant for $189. Also included are spa and gym passes, free Wi-Fi and chairs, towels and use
of umbrellas at the beach. That price, which Travelzoo touted as a 56% discount, was good for
Sunday to Thursday arrivals through Sept. 1, 2011.
55. Unlike a hotel stay listed in Travelzoo's Top 20 emails, Getaways were targeted
to subscribers in particular markets and vouchers are purchased on Travelzoo.com instead of
referring customers to the hotel website for bookings. Defendant Christopher Loughlin stated
that Getaways were geared toward subscribers who might not have considered staying at a
nearby hotel, but would be tempted to do so if the offer is right.
Unbeknownst to Investors, Getaways Cuts Into Travelzoo's Core Travel Revenues and Growth
56. During the Class Period, Getaways' business began to eat into Travelzoo's core
travel business, adversely affecting Travelzoo revenue growth and bottom line revenues in the
16
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 17 of 56
second quarter of 2011. Hotel rooms are limited and there were not an infinite amount of deals
that could be offered at any hotel. Thus, as confirmed by Defendant Loughlin after the Class
Period, offering a Getaway deal at a local hotel to subscribers who lived nearby was often at the
expense of offering a deal through the core travel branch.
57. Getaways adversely affected revenue growth and bottom line revenues because,
although both Getaways and core travel businesses related to hotel deals, advertising revenue
received by the core travel business was, in certain circumstances, superior to voucher revenue
received through Getaways. As noted, revenue was paid to the Company differently in the two
branches, core travel and Getaways. In the core travel part of the business, advertising revenue
was paid up front by hotels, airlines, or cruises in return for placing their business on Travelzoo's
email lists which were sent to its worldwide subscribers. In the Getaways business, revenue,
only 30-40% of which went to Travelzoo, was paid by a customer for a voucher that could be
redeemed at a local hotel.
58. For example, if Travelzoo offered a Getaways deal at a London hotel, to
Travelzoo customers who were in driving distance of (or a very short flight from) London, for
$1,000, and ten customers signed up, that would equal $10,000 in gross revenue. If Travelzoo' s
take rate was 40%, the Company would receive $4,000 in net revenue. If, in contrast, Travelzoo
offered a deal at the same hotel on its core travel side through its Top 20 email list to subscribers
worldwide (who would travel, often from far away, to London for this deal), the Company would
generally receive between $5,000 and $10,000 from the hotel in advertising revenue. Thus,
revenues were often not simply taken from one branch (core travel) and given to another
(Getaways) - overall revenues dropped as Getaways cannibalized core travel revenues, as
disclosed at the end of the Class Period.
17
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 18 of 56
59. Defendants never disclosed to investors the cannibalization issues or how they
could affect Travelzoo growth, revenues and earnings.
60. Defendant Loughlin admitted after the Class Period that he was aware - back in
March 2011 - of the cannibalization issue but, nonetheless, proceeded with Getaways:
[W]e took a decision back in April. We ran a test in April - actually ran a test in March for the Getaways. And some folks will probably remember there was a Napa Valley deal that all of sudden went through the roof. And we just said to ourselves, okay, do we attack ourselves, or do we just ignore this, and what we did is that right, let's roll it out, see what happens. (Emphasis added).
61. Further, upon information and belief, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
were well aware that Getaways revenues were cutting into core travel revenues and growth
because they had real-time access to up-to-date revenue information through software utilized by
the Company.
62. Defendant Loughlin also admitted that revenue cannibalization caused lower core
travel revenue growth. As explained below, certain analysts put the rest together, realizing that
the revenue cannibalization had also, in part, caused lower overall revenues.
Defendants Disclose Getaways' Cannibalization of Core Travel Revenues and Growth
63. On July 21, 2011, the last day of the Class Period, Defendants announced lower
than expected revenues and earnings per share. On that day, Defendants announced that
Travelzoo had revenues of $37.6 million, below the analyst consensus of $40.2 million, and
earnings per share of $30, well below analyst consensus of $38. As a result, Travelzoo stock
collapsed by over 30%, from approximately $90 per share to $60 per share in morning trading on
the Nasdaq, after touching a low of $57.48 per share.
64. The $2.6 million in lower revenues was a material amount in the context of
Travelzoo's earnings per share for the second quarter. Indeed, if the Company had received the
II
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 19 of 56
expected $2.6 million in revenues, its second quarter earnings per share would have been near
the analyst consensus of $38 per share.
65. In the conference call with analysts following the earnings announcement, after
several analysts honed in on the cannibalization issues, Defendant Loughlin admitted that
cannibalization of core travel revenues by Getaways caused lower core travel growth in the
second quarter of 2011. But because, inter alia, the core travel business netted, in certain
circumstances, superior revenue to Getaways' voucher system, lower core travel growth meant
lower overall growth and lower overall revenues.
66. Further, Loughlin admitted that he was aware of the cannibalization issue back in
March 2011 when Getaways was launched. Investors, on the other hand, were not aware of such
issue until after Travelzoo stock collapsed, in part, due to the disclosure of the lower than
expected revenues and core travel growth caused by cannibalization.
Defendants' Materially False and Misleading Statements Made During the Class Period
67. On March 16, 2011, the first day of the Class Period, Travelzoo issued its annual
report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year 2010. The report was signed by Defendants Bartel,
Loughlin, Lee, and Urso and certified by Defendants Loughlin and Lee. The 2010 Annual
Report discussed Travelzoo competitors - relating both to core travel and Local Deals - at great
length:
Competition
We face intense competition. We compete for advertising dollars with large Internet portal sites such MSN and Yahoo! that offer listings or other advertising opportunities to travel, entertainment and local companies. We compete with search engines like Google and Bing that offer pay-per-click listings. We compete with travel meta-search engines like Kayak and online travel and entertainment deal publishers. We compete with large online travel agencies like Expedia and Priceline that also offer advertising placements and
19
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 20 of 56
capture consumer interest. We compete with companies like Groupon and LivingSocial that sell vouchers for deals from local businesses such as spas, restaurants and activity companies. In addition, we compete with newspapers, magazines and other traditional media companies that operate websites which provide advertising opportunities. We expect to face additional competition as other established and emerging companies, including print media companies, enter our market. We believe that the primary competitive factors are price, performance and audience quality.
Many of our current and potential competitors have longer operating histories, significantly greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources and larger advertiser bases than we do. In addition, current and potential competitors may make strategic acquisitions or establish cooperative relationships to expand their businesses or to offer more comprehensive solutions.
New technologies could increase the competitive pressures that we face. The development of competing technologies by market participants or the emergence of new industry standards may adversely affect our competitive position. Competition could result in reduced margins on our services, loss of market share or less use of our products by our advertisers and consumers. If we are not able to compete effectively with current or future competitors as a result of these and other factors, our business could be materially adversely affected.
68. These statements were materially false and misleading when made because, inter
a/ia, Defendants failed to disclose that, with the March 2011 advent of Getaways, Travelzoo was
essentially competing with itself in that Getaways would cannibalize revenues from the
Company's core travel branch and, thus, impair Travelzoo' s revenue growth and/or earnings
growth.
69. The 2010 Annual Report contained similar statements in the "Risk Factors"
section. But instead of disclosing the known risk of revenue cannibalization to investors, it
concealed it by referring to Travelzoo competition with outside companies, rather than within its
own branches:
Intense competition may adversely affect our ability to achieve or maintain market share and operate profitably.
20
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 21 of 56
We face intense competition. We compete for advertising dollars with large Internet portal sites, such as MSN and Yahoo! that offer listings or other advertising opportunities to travel, entertainment and local companies. These companies have significantly greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources and larger advertiser bases. We compete with search engines like Google and Bing that offer pay-per-click listings. We compete with travel meta-search engines like Kayak and online travel and entertainment deal publishers. We compete with large online travel agencies like Expedia and Priceline that also offer advertising placements and capture consumer interest. We compete with companies like Groupon and LivingSocial that sell vouchers for deals from local businesses such as spas and restaurants. In addition, we compete with newspapers, magazines and other traditional media companies that operate websites which provide online advertising opportunities. We expect to face additional competition as other established and emerging companies, including print media companies, enter the online advertising market. Competition could result in reduced margins on our services, loss of market share or less use of Travelzoo by advertisers and consumers. If we are not able to compete effectively with current or future competitors as a result of these and other factors, our business could be materially adversely affected.
70. These statements were materially false and misleading when made because, inter
a/ia, Defendants failed to disclose that Travelzoo was now essentially competing with itself in
that Getaways would cannibalize revenues from the Company's core travel branch and, thus,
impair Travelzoo's revenue growth and/or earnings growth. See ¶J56-66.
71. The 2010 Annual Report also discussed the pivotal importance of advertising
revenues:
Our current revenue model depends on advertising fees paid primarily by travel, entertainment and local companies. If current advertisers decide not to continue advertising their offers with us and we are unable to replace them with new advertisers, our business may be adversely affected.
72. These statements were materially false and misleading when made because, inter
a/ia, Defendants failed to disclose that Travelzoo was now essentially competing with itself,
adversely affecting advertising revenues by Getaways' cannibalization of revenues from the
Company's core travel branch and, thus, impairing Travelzoo's revenue growth and/or earnings
growth. See ¶J56-66.
21
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 22 of 56
73. The Annual Report also stated the paramount importance of growth to Travelzoo:
Since the commencement of our operations, we have experienced a period of rapid growth. In order to execute our business plan, we must continue to grow significantly. (Emphasis added).
74. The 2010 Annual Report also stated that "[w]hen evaluating the financial
condition and operating performance of the Company, management focuses on. . . [g]rowth in
revenues in the absolute and relative to the growth in reach of the Company's publications."
75. The 2010 Annual Report demonstrated such revenue growth as it reported
steadily increasing revenues since 2006. Revenues were as follows: 2006 - $69.5 million; 2007
—$78.9 million; 2008 —$80.8 million; 2009 —$93.9 million; and 2010 —$112.7 million.
76. In the 2010 Annual Report, Defendants described Travelzoo's growth strategy:
Growth Strategy
Our growth strategy has two main elements:
• International expansion: We want to grow our revenue and operating profit through replicating the Travelzoo business in attractive international markets in Europe and in North America. We want to develop a strong competitive position through building a strong global brand and unique global content.
• Expand scope of Travelzoo business: We want to grow our revenue and operating profit through expanding the Travelzoo product offerings and content into entertainment (e.g., Broadway shows, sporting events), through our Local Deals e-mail alert service and through Fly.com . (Emphasis added).
77. The highlighted statement was materially false and misleading when made
because, inter a/ia, Defendants failed to disclose that, since Travelzoo was now essentially
competing with itself, part of the growth fueled by Local Deals, i.e., Getaways, was at the
expense of growth and revenue at the Company's core travel business, and would actually impair
Travelzoo's revenue growth and/or earnings growth. See ¶56-66.
22
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 23 of 56
78. On April 21, 2011, Defendants published a release announcing results for the first
quarter of 2011, the period ended March 31, 2011:
Travelzoo Reports First Quarter 2011 Results
NEW YORK, April 21, 2011 -- Travelzoo Inc. (NASDAQ: TZOO):
• Revenue of $37.0 million, up 30% year-over-year
• Non-GAAP net income of $6.0 million, up 144% year-over year
• Non-GAAP earnings per share of $0.37, compared to $0.15 in the prior year period
• GAAP net loss of $14.0 million; GAAP loss per share of $0.85
• Cash flow from operations of $10.7 million
Travelzoo Inc., a global Internet media company, today announced financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2011, with revenue of $37.0 million, an increase of 30% year-over-year. Adjusted operating profit was $10.0 million. Adjusted net income was $6.0 million, with adjusted diluted net income per share (EPS) of $0.37, up from $0.15 in the prior-year period. Adjusted operating profit, adjusted net income and adjusted diluted earnings per share for the first quarter ended March 31, 2011 exclude a one-time expense item of $20.0 million related to the settlement of the State of Delaware unclaimed property review.
79. In addition to the foregoing, the April 21, 2011 release also quoted Defendant
Loughlin, in part, as follows:
"We kicked off 2011 with record revenues and record adjusted operating income. Subscribers grew by over 1 million, the second best performance in our company's history," said Chris Loughlin, CEO of Travelzoo. "We doubled adjusted operating income year-over-year as we continued to ramp up Local Deals, which are now live in 48 markets in 6 countries. North America revenues grew at the fastest pace in over 4 years. Europe saw the highest quarterly subscriber growth ever and returned its first significant quarterly profit. We also reached a settlement agreement for a previously disclosed State of Delaware
23
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 24 of 56
escheatment claim, incurring a one-time cash expense. (Emphasis added).
80. The highlighted statements in paragraph 79 were materially false and misleading
when made because, inter a/ia, Defendants failed to disclose that, since Travelzoo was now
essentially competing with itself, part of the revenues received through Local Deals were at the
expense of the Company's core travel business, and would thus impair Travelzoo's revenue
growth and/or earnings growth. See ¶J56-66.
81. Travelzoo also issued a "First Quarter Performance and Growth Strategy
Overview" (the "First Quarter Presentation") on April 21, 2011, which the Company presented
to analysts for the conference call of that day. Travelzoo also published the First Quarter
Presentation on its website. The First Quarter Presentation demonstrates the importance to
Defendants of growth in Local Deals revenues:
Our growth strategy is built on two key pillars that include continued audience growth and product expansion.
1. Rapid audience growth:
Higher penetration in existing markets
Develop new international markets
Management Focus for 2011
Rapidly grow Local Deals revenues & income
Maintain quality leadership position by publishing outstanding high-quality deals
Expand into additional U.S., Canadian, and European cities
Increase revenue per market
24
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 25 of 56
(Emphasis added).
82. The highlighted statements were materially false and misleading when made
because, inter a/ia, Defendants failed to disclose that, since Travelzoo was now essentially
competing with itself, part of the revenues received, and growth achieved, through Local Deals
were, as described above, at the expense of the Company's core travel business, and would thus
impair Travelzoo's revenue growth and/or earnings growth. See ¶J56-66.
83. On April 21, 2011, apparently in response to Travelzoo' s announcement, Think
Equity analyst Atul Bagga issued a report raising second quarter estimates to $39 million, up
from $33.9 million, and earnings per share estimates to $38 from $.29.
84. Immediately following the publication of its April 21, 2011 release announcing
results for the first quarter of 2011, shares of Travelzoo rallied almost $20.00 per share, or
almost 27%, to $93.70 per share. That day, Forbes.com reported that Local Deals had largely
caused the positive first quarter results:
Travelzoo Soars; Qi Crushes Estimates On Strong Deals Biz (Updated)
Travelzoo (TZOO) shares are trading sharply higher after the online travel information provider posted better-than-expected first quarter results.
For the quarter, the company posted revenue of $37 million and non-GAAP profits of 37 cents a share, well ahead of the Street consensus at $33.4 million and 28 cents. Revenue was up 30% from a year ago.
The company said North American revenue was up 23%; European revenue was up 53%. Travelzoo said it had 19.9 million unduplicated subscribers to its e-mail newsletters, up 6% sequentially and 12% from a year ago.
On the strong results, TZOO shares have spiked $19.83, or 26.8%, to $93.70.
25
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 26 of 56
Update: Clearly, one of the big drivers for the company in the quarter was its LocalDeals business, a new unit that has jumped into Groupon territory. In an interview with Forbes this morning, CEO Chris Loughlin noted that gross revenue from the business was $16.1 million in the quarter, up from $8 million in the December quarter, and $800,000 the quarter before that; he won't say what percentage of the gross total is included in the company's revenues, but notes that margins on individual deals have been running in the 30%-50% range depending on the merchant. Loughlin notes that the company's deals business is now operating in 48 markets and six countries; he says the goal is to add about 15 additional markets every quarter. In the long run, he adds, LocalDeals could be as big an opportunity as the company's core media business. (Emphasis added).
85. Defendants also held a conference call with analysts on April 21, 2011. In that
call, Defendant Loughlin stated that Local Deals was a driver of Travelzoo ' s growth strategy:
Let's now move on to Travelzoo's growth strategy. On slide 14, I summarize the growth strategy. On the X axis, we are growing the number of subscribers that engage with the Travelzoo brand. We show our second-highest increase in new subscribers in Qi 2011 and now have just under 20 million subscribers to our publications in Europe and North America.
Along the Y axis, we are growing the revenue per subscriber, and Local Deals has become a substantial driver here. You can see already that we increased our revenue per subscriber from $6.70 to $7.80 from Q4 to Qi....
We believe that as we continue to grow aggressively in North America, we have a tremendous opportunity there, and Europe presents an enormous opportunity ahead. (Emphasis added).
86. The highlighted statements were materially false and misleading when made
because, inter cilia, Defendants failed to disclose that, since Travelzoo was now essentially
competing with itself, part of the growth of Local Deals was, as described above, at the expense
of the Company's core travel business, and would thus impair Travelzoo's revenue growth
and/or earnings growth. See ¶'J56-66.
26
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 27 of 56
87. In the days that followed, shares of the Company continued to rally. As evidence
of this, on April 25, 2011, the MotleyFool.com reported, in part, the following:
Travelzoo Shares Popped Again: What You Need to Know
Although we don't believe in timing the market or panicking over market movements, we do like to keep an eye on big changes - just in case they're material to our investing thesis.
What: Shares of travel discount company Travelzoo (Nasdaq: TZOO) are shooting higher again today, one trading day after enjoying a nice earnings bump.
So what: There are a few things at work today driving shares higher. There's a little momentum left from the earnings spike but Benchmark Co. analyst Frederick Moran fueled the fire upgrading the stock to a buy and slapping a $123 price target on shares...
88. Also on April 25, 2011, Craig Hallum analyst Eric Martinuzzi raised revenue
expectations for the second quarter to $41.4 million and earnings per share to $.42.
89. Taking full advantage of the artificial inflation in the price of Company shares,
caused as a result of the publication of Defendants' false and misleading statements, between
April 26 and April 29, 2011, Defendant Ralph Bartel, alone and/or through entities he controlled,
sold over 625,000 shares of Company stock he owned and/or controlled to realize gross proceeds
of over $55 million.
90. Days later, on May 2, 2011, Defendant Loughlin sold all of his Travelzoo shares -
100% - to reap illicit gross proceeds of over $1 million.
91. As shares of the Company continued to trade at levels artificially inflated as a
result of the publication of Defendants' materially false and misleading statements, on May 10,
2011, Travelzoo CEO Chris Loughlin presented at the Jefferies 2011 Global Technology,
Internet, Media & Telecom Conference, at the Four Seasons Hotel in New York City.
27
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 28 of 56
92. Also on May 10, 2011, Defendants filed with the SEC the Company's Form 10-Q
for the First Quarter ended March 31, 2011, signed by Defendant Lee and certified by
Defendants Lee and Loughlin. The First Quarter Form 10-Q contained similar misstatements to
those in the 2010 Annual Report concerning competition:
Intense competition may adversely affect our ability to achieve or maintain market share and operate profitably.
We face intense competition. We compete for advertising dollars with large Internet portal sites, such as America Online, MSN, and Yahoo!, that offer listings or other advertising opportunities for travel and entertainment companies. These companies have significantly greater financial, technical, marketing, and other resources and larger client bases. We compete with search engines like Google and Yahoo! Search that offer pay-per-click listings. We compete with travel meta-search engines and online travel deal publishers. We compete with large online travel agencies like Expedia and Priceline that also offer advertising placements. We compete with companies like Groupon and LivingSocial that also sell vouchers for deals from local businesses such as spas and restaurants. In addition, we compete with newspapers, magazines, and other traditional media companies that operate websites which provide online advertising opportunities. We expect to face additional competition as other established and emerging companies, including print media companies, enter the online advertising market. Competition could result in reduced margins on our services, loss of market share, or less use of Travelzoo by travel companies, entertainment companies, and consumers. If we are not able to compete effectively with current or future competitors as a result of these and other factors, our business could be materially adversely affected.
93. These statements were materially false and misleading when made because, inter
a/ia, Defendants failed to disclose that Travelzoo was now essentially competing with itself in
that Getaways was cannibalizing revenues from the Company's core travel branch and, thus,
impairing Travelzoo' s revenue growth and/or earnings growth. See ¶J56-66.
94. The First Quarter Form 10-Q also stated, in pertinent part:
Revenues
Our total revenues increased to $37.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 from $28.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010. This represents an increase of $8.4 million or 30%. $5.2 million of the increase in revenues came
PW
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 29 of 56
from our operations in North America, which had an increase of 23% in revenues year-over-year and was attributed primarily to a $5.1 million increase in revenues from our publications, which includes the Travelzoo website, the Top 20 e-mail newsletter, the Newsflash e-mail alert service, and the Local Deals e-mail alert service. $3.3 million of the increase in revenues came from our operations in Europe, which had an increase of 53% in revenues year-over-year, and was attributed primarily to a $3.3 million increase in revenue from our publications, which includes the Travelzoo website, the Top 20 e-mail newsletter, the Newsflash e-mail alert service and the Local Deals e-mail alert service.
95. The highlighted statements were materially false and misleading when made
because, inter alia, Defendants failed to disclose that, since Travelzoo was now essentially
competing with itself, part of the revenues received through Local Deals were, as described
above, at the expense of the Company's core travel business, and would thus impair Travelzoo's
revenue growth and/or earnings growth. See ¶J56-66.
96. Defendants also continued to tout Travelzoo's growth strategy in the First Quarter
2011 Form 10-Q:
Growth Strategy
Our growth strategy has two main elements:
• International expansion: We want to grow our revenue and operating profit through replicating the Travelzoo business in attractive international markets in Europe and in North America. We want to develop a strong competitive position through building a strong global brand and unique global content.
• Expand scope of the Travelzoo business: We want to grow our revenue and operating profit through expanding the Travelzoo product offerings and content into entertainment and lifestyle (e.g., Broadway shows, sporting events, restaurants and spas).
97. These statements were materially false and misleading because Defendants failed
to disclose that, because Travelzoo was now essentially competing with itself, part of the
Company's growth fueled by Local Deals was, as described above, at the expense of the
29
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 30 of 56
Company's core travel business, and would thus impair Travelzoo's revenue growth. See ¶'j56-
66.
98. Defendants also continued their statements about the paramount importance of
growth to Travelzoo in the First Quarter Form 10-Q: "In order to execute our business plan, we
must be able to grow significantly."
99. On May 11, 2011, ten days after he sold 100% of his Travelzoo shares, Defendant
Loughlin appeared on Jim Cramer's Mad Money making glowing statements about Travelzoo's
growth and future health: "[Travelzoo has a] 50% growth rate in Europe. You know, there is a
tremendous opportunity."
100. On May 16, 2011, Travelzoo published a press release about Local Deals:
Travelzoo Subscribers in Europe Rapidly Adopt Local Deals: Sales Triple in the First Half of Q2
LONDON, May 16, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Travelzoo Inc. (NASDAQ: TZOO), a global Internet media company, today announced that its European subscribers bought $3.4 million in Local Deals during the first 45 days of the second quarter, up 196% from the first 45 days in the first quarter of 2011. Gross sales of Local Deals in Europe, halfway through the second quarter, are only $400,000 shy of the total gross revenues for the entire first quarter.
"We are pleased to see the rapid adoption of Local Deals among our European subscribers," said Chris Loughlin, Chief Executive Officer. "We see this as a clear validation of our international strategy, in that we can quickly take a product that is already very successful in North America and rapidly roll it out into other markets where we already have a large subscriber base."
Travelzoo has published 78 deals in Europe so far this quarter, generating average gross revenue of $43,600 per deal, well ahead of Travelzoo's average gross revenue per deal of $34,000 in Qi. Two deals in Europe in recent weeks each yielded more than $225,000 in gross revenue: A dining experience at Gordon Ramsay's Maze in London, which holds a Michelin-star rating, sold 2,916 covers, and a getaway at a 4-star Berlin hotel generated 2,379 room nights.
30
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 31 of 56
Travelzoo's fastest growing European Local Deals market is now Germany, where gross Local Deals revenue through 15 May was $810,000. This is up from $10,000 during the same period in the first quarter and 500% ahead of the full first quarter gross revenues of $130,000. The UK continues to be Travelzoo's largest Local Deals market in Europe, generating $2.2 million in gross revenue in the second quarter to 15 May, up 94% when compared to the first half of Qi. France and Spain are also trading well in excess of 100% ahead of Q on a like-for-like basis.
Glen Drury, Senior Vice President of Local Deals in Europe commented, "The recent results in London and Berlin were outstanding, but we are seeing similar results across the region. For example, a deal at the trendy Ice Bar on Montmartre in Paris just took 850 covers in 5 days. While it is very exciting to see these big cities light up, we are also very impressed with the response we are seeing in markets like Chester, Kent, Ludlow, Leipzig, Mainz and other lesser known cities across Europe."
As more and more Travelzoo subscribers start to enjoy their local experiences, merchants are commenting on the quality of Travelzoo's subscriber base and Travelzoo's quality leadership position in the local deals market. Ms. Cat Spencer, Head of Marketing at the Albannach, a high-end restaurant in Trafalgar Square, which received more than 1,000 covers from Travelzoo, said, "Travelzoo has been the best marketing campaign we have run in the past year. Not only did it drive covers through the door, but guests tended to spend more." Calum Colquhoun, General Manager, De Vere Daresbury Park near Manchester also commented, "We have used other companies to sell similar local promotions and only received a fraction of the sales. Added to that, the whole process was very easy for us and for the customers who booked."
Travelzoo has now published Local Deals in 28 markets across Europe as well as an additional 10 deals in getaway destinations such as Ireland, Morocco, Cote d'Azur and Biarritz.
To view the latest Local Deals from Travelzoo, visit www.travelzoo.co.uk , www.travelzoo . de, www.travelzoo.fr or www.travelzoo.es and click on Local Deals.
101. The highlighted statements were materially false and misleading when made
because, inter alia, Defendants failed to disclose that, since Travelzoo was now essentially
competing itself, part of the growth of, and revenues received through, Local Deals were, as
31
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 32 of 56
described above, at the expense of the Company's core travel business, and would thus impair
Travelzoo's revenue growth. See ¶J56-66.
102. On May 17, 2011, Defendants announced the imminent departure of Defendant
CFO Lee:
Travelzoo Appoints Glen Ceremony as Chief Financial Officer
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Travelzoo Inc. (NASDAQ: TZOO), a global Internet media company, today announced that Glen Ceremony will become Chief Financial Officer on June 15, 2011. Mr. Ceremony joins Travelzoo from eBay, where he serves as Corporate Controller. Wayne Lee, Travelzoo's current Chief Financial Officer, will stay at the company through the end of July 2011 to assist with the transition. After five years in the role, Mr. Lee plans to take time off with his family and to pursue other opportunities.
"We are delighted that Glen has decided to join the team," said Chris Loughlin, Travelzoo' s Chief Executive Officer, "With over 20 years experience within high-growth companies and six and a half years within eBay's financial organization, Glen comes with a wealth of Internet advertising and ecommerce experience. Glen also brings a new dimension of strategic financial leadership to our business at a time when our growth rate is accelerating and we are becoming a larger global organization. The transition is of course bitter-sweet, Wayne has done a tremendous job in guiding Travelzoo's financial organization over the past 5 years and he will remain a good friend."
103. Between May 25, 2011 and May 31, 2011, Defendant Bartel sold approximately
920,000 Travelzoo shares for gross proceeds of approximately $68 million.
104. Defendants continued to artificially inflate the price of Company shares by
presenting at investment conferences across the country, hosted by the nation's leading
brokerage houses. For example, on June 1, 2011, Defendant Loughlin presented at the 8th
Annual Craig-Hallum Institutional Investor Conference, at the Radisson Plaza Hotel in
Minneapolis. A week later, Defendant Loughlin also appeared at the 6th Annual Needham
Internet & Digital Media Conference, on June 7, 2011, at the Jumeirah Essex House in New
32
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 33 of 56
York City. Two weeks after that, Defendant Loughlin presented at the Goldman Sachs Second
Annual dotCommerce Day, at the Le Parker Meridien Hotel in New York City.
105. On June 1, 2011, Defendants specifically mentioned Getaways for the first time.
On that date, Defendants disseminated a press release trumpeting Getaways' success:
Travelzoo Getaways Delivers 28,000 Room Nights for 40 Upscale Resorts
NEW YORK, June 1, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Travelzoo Inc. (NASDAQ: TZOO), a global Internet media company, announced today that 40 upscale resorts have sold more than 28,000 incremental room nights through its new Travelzoo Getaways program. Travelzoo began testing the Getaways model in March; the new program alerts Travelzoo subscribers to upscale getaways within a two-hour drive or short flight from their home airport. Getaways typically include one or two nights at an upscale resort, with a fine-dining experience or a flexible resort credit to encourage Travelzoo subscribers to experience the resort's full amenities. Travelzoo Getaways uses the same booking mechanism as Travelzoo Local Deals, where Travelzoo subscribers purchase a voucher from the resort through the Travelzoo website and then book their stay directly with the property.
Forty upscale resorts have now participated in Travelzoo Getaways across North America and Europe, including: The Borgata in Atlantic City, Essex Resort & Spa in Vermont, Timberline Lodge in Oregon, Vintners Inn in Santa Rosa, Portola Hotel & Spa in Monterey Bay, Ravella at Lake Las Vegas, The Ellis Hotel in Atlanta, Woodmark Hotel on Lake Washington near Seattle, Sedona Rouge Hotel & Spa, The Canary Hotel in Santa Barbara, The Keating Hotel by Pininfarina in San Diego, Cambria Pines Lodge in California, the Dundee Resort & Golf Club in Nova Scotia, Solis Lough Eske Castle in Donegal, Ireland, Hotel Termes Carlemany in Andorra, the Radisson Blu in Cannes, Hotel Imperator Concorde Nimes, France, La Clairiere Bio et Spa Hotel in Alsace, France, l'Hotel Roussi'hotel in France, The Feathers in Cotswolds, England, Hotel Villa Lutece Port Royal in Paris, Pestana Hotel Berlin Tiergarten, Furstenhof Celle in Hanover, Schlosshotel Lerbach near Koln, Princeotel in Barcelona, Royal Spa Kitzbuhel Hotel in Austria and Ryad Mogador Agdal in Marrakesh.
Chris Loughlin, Travelzoo's Chief Executive Officer, said: "The results from the first 40 Getaways clearly indicate that our subscribers across the globe like our new Getaways program. Resorts are also very pleased that we can now showcase the complete resort experience, including rooms, restaurants and spas. It is also very compelling for resorts to offer these experiences to those Travelzoo subscribers who live within their local drive markets, these are
33
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 34 of 56
travelers who might not normally consider staying at a local resort, but if the offer is attractive enough, they are happy to take a leisure break, even during slower off-peak periods."
Emre Erkul, Director of Marketing, Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa, said: "Travelzoo's new Getaways program helped us sell over 1,000 midweek packages for last-minute stays in June. Most of the guests are new to the property and coming from our primary drive markets, Philadelphia, New Jersey and New York. Unlike other hotel marketing programs, Getaways allowed us to create a customized package that showcased the Borgata's exceptional fine dining and entertainment experiences, not just a discounted room rate. This promotion has been extremely positive for the brand and has exposed many new customers to Borgata."
Sandra Vivas, General Manager for The Keating Hotel by Pininfarina, explained, "We learned more about Getaways after we saw how successful our restaurant was with a Travelzoo Local Deal promotion. What we liked most about the program was the quality of the guests; Travelzoo definitely has a more mature crowd who are not afraid to spend. That's honestly why we did the Getaway promotion, because we knew what type of guests we would attract."
Jim Glanville, General Manager for The Essex Resort and Spa, shared: "The Getaways program afforded us the opportunity to fill distressed inventory during a transitional season while having the unexpected benefit of incremental spend exceeding $100 per visit on top of the package that already included spa and dining credits. Nearly 100 percent of the guests that were attracted through this promotion were first-time visitors and likely would not have experienced us otherwise."
Percy Brandon, General Manager of the Vintners Inn, offered up the following feedback, "As a boutique 4-Diamond luxury inn with 44 rooms in the heart of California Wine Country, we try to ensure we attract the right guest demographic to match our property. One highly-challenging guest can have a very detrimental impact on the mood of the entire property. With Travelzoo, we were able to attract very much the right match. This was driven by the high-quality nature of the audience they have attracted and the fact that the Getaway promotion was not just a cheap room, it included an entire experience - room, wine, dinner and local experiences. The offer itself was naturally up-market and priced as such."
Maja Zieman, Director of Sales at the Pestana Hotel Berlin Tiergarten, explained, "Travelzoo Getaways exceeded our expectations by far, with more than 1,500 room nights booked."
34
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 35 of 56
Patrick Brunet, Yield Manager de l'Hotel Roussi'hotel in France shared, "The distribution was well-targeted, and the journalistic write-up positioned the values of our establishment in a creative and objective manner. The results are very impressive."
Luc Morel, General Manager of the Feathers Hotel in the Cotswolds, England, said, "We were impressed with the quality of the guests Travelzoo brought. More than half of Travelzoo guests upgraded to a higher rate suite, and they were happy to spend additional money on food and beverage once on property."
106. The highlighted statements were materially false and misleading because, inter
alia, Defendants failed to disclose that, because Travelzoo was now essentially competing with
itself, part of the revenues received through Getaways were, as described above, at the expense
of the Company's core travel business, and thus impaired Travelzoo' s revenue growth and/or
earnings growth. See ¶1J56-66 .
107. On June 8, 2011, Defendants published another press release relating to Local
Deals' success and specifically referred to Getaways:
Travelzoo Asia Pacific Launches Local Deals in Hong Kong
Travelzoo Asia Pacific, a licensee of Travelzoo Inc. (NASDAQ: TZOO), a global Internet media company, today announced the launch of Travelzoo Local DealsTM in Hong Kong. This follows the successful launch in Australia in April this year, which has already sold over 7,000 vouchers and generated close to AUD 1 million in gross revenue.
The service extends Travelzoo's offerings with more quality lifestyle and entertainment deals, drawing the brand closer to its subscribers. Travelzoo Hong Kong's first trial Local Deal was a complete sell out. Launched on 30 May 2011, the deal introduced an evening of fine dining at Hotel Nikko's Japanese restaurant 'Sagano' -- with its reputation for authentic Japanese cuisine. The trial resulted in 532 vouchers sold and generated over HKD 630,000 in gross revenue within two days. It had to be stopped to contain capacity.
Given the success, more Local Deals have been launched in Hong Kong, including Getaway packages with the Kantary
35
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 36 of 56
Beach Hotel Villas and Suites in Thailand and Hotel Royal in Macau.
"The launch of Local Deals in Hong Kong extends our business to the next stage of growth in Asia Pacific," said Jason Yap, CEO, Travelzoo Asia Pacific. "We are confident in leveraging on our present operational momentum to propel the business with Local Deals, as shown by the enormous successes in Travelzoo North America and Europe. With over 3 million quality subscribers in Asia Pacific who are familiar with transacting high-valued travel items, we are sure that Local Deals will be very well received."
"Travelzoo Hong Kong has strong competitive advantages in this already crowded market. In addition to our high quality and loyal subscribers, we are not under pressure to deliver just any deal. With an existing media business that is operating well, we have the privilege to be selective on deals that we publish to our subscribers, which allows us to continue doing what we do best," said Katherine Lau, Deputy General Manager, Travelzoo Hong Kong. "We are delighted but not surprised by the Sagano result. In Hong Kong, we presently have more than 360,000 active subscribers, who are swift in responding to a great deal."
"We were impressed at the speed our offer was taken up," said Ricky Lai, F&B Director, Hotel Nikko. "This promotion generated additional demands for the hotel's restaurant, which generally caters to business travellers on weekdays. Travelzoo Local Deals and its deal experts provided an innovative channel that packaged our weekend offer to its subscribers. As we fill up the restaurant with Traveizoos subscribers, we can see the quality of patrons. We are certain that they will be return diners."
Travelzoo Asia Pacific applies the same rigorous deal selection and approval process to Local Deals, for which it has become well-known. The process distinguishes Travelzoo as the most trusted publisher of travel and entertainment deals.
For more information about Travelzoo Local Deals, please visit www.travelzoo.com.hk .
108. The highlighted statements were materially false and misleading because, inter
a/ia, Defendants failed to disclose that, because Travelzoo was now essentially competing with
itself, part of the revenues received through Getaways were, as described above, at the expense
36
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 37 of 56
of the Company's core travel business, and would thus impair Travelzoo' s revenue growth
and/or earnings growth. See ¶'i[56-66 .
109. Between June 1, 2011 and June 15, 2011, Defendant Bartel sold approximately
900,000 Travelzoo shares for gross proceeds of approximately $61 million.
110. On June 17, 2011, ThinkEquity analyst reiterated his $38 earnings per share
figure for Travelzoo.
111. On June 22, 2011, Forbes. com reported that Company shares rallied after
Benchmark Capital analyst, Frederick Moran, published a report touting Local Deals' success:
Travelzoo Rallies; Benchmark Says Local Deals Surge In June
Travelzoo shares are up sharply Wednesday following bullish comments on the company's Groupon-like Local Deals business by Benchmark Capital analyst Frederick Moran.
"Local Deals continue to ramp up with sales in June pacing meaningfully higher than May based on our channel checks," the analyst writes in a research note. Moran thinks the company's Local Deals unit can generate $110 million in gross revenue and $43 million in net revenue in 2011. He lifts his EPS forecast for the year to $1.72 from $1.64; for 2012, he goes to $2.78, from $2.65.
He thinks the company had gross revenue of $6.6 million in April, $9 million in May and as much as $11 million in June. He notes that the company now offers deals in about 100 markets.
Moran's price target on the stock is $124; the stock this morning is up $4.23, or 7.1 %, to $63.60. (Emphasis added).
THE TRUTH IS FINALLY DISCLOSED TO INVESTORS
112. On July 21, 2011, Defendants revealed to investors that the Company had lower
than expected revenues in the second quarter of 2011. Defendants reported second quarter
revenue of $37.6 million, well below analyst estimates as high as $41.4 million and consensus of
$40.2 million, as well as earnings per share of $30 per share, 21% below analyst consensus
expectations of $38 per share. The press release stated, in pertinent part:
37
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 38 of 56
Travelzoo Reports Second Quarter 2011 Results
NEW YORK, July 21, 2011 -- Travelzoo Inc. (NASDAQ: TZOO):
Revenue of $37.6 million, up 34% year-over-year
Operating profit of $7.6 million, up 29% year-over-year
Net income of $4.9 million, up 51% year-over-year
Earnings per share of $0.30, compared to $0.20 in the prior year period
Travelzoo Inc., a global Internet media company, today announced financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2011, with revenue of $37.6 million, an increase of 34% year-over-year. Operating profit was $7.6 million, up 29% year-over-year. Net income was $4.9 million, with diluted net income per share (EPS) of $0.30, up from $0.20 in the prior-year period....
113. As discussed below, Defendant Loughlin admitted during a conference call that
day that the lower revenue growth was caused, in part, by Getaways' cannibalization of revenue
from the Company's core travel business.
114. Defendants attempted to paint a happy face on the results by emphasizing the
increase in revenue year over year, but the market saw through it. Shares of the Company
immediately collapsed, falling approximately $30.00 per share, or 30 percent, to $60.00 per share
in morning trading on the Nasdaq, after touching a low of $57.48 per share.
115. The conference call Defendants held with analysts after the announcement of
Travelzoo' s second quarter financials is illuminating. In that call, Defendant Loughlin admitted
that Getaways' "cannibalization" of revenues from the Company's core travel business had
apparently impaired revenue growth in the core travel business.
116. Indeed, four of five analysts on the conference call, Frederick Moran, Eric
Martinuzzi, Atul Bagga, and Edward Woo, asked Defendant Loughlin about either
cannibalization, or the other side of the coin, weaker core travel revenues.
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 39 of 56
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 40 of 56
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE TRAVELZOO INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Civil Action No.: 1 1-CV-5531 (GBD)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CONSOLIDATED AND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1. Lead Plaintiffs Michele Minnick and Jan Frazer ("Lead Plaintiffs" or "Plaintiffs")
allege the following upon information and belief, except as to those allegations concerning Lead
Plaintiffs, which are alleged upon personal knowledge. Lead Plaintiffs' information and belief
are based upon, among other things, Lead Counsel's investigation, which includes without
limitation, review and analysis of filings with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"), press releases, news articles, and analyst reports. Lead Plaintiffs believe
that substantial additional evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a
reasonable opportunity for discovery.
2. This is a federal class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Travelzoo
Inc. ("Travelzoo" or the "Company") between March 16, 2011, and July 21, 2011, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"). As alleged herein, Defendants published a series of materially false and
misleading statements that Defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded were materially false
and misleading at the time of such publication, and that omitted to reveal material information
necessary to make Defendants' statements, in light of such material omissions, not materially
false and misleading.
52043 vi
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 41 of 56
3. Travelzoo is a global Internet media company founded in 1998 by Defendant
Ralph Bartel. Travelzoo informs over 23 million subscribers worldwide, as well as millions of
website users, about travel, entertainment and local deals available from thousands of companies.
4. Travelzoo has two branches: (i) its core travel business, which publishes email
newsletters that offer sharply discounted travel deals in return for up-front advertising fees paid
by hotels, airlines, or cruises; and (ii) its Local Deals business, which was launched in August
2010, through which Travelzoo subscribers can purchase vouchers for deals from local
businesses such as spas and restaurants through the Travelzoo website. A portion of the fee from
the voucher is paid to the merchant, usually 60-70%, and the remainder is paid to Travelzoo.
Local Deals grew quickly after the first quarter of its introduction, which was the third quarter of
2010. In fact, from the first to second quarter of its operations, Local Deals' gross revenues
increased approximately 1000%.
5. Travelzoo launched Local Deals Getaways ("Getaways"), a branch of Local Deals
relating to travel, in March 2011 - but, tellingly, Defendants did not disclose the launch of
Getaways until June 1, 2011. Getaways differed from the usual Local Deals offers which sold
vouchers for, e.g., spas, restaurants, or other entertainment. Getaways, in contrast, sold vouchers
for hotels and travel, catering to subscribers who wanted a getaway local to them. Getaways was
thus a hybrid between Local Deals and the Company's core travel business. Getaways typically
paired a hotel stay with a spa or restaurant deal, often in driving distance from the subscriber.
6. During the Class Period, Getaways' business began to eat into Travelzoo's core
travel business, adversely affecting Travelzoo revenue growth and bottom line revenues in the
second quarter of 2011. Hotel rooms are limited and there were not an infinite amount of deals
that could be offered at any hotel. Thus, as confirmed by Defendant Loughlin after the Class
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 42 of 56
Period, offering a Getaway deal at a local hotel to subscribers who lived nearby was often at the
expense of offering a deal through the core travel branch.
7. Getaways adversely affected revenue growth and bottom line revenues because,
although both Getaways and core travel businesses related to hotel deals, advertising revenue
received by the core travel business was, in certain circumstances, superior to voucher revenue
received through Getaways. As noted, revenue was paid to the Company differently in the two
branches, core travel and Getaways. In the core travel part of the business, advertising revenue
was paid up front by hotels, airlines, or cruises in return for placing their business on Travelzoo's
email lists which were sent to its worldwide subscribers. In the Getaways business, revenue,
only 30-40% of which went to Travelzoo, was paid by a customer for a voucher that could be
redeemed at a local hotel.
8. For example, if Travelzoo offered a Getaways deal at a London hotel, to
Travelzoo customers who were in driving distance of (or a very short flight from) London, for
$1,000, and ten customers signed up, that would equal $10,000 in gross revenue. If Travelzoo' s
take rate was 40%, the Company would receive $4,000 in net revenue. If, in contrast, Travelzoo
offered a deal at the same hotel on its core travel side through its Top 20 email list to subscribers
worldwide (who would travel, often from far away, to London for this deal), the Company would
generally receive between $5,000 and $10,000 from the hotel in advertising revenue. Thus,
revenues were often not simply taken from one branch (core travel) and given to another
(Getaways) - overall revenues dropped as Getaways cannibalized core travel revenues, as
disclosed at the end of the Class Period.
9. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants were aware of such inevitable
cannibalization of growth and revenue by Getaways. Indeed, Defendant CEO Loughlin admitted
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 43 of 56
after the Class Period that he was aware of that danger but proceeded with Getaways anyway -
without communicating the effect such cannibalization would have on revenues, growth and
earnings to investors. Defendant Loughlin also admitted that revenue cannibalization caused
lower core travel revenue growth. Certain analysts put the rest together, realizing that the
revenue cannibalization had also, in part, caused lower overall revenues.
10. Although the Company does not issue specific guidance on earnings and
revenues, Defendants knew full well what analysts were reporting about the Company. A few
weeks before the start of the Class Period, on March 2, 2011, Defendant Loughlin appeared on
Jim Cramer's Mad Money on CNBC. Defendant Loughlin stated that "the analysts give
guidance. But you know what? We beat them.... It is a growth story and it's a very exciting
opportunity."
11. Indeed, Travelzoo met or exceeded analysts' estimates for seven straight quarters.
The shortfall in the second quarter 2011, the subject of this case, was the first shortfall since the
second quarter of 2009.
12. Defendants have made revenues and earnings growth Travelzoo's story from the
beginning. And Travelzoo's growth was astronomical. Between 2002 and 2010, Travelzoo's
annual revenues increased from $9.9 million to $112.8 million, and its net income grew from
$850,000 to $13.2 million. The Company repeatedly emphasized in very particular terms the
importance of continual growth, including revenue growth. In press release after press release,
conference call after conference call, the story was the same - the Company's meteoric and
unbroken growth. The Company's continued drumbeat on growth is significant because it
conditioned the market to view Travelzoo as a growth company, and growth companies
generally trade at premiums because their growth is taken into account when valuing the
11
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 44 of 56
company. Further, for any company, but particularly for a growth company - which is precisely
how Defendants repeatedly described Travelzoo - what is significant is what lies ahead rather
than what lies behind.
13. Thus, after analysts reacted to Defendants' repeated statements concerning
growth, Defendants cannot claim that they had nothing to do with analyst expectations -
Defendants created such expectations with their own continuous and glowing statements about
growth.
14. On July 21, 2011, Travelzoo announced lower than-expected revenues caused, in
part, by Getaways' cannibalization of revenues and growth from the Company's core business
branch. This revelation caused Travelzoo stock to collapse from approximately $90 per share to
approximately $60 per share - over 30% - losing approximately $220 million in market
capitalization in one day. Travelzoo stock currently trades around $25 per share.
15. Defendants' motive to commit fraud is clear from the unmistakable pattern,
suspicious timing, and overwhelming amount, of insider sales: Defendant CEO Christopher
Loughlin, who had never sold one Travelzoo share, suddenly sold 100% of his Travelzoo shares
- which he had slowly bought for years - on May 2, 2011, just weeks after a stellar first quarter
earnings and revenue announcement, and a week before he was selling the Company's growth on
Mad Money. Likewise, Defendant director and Company founder Ralph Bartel, after selling no
Travelzoo shares for over four and a half years, unloaded a whopping $186 million worth of
Company shares during just seven weeks of the Class Period. Finally, Defendant Kelly Urso
sold about 95% of her Travelzoo shares during the Class Period on the heels of the stellar first
quarter earnings announcement. Further, Defendant Urso had sold shares only once in the
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 45 of 56
previous six years. In total, these Defendants sold almost 2.5 million Travelzoo shares for
proceeds of almost $190 million.
16. Lead Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class suffered substantial harm by
Defendants' fraud, losing hundreds of millions of dollars.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17. The claims asserted herein arise under and pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule lOb-S promulgated thereunder by
the SEC [17 C.F.R. § 240.1Ob-5].
18. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337, and Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78aa].
19. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act, and
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Travelzoo maintains its principal place of business in this District and
many of the acts and practices complained of herein occurred in substantial part in this District.
20. In connection with the acts alleged in this complaint, Defendants, directly or
indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including, but not
limited to, the mails, interstate telephone communications and the facilities of the national
securities markets.
PARTIES
21. Lead Plaintiffs, as set forth in the certifications accompanying their motion to be
appointed as Lead Plaintiffs, incorporated by reference herein, purchased the common stock of
Travelzoo at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and have been damaged thereby.
22. Additional named plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30
Pension Fund ("IUOE") purchased the common stock of Travelzoo at artificially inflated prices
no
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 46 of 56
during the Class Period and has been damaged thereby. IUOE's certification was submitted in
connection with its motion for appointment as lead plaintiff.
23. Defendant Travelzoo Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Delaware, which maintains its principal place of business at 590 Madison Avenue - 37th Floor,
New York, NY 10022.
24. Defendant Ralph Bartel is the founder of the Company. He founded Travelzoo in
May 1998, and has served as a Director since July 2010. Defendant Bartel signed the 2010 Form
10-K. He was also the Chairman of the Board of Directors from May 1998 to June 2010 and
Travelzoo's Chief Executive Officer and President from May 1998 to September 2008. Ralph
Bartel also indirectly owns 100% of Azzurro Capital Inc. Throughout the Class Period, Azzurro
Capital Inc., held 10.9 million shares of Travelzoo common stock through the Ralph Bartel 2005
Trust, representing approximately 66% of the Company's outstanding shares, as of March 31,
2011. During the Class Period, Defendant Ralph Bartel sold and/or disposed of over 2.436
million Travelzoo shares that he owned or controlled to reap illicit proceeds of over $ 186.536
million, while in possession of material adverse non-public information about the Company.
25. Defendant Christopher J. Loughlin ("Loughlin") is, and during the Class Period
was, Chief Executive Officer of the Company. During the Class Period, Defendant Loughlin
certified the Company's First Quarter 2011 Form 10-Q and 2010 Form 10-K. Also during the
Class Period, Defendant Loughlin sold 12,640 Travelzoo shares that he owned or controlled to
reap illicit proceeds of approximately $1.02 million, while in possession of material adverse non-
public information about the Company. Defendant Loughlin has served as Chief Executive
Officer since July 2010, after serving as Executive Vice President, Europe since May 2005.
Defendant Loughlin joined the Company in 2001.
7
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 47 of 56
26. Defendant Wayne Lee ("Lee") was, during the Class Period, Travelzoo's Chief
Financial Officer. Defendant Lee announced that he was leaving the Company, to be replaced
by Glen Ceremony, in May 2011. During the Class Period, Defendant Lee signed and certified
the Company's First Quarter 2011 Form 10-Q and 2010 Form 10-K.
27. Defendant Kelly Urso ("Urso") was, during the Class Period, a director of
Travelzoo. Defendant Urso has served as a Travelzoo director since February 1999. Defendant
Urso signed the 2010 Form 10-K. During the Class Period, Defendant Urso sold approximately
$900,000 of Travelzoo stock while in the possession of nonpublic, material information.
28. The Defendants referenced above in ¶J 24-27 are referred to herein as the
"Individual Defendants."
29. The Individual Defendants, because of their positions with the Company,
possessed the power and authority to control the contents of Travelzoo' s annual and quarterly
reports, press releases, and presentations to securities analysts, money and portfolio managers
and institutional investors, i.e., the market. They were provided with copies of the Company's
reports and press releases alleged herein to be misleading prior to or shortly after their issuance
and had the ability and opportunity to prevent their issuance or cause them to be corrected.
Because of their positions with the Company, and their access to material non-public information
available to them but not to the public, the Individual Defendants knew that the adverse facts
specified herein had not been disclosed to and were being concealed from the public and that the
positive representations being made were then materially false and misleading. The Individual
Defendants are liable for the false and misleading statements pleaded herein.
30. Each of the Defendants is liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and course
of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Travelzoo securities by
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 48 of 56
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse
facts. The scheme: (i) deceived the investing public regarding Travelzoo ' s business, operations,
and the intrinsic value of Travelzoo securities; (ii) enabled Defendants to artificially inflate the
price of Travelzoo shares; (iii) enabled Travelzoo insiders to sell almost $190 million dollars of
their privately held Travelzoo shares while in possession of material adverse non-public
information about the Company; and (iv) caused Plaintiffs and other members of the Class to
purchase Travelzoo securities at artificially inflated prices.
PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
31. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a Class, consisting of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Travelzoo between March 16, 2011 and July 21, 2011,
inclusive (the "Class") and who were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are
Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their
immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.
32. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. Throughout the Class Period, Travelzoo common shares were actively traded on
the Nasdaq. As of May 5, 2011, the Company had over 16.461 million shares of common stock
issued and outstanding. While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs at
this time and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiffs believe that there
are hundreds or thousands of members in the proposed Class. Record owners and other members
of the Class may be identified from records maintained by Travelzoo or its transfer agent and
may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail, using the form of notice similar to that
customarily used in securities class actions.
9
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 49 of 56
33. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class as all
members of the Class are similarly affected by Defendants' wrongful conduct in violation of
federal law that is complained of herein.
34. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the
Class and have retained counsel competent and experienced in class and securities litigation.
35. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and
predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. Among the
questions of law and fact common to the Class are:
(a) whether the federal securities laws were violated by Defendants'
acts as alleged herein;
(b) whether statements made by Defendants to the investing public
during the Class Period misrepresented material facts about the business and operations of
Travelzoo; and
(c) to what extent the members of the Class have sustained damages
and the proper measure of damages.
36. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. Furthermore, as
the damages suffered by individual Class members may be relatively small, the expense and
burden of individual litigation make it impossible for members of the Class to individually
redress the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as
a class action.
10
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 50 of 56
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
Background of the Company
37. Travelzoo is a global Internet media company founded in 1998 by Defendant
Bartel. Travelzoo informs over 23 million subscribers worldwide, as well as millions of website
users, about travel, entertainment and local deals available from thousands of companies. The
Company's deal experts source, research and test-book offers, recommending only those that
meet Company standards. Travelzoo provides travel companies, entertainment companies, and
local businesses with a fast, flexible, and cost effective way to reach millions of consumers.
Travelzoo' s revenues are generated primarily from advertising fees through the Company's core
travel branch.
38. The Company's publications and products include the Travelzoo websites
(www.travelzoo.com , www.travelzoo.ca , www.travelzoo.co.uk , www.travelzoo.de ,
www.travelzoo.es , www.travelzoo.fr , among others), the Travelzoo Top 20 e-mail newsletter,
the Newsflash e-mail alert service, the SuperSearch pay-per-click travel search tool, and the
Travelzoo Network, a network of third-party websites that list deals published by Travelzoo.
Travelzoo also operates Fly.com , a travel search engine that allows users to quickly and easily
find the best prices on flights from hundreds of airlines and online travel agencies.
39. More than 2,000 companies use Travelzoo's services, including American
Airlines, Avis Rent A Car, British Airways, Harrah' s Entertainment, Expedia, Fairmont Hotels
and Resorts, Interstate Hotels & Resorts, JetBlue Airways, Kimpton Hotels, Liberty Travel,
Marriott Hotels, Royal Caribbean, Spirit Airlines, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide,
United Airlines, and Virgin Atlantic.
40. Travelzoo's principal revenues, which it receives through its core travel business,
are advertising revenues, and consist primarily of listing fees paid by travel companies,
11
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 51 of 56
entertainment companies and local businesses to advertise their offers on Travelzoo's media
properties. Listing fees are based on audience reach, placement, number of listings, number of
impressions, number of click-throughs, number of referrals, or percentage of the face value of
vouchers sold. Advertising insertion orders are typically for periods between one month and
twelve months and are not automatically renewed.
Local Deals Is Launched
41. In August 2010, the Company expanded its business, launching Local Deals, a
new service that allows Travelzoo subscribers to purchase vouchers for deals from local
businesses such as spas and restaurants through the Travelzoo website. Vouchers are redeemable
at the local businesses during the promotional period. The Company receives a percentage of the
face value of the vouchers. In the Local Deals business, Travelzoo contracts with local
businesses to offer deep discounts for potential customers (Travelzoo's existing subscribers).
Then Travelzoo sells the discounts (in the form of a voucher for goods or services) and keeps
between 30 to 40% of total revenue the Company sells as commission.
42. Unlike revenue Travelzoo receives through its core travel business, which is
straight advertising revenue paid up front by merchants, Local Deals revenue is dependent on the
amount of vouchers sold.
Growth Has Been Travelzoo's Driver For Many Years
43. The Company has repeatedly emphasized the necessity of growth for Travelzoo.
For example, Travelzoo stated in its Form 10-K for fiscal year 2010, filed on March 16, 2011:
Since the commencement of our operations, we have experienced a period of rapid growth. In order to execute our business plan, we must continue to grow significantly. As of December 31, 2010, we had 255 employees, up from 193 employees as of December 31, 2009. We expect that the number of our employees will continue to increase for the foreseeable future. (Emphasis added).
12
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 52 of 56
44. Travelzoo has also repeatedly stated that its growth strategy involved continued
growth in revenue through both core travel and Local Deals. For example, in the Third Quarter
2010 Form 10-Q, filed on November 9, 2010, the Company stated:
Growth Strategy
Our growth strategy has three main elements:
• International expansion: We want to grow our revenue and operating profit through replicating the Travelzoo business in attractive international markets in Europe and in North America. We want to develop a strong competitive position through building a strong global brand and unique global content.
• Expand scope of the Travelzoo business: We want to grow our revenue and operating profit through expanding the Travelzoo product offerings and content into entertainment and lifestyle (e.g., Broadway shows, sporting events, restaurants and spas).
• Fly.com: We want to grow revenue and operating profits through building up Fly.com , our new meta-search engine for airfares. We have identified meta-search as an opportunity with attractive economics and great synergies with Travelzoo.
We launched the Travelzoo business in the U.K. in 2005, in Canada in 2006, in Germany in 2006, in France in 2007, and in Spain in 2008. We began developing and offering entertainment content and related advertising services in 2008. We launched Fly.com in February 2009. In August 2010, we launched Local Deals, a new service that allows our subscribers to purchase vouchers for deals from local businesses such as spas and restaurants. The vouchers are then redeemable at the local businesses during the promotional period in which the deals are offered. (Emphasis added).
45. Though not mentioned by name, the reference above to "Broadway events,
sporting events, restaurants, and spas" refers to Local Deals offers.
13
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 53 of 56
46. Defendants made substantially similar statements about Travelzoo' s growth
strategy, and with particular reference to revenue growth, in the August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q, May
10, 2010 Form 10-Q, and May 6, 2010 Form 10-K/A.
47. Defendants did not mention Local Deals offers in the filings listed in the previous
paragraph because Local Deals was only launched in August 2010, and in its first quarter of
operations Local Deals netted only a small amount of revenue.
Local Deals' Role in Travelzoo's Growth
48. In the first quarter of its operation, which was the third quarter of 2010, Local
Deals started slowly, with gross revenue of approximately $800,000.
49. In a conference call for the third quarter of 2010, held with analysts on October
20, 2010, Defendant Loughlin discussed the launch of Local Deals:
Slide 23 focuses on our new business, Local Deals. We established Local Deals as a separate entity, Travelzoo Local Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Travelzoo Inc. on Aug 24 to handle all aspects of publishing and selling Local Deals' vouchers. Local Deals is generally a new type of content for Travelzoo and include restaurants, spas and local festivals. We allure our subscribers to these Local Deals within their area, and then they buy a voucher from a merchant via the Travelzoo Web site.
We report the revenue from Local Deals on a net basis. In Q3, we published 44 deals in 11 cities most of them were published in September, and we sold approximately 25,000 vouchers, our average selling price is $33. Overall, revenue from Local Deals in Q3 was not significant, and we generated a small loss from the business as we incurred start-up costs. One notable aspect of Local Deals is that they can go viral very quickly, and here you can see some Twitter announcements where people are talking about Local Deals, and this is partly due to the fact that they are local by nature so locally interesting, and also that we (inaudible) that they have to reach in order for the deal to be activated.
14
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 54 of 56
50. On February 3, 2011, Defendant Loughlin discussed Local Deals with analysts on
the fourth quarter 2010 conference call. By its second quarter of operations, the fourth quarter of
2010, Local Deals had grown significantly, with gross revenues up approximately 1000%:
Revenues accelerated in North America year-over-year to 14%. Within that growth rate, we saw excellent growth in our Local Deals business where we far exceeded our expectations for the quarter, but we also saw a decline in revenues from SuperSearch and Fly. corn versus the previous quarter, as we decreased marketing spend in these search businesses. We did this in anticipation of greater investment in Local Deals.... [S]o the growth in the gross [revenue] [for Local Deals] was somewhere in the region of between eight to nine times. So just shy of 10 times growth quarter-over quarter. So just under 1000% growth.
51. Local Deals continued to grow. On March 1, 2011, Wedbush analyst Edward
Woo wrote a report stating:
Travelzoo continues to quickly ramp up its Local Deals business, generating an estimated $2.1 million in net revenues in February. This compares with estimates net revenues of $1.3 million in January, $1.5 million in December, $1 million in November, and $650,000 in October.
Getaways
52. Travelzoo launched Getaways, a subset of its Local Deals Branch, in March 2011.
However, as noted, Defendants did not disclose the existence of Getaways until two months later
on June 1, 2011. Getaways deals usually include a night or two at a relatively high-end hotel or
resort within a two-hour drive or short flight from subscribers' homes and include a fine-dining
experience or resort credit plus other extras.
53. Travelzoo originally offered 40 Getaways in locations across North America and
Europe, including: The Borgata in Atlantic City, Essex Resort & Spa in Vermont, Timberline
Lodge in Oregon, Vintners Inn in Santa Rosa, Portola Hotel & Spa in Monterey Bay, Ravella at
Lake Las Vegas, The Ellis Hotel in Atlanta, Woodmark Hotel on Lake Washington near Seattle,
15
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 55 of 56
Sedona Rouge Hotel & Spa, The Canary Hotel in Santa Barbara, The Keating Hotel by
Pininfarina in San Diego, Cambria Pines Lodge in California, the Dundee Resort & Golf Club in
Nova Scotia, Solis Lough Eske Castle in Donegal, Ireland, Hotel Termes Carlemany in Andorra,
the Radisson Blu in Cannes, Hotel Imperator Concorde Nimes, France, La Clairiere Bio et Spa
Hotel in Alsace, France, l'Hotel Roussi'hotel in France, The Feathers in Cotswolds, England,
Hotel Villa Lutece Port Royal in Paris, Pestana Hotel Berlin Tiergarten, Furstenhof Celle in
Hanover, Schlosshotel Lerbach near Koln, Princeotel in Barcelona, Royal Spa Kitzbuhel Hotel in
Austria and Ryad Mogador Agdal in Marrakesh.
54. As with the other Local Deals, Getaways deals are available for a set duration.
Subscribers purchase a voucher on a Travelzoo website and redeem them at the hotel or resort.
For example, Travelzoo offered a one-night stay today for two people in the four-star The
Chelsea Hotel in Atlantic City, N.J., with a 3-course dinner for two at The Chelsea Prime
restaurant for $189. Also included are spa and gym passes, free Wi-Fi and chairs, towels and use
of umbrellas at the beach. That price, which Travelzoo touted as a 56% discount, was good for
Sunday to Thursday arrivals through Sept. 1, 2011.
55. Unlike a hotel stay listed in Travelzoo's Top 20 emails, Getaways were targeted
to subscribers in particular markets and vouchers are purchased on Travelzoo.com instead of
referring customers to the hotel website for bookings. Defendant Christopher Loughlin stated
that Getaways were geared toward subscribers who might not have considered staying at a
nearby hotel, but would be tempted to do so if the offer is right.
Unbeknownst to Investors, Getaways Cuts Into Travelzoo's Core Travel Revenues and Growth
56. During the Class Period, Getaways' business began to eat into Travelzoo's core
travel business, adversely affecting Travelzoo revenue growth and bottom line revenues in the
16
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39 Filed 01/06/12 Page 56 of 56
second quarter of 2011. Hotel rooms are limited and there were not an infinite amount of deals
that could be offered at any hotel. Thus, as confirmed by Defendant Loughlin after the Class
Period, offering a Getaway deal at a local hotel to subscribers who lived nearby was often at the
expense of offering a deal through the core travel branch.
57. Getaways adversely affected revenue growth and bottom line revenues because,
although both Getaways and core travel businesses related to hotel deals, advertising revenue
received by the core travel business was, in certain circumstances, superior to voucher revenue
received through Getaways. As noted, revenue was paid to the Company differently in the two
branches, core travel and Getaways. In the core travel part of the business, advertising revenue
was paid up front by hotels, airlines, or cruises in return for placing their business on Travelzoo's
email lists which were sent to its worldwide subscribers. In the Getaways business, revenue,
only 30-40% of which went to Travelzoo, was paid by a customer for a voucher that could be
redeemed at a local hotel.
58. For example, if Travelzoo offered a Getaways deal at a London hotel, to
Travelzoo customers who were in driving distance of (or a very short flight from) London, for
$1,000, and ten customers signed up, that would equal $10,000 in gross revenue. If Travelzoo' s
take rate was 40%, the Company would receive $4,000 in net revenue. If, in contrast, Travelzoo
offered a deal at the same hotel on its core travel side through its Top 20 email list to subscribers
worldwide (who would travel, often from far away, to London for this deal), the Company would
generally receive between $5,000 and $10,000 from the hotel in advertising revenue. Thus,
revenues were often not simply taken from one branch (core travel) and given to another
(Getaways) - overall revenues dropped as Getaways cannibalized core travel revenues, as
disclosed at the end of the Class Period.
17
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 40
59. Defendants never disclosed to investors the cannibalization issues or how they
could affect Travelzoo growth, revenues and earnings.
60. Defendant Loughlin admitted after the Class Period that he was aware - back in
March 2011 - of the cannibalization issue but, nonetheless, proceeded with Getaways:
[W]e took a decision back in April. We ran a test in April - actually ran a test in March for the Getaways. And some folks will probably remember there was a Napa Valley deal that all of sudden went through the roof. And we just said to ourselves, okay, do we attack ourselves, or do we just ignore this, and what we did is that right, let's roll it out, see what happens. (Emphasis added).
61. Further, upon information and belief, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
were well aware that Getaways revenues were cutting into core travel revenues and growth
because they had real-time access to up-to-date revenue information through software utilized by
the Company.
62. Defendant Loughlin also admitted that revenue cannibalization caused lower core
travel revenue growth. As explained below, certain analysts put the rest together, realizing that
the revenue cannibalization had also, in part, caused lower overall revenues.
Defendants Disclose Getaways' Cannibalization of Core Travel Revenues and Growth
63. On July 21, 2011, the last day of the Class Period, Defendants announced lower
than expected revenues and earnings per share. On that day, Defendants announced that
Travelzoo had revenues of $37.6 million, below the analyst consensus of $40.2 million, and
earnings per share of $30, well below analyst consensus of $38. As a result, Travelzoo stock
collapsed by over 30%, from approximately $90 per share to $60 per share in morning trading on
the Nasdaq, after touching a low of $57.48 per share.
64. The $2.6 million in lower revenues was a material amount in the context of
Travelzoo's earnings per share for the second quarter. Indeed, if the Company had received the
II
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 40
expected $2.6 million in revenues, its second quarter earnings per share would have been near
the analyst consensus of $38 per share.
65. In the conference call with analysts following the earnings announcement, after
several analysts honed in on the cannibalization issues, Defendant Loughlin admitted that
cannibalization of core travel revenues by Getaways caused lower core travel growth in the
second quarter of 2011. But because, inter alia, the core travel business netted, in certain
circumstances, superior revenue to Getaways' voucher system, lower core travel growth meant
lower overall growth and lower overall revenues.
66. Further, Loughlin admitted that he was aware of the cannibalization issue back in
March 2011 when Getaways was launched. Investors, on the other hand, were not aware of such
issue until after Travelzoo stock collapsed, in part, due to the disclosure of the lower than
expected revenues and core travel growth caused by cannibalization.
Defendants' Materially False and Misleading Statements Made During the Class Period
67. On March 16, 2011, the first day of the Class Period, Travelzoo issued its annual
report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year 2010. The report was signed by Defendants Bartel,
Loughlin, Lee, and Urso and certified by Defendants Loughlin and Lee. The 2010 Annual
Report discussed Travelzoo competitors - relating both to core travel and Local Deals - at great
length:
Competition
We face intense competition. We compete for advertising dollars with large Internet portal sites such MSN and Yahoo! that offer listings or other advertising opportunities to travel, entertainment and local companies. We compete with search engines like Google and Bing that offer pay-per-click listings. We compete with travel meta-search engines like Kayak and online travel and entertainment deal publishers. We compete with large online travel agencies like Expedia and Priceline that also offer advertising placements and
19
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 3 of 40
capture consumer interest. We compete with companies like Groupon and LivingSocial that sell vouchers for deals from local businesses such as spas, restaurants and activity companies. In addition, we compete with newspapers, magazines and other traditional media companies that operate websites which provide advertising opportunities. We expect to face additional competition as other established and emerging companies, including print media companies, enter our market. We believe that the primary competitive factors are price, performance and audience quality.
Many of our current and potential competitors have longer operating histories, significantly greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources and larger advertiser bases than we do. In addition, current and potential competitors may make strategic acquisitions or establish cooperative relationships to expand their businesses or to offer more comprehensive solutions.
New technologies could increase the competitive pressures that we face. The development of competing technologies by market participants or the emergence of new industry standards may adversely affect our competitive position. Competition could result in reduced margins on our services, loss of market share or less use of our products by our advertisers and consumers. If we are not able to compete effectively with current or future competitors as a result of these and other factors, our business could be materially adversely affected.
68. These statements were materially false and misleading when made because, inter
a/ia, Defendants failed to disclose that, with the March 2011 advent of Getaways, Travelzoo was
essentially competing with itself in that Getaways would cannibalize revenues from the
Company's core travel branch and, thus, impair Travelzoo' s revenue growth and/or earnings
growth.
69. The 2010 Annual Report contained similar statements in the "Risk Factors"
section. But instead of disclosing the known risk of revenue cannibalization to investors, it
concealed it by referring to Travelzoo competition with outside companies, rather than within its
own branches:
Intense competition may adversely affect our ability to achieve or maintain market share and operate profitably.
20
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 4 of 40
We face intense competition. We compete for advertising dollars with large Internet portal sites, such as MSN and Yahoo! that offer listings or other advertising opportunities to travel, entertainment and local companies. These companies have significantly greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources and larger advertiser bases. We compete with search engines like Google and Bing that offer pay-per-click listings. We compete with travel meta-search engines like Kayak and online travel and entertainment deal publishers. We compete with large online travel agencies like Expedia and Priceline that also offer advertising placements and capture consumer interest. We compete with companies like Groupon and LivingSocial that sell vouchers for deals from local businesses such as spas and restaurants. In addition, we compete with newspapers, magazines and other traditional media companies that operate websites which provide online advertising opportunities. We expect to face additional competition as other established and emerging companies, including print media companies, enter the online advertising market. Competition could result in reduced margins on our services, loss of market share or less use of Travelzoo by advertisers and consumers. If we are not able to compete effectively with current or future competitors as a result of these and other factors, our business could be materially adversely affected.
70. These statements were materially false and misleading when made because, inter
a/ia, Defendants failed to disclose that Travelzoo was now essentially competing with itself in
that Getaways would cannibalize revenues from the Company's core travel branch and, thus,
impair Travelzoo's revenue growth and/or earnings growth. See ¶J56-66.
71. The 2010 Annual Report also discussed the pivotal importance of advertising
revenues:
Our current revenue model depends on advertising fees paid primarily by travel, entertainment and local companies. If current advertisers decide not to continue advertising their offers with us and we are unable to replace them with new advertisers, our business may be adversely affected.
72. These statements were materially false and misleading when made because, inter
a/ia, Defendants failed to disclose that Travelzoo was now essentially competing with itself,
adversely affecting advertising revenues by Getaways' cannibalization of revenues from the
Company's core travel branch and, thus, impairing Travelzoo's revenue growth and/or earnings
growth. See ¶J56-66.
21
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 5 of 40
73. The Annual Report also stated the paramount importance of growth to Travelzoo:
Since the commencement of our operations, we have experienced a period of rapid growth. In order to execute our business plan, we must continue to grow significantly. (Emphasis added).
74. The 2010 Annual Report also stated that "[w]hen evaluating the financial
condition and operating performance of the Company, management focuses on. . . [g]rowth in
revenues in the absolute and relative to the growth in reach of the Company's publications."
75. The 2010 Annual Report demonstrated such revenue growth as it reported
steadily increasing revenues since 2006. Revenues were as follows: 2006 - $69.5 million; 2007
—$78.9 million; 2008 —$80.8 million; 2009 —$93.9 million; and 2010 —$112.7 million.
76. In the 2010 Annual Report, Defendants described Travelzoo's growth strategy:
Growth Strategy
Our growth strategy has two main elements:
• International expansion: We want to grow our revenue and operating profit through replicating the Travelzoo business in attractive international markets in Europe and in North America. We want to develop a strong competitive position through building a strong global brand and unique global content.
• Expand scope of Travelzoo business: We want to grow our revenue and operating profit through expanding the Travelzoo product offerings and content into entertainment (e.g., Broadway shows, sporting events), through our Local Deals e-mail alert service and through Fly.com . (Emphasis added).
77. The highlighted statement was materially false and misleading when made
because, inter a/ia, Defendants failed to disclose that, since Travelzoo was now essentially
competing with itself, part of the growth fueled by Local Deals, i.e., Getaways, was at the
expense of growth and revenue at the Company's core travel business, and would actually impair
Travelzoo's revenue growth and/or earnings growth. See ¶56-66.
22
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 6 of 40
78. On April 21, 2011, Defendants published a release announcing results for the first
quarter of 2011, the period ended March 31, 2011:
Travelzoo Reports First Quarter 2011 Results
NEW YORK, April 21, 2011 -- Travelzoo Inc. (NASDAQ: TZOO):
• Revenue of $37.0 million, up 30% year-over-year
• Non-GAAP net income of $6.0 million, up 144% year-over year
• Non-GAAP earnings per share of $0.37, compared to $0.15 in the prior year period
• GAAP net loss of $14.0 million; GAAP loss per share of $0.85
• Cash flow from operations of $10.7 million
Travelzoo Inc., a global Internet media company, today announced financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2011, with revenue of $37.0 million, an increase of 30% year-over-year. Adjusted operating profit was $10.0 million. Adjusted net income was $6.0 million, with adjusted diluted net income per share (EPS) of $0.37, up from $0.15 in the prior-year period. Adjusted operating profit, adjusted net income and adjusted diluted earnings per share for the first quarter ended March 31, 2011 exclude a one-time expense item of $20.0 million related to the settlement of the State of Delaware unclaimed property review.
79. In addition to the foregoing, the April 21, 2011 release also quoted Defendant
Loughlin, in part, as follows:
"We kicked off 2011 with record revenues and record adjusted operating income. Subscribers grew by over 1 million, the second best performance in our company's history," said Chris Loughlin, CEO of Travelzoo. "We doubled adjusted operating income year-over-year as we continued to ramp up Local Deals, which are now live in 48 markets in 6 countries. North America revenues grew at the fastest pace in over 4 years. Europe saw the highest quarterly subscriber growth ever and returned its first significant quarterly profit. We also reached a settlement agreement for a previously disclosed State of Delaware
23
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 7 of 40
escheatment claim, incurring a one-time cash expense. (Emphasis added).
80. The highlighted statements in paragraph 79 were materially false and misleading
when made because, inter a/ia, Defendants failed to disclose that, since Travelzoo was now
essentially competing with itself, part of the revenues received through Local Deals were at the
expense of the Company's core travel business, and would thus impair Travelzoo's revenue
growth and/or earnings growth. See ¶J56-66.
81. Travelzoo also issued a "First Quarter Performance and Growth Strategy
Overview" (the "First Quarter Presentation") on April 21, 2011, which the Company presented
to analysts for the conference call of that day. Travelzoo also published the First Quarter
Presentation on its website. The First Quarter Presentation demonstrates the importance to
Defendants of growth in Local Deals revenues:
Our growth strategy is built on two key pillars that include continued audience growth and product expansion.
1. Rapid audience growth:
Higher penetration in existing markets
Develop new international markets
Management Focus for 2011
Rapidly grow Local Deals revenues & income
Maintain quality leadership position by publishing outstanding high-quality deals
Expand into additional U.S., Canadian, and European cities
Increase revenue per market
24
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 8 of 40
(Emphasis added).
82. The highlighted statements were materially false and misleading when made
because, inter a/ia, Defendants failed to disclose that, since Travelzoo was now essentially
competing with itself, part of the revenues received, and growth achieved, through Local Deals
were, as described above, at the expense of the Company's core travel business, and would thus
impair Travelzoo's revenue growth and/or earnings growth. See ¶J56-66.
83. On April 21, 2011, apparently in response to Travelzoo' s announcement, Think
Equity analyst Atul Bagga issued a report raising second quarter estimates to $39 million, up
from $33.9 million, and earnings per share estimates to $38 from $.29.
84. Immediately following the publication of its April 21, 2011 release announcing
results for the first quarter of 2011, shares of Travelzoo rallied almost $20.00 per share, or
almost 27%, to $93.70 per share. That day, Forbes.com reported that Local Deals had largely
caused the positive first quarter results:
Travelzoo Soars; Qi Crushes Estimates On Strong Deals Biz (Updated)
Travelzoo (TZOO) shares are trading sharply higher after the online travel information provider posted better-than-expected first quarter results.
For the quarter, the company posted revenue of $37 million and non-GAAP profits of 37 cents a share, well ahead of the Street consensus at $33.4 million and 28 cents. Revenue was up 30% from a year ago.
The company said North American revenue was up 23%; European revenue was up 53%. Travelzoo said it had 19.9 million unduplicated subscribers to its e-mail newsletters, up 6% sequentially and 12% from a year ago.
On the strong results, TZOO shares have spiked $19.83, or 26.8%, to $93.70.
25
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 9 of 40
Update: Clearly, one of the big drivers for the company in the quarter was its LocalDeals business, a new unit that has jumped into Groupon territory. In an interview with Forbes this morning, CEO Chris Loughlin noted that gross revenue from the business was $16.1 million in the quarter, up from $8 million in the December quarter, and $800,000 the quarter before that; he won't say what percentage of the gross total is included in the company's revenues, but notes that margins on individual deals have been running in the 30%-50% range depending on the merchant. Loughlin notes that the company's deals business is now operating in 48 markets and six countries; he says the goal is to add about 15 additional markets every quarter. In the long run, he adds, LocalDeals could be as big an opportunity as the company's core media business. (Emphasis added).
85. Defendants also held a conference call with analysts on April 21, 2011. In that
call, Defendant Loughlin stated that Local Deals was a driver of Travelzoo ' s growth strategy:
Let's now move on to Travelzoo's growth strategy. On slide 14, I summarize the growth strategy. On the X axis, we are growing the number of subscribers that engage with the Travelzoo brand. We show our second-highest increase in new subscribers in Qi 2011 and now have just under 20 million subscribers to our publications in Europe and North America.
Along the Y axis, we are growing the revenue per subscriber, and Local Deals has become a substantial driver here. You can see already that we increased our revenue per subscriber from $6.70 to $7.80 from Q4 to Qi....
We believe that as we continue to grow aggressively in North America, we have a tremendous opportunity there, and Europe presents an enormous opportunity ahead. (Emphasis added).
86. The highlighted statements were materially false and misleading when made
because, inter cilia, Defendants failed to disclose that, since Travelzoo was now essentially
competing with itself, part of the growth of Local Deals was, as described above, at the expense
of the Company's core travel business, and would thus impair Travelzoo's revenue growth
and/or earnings growth. See ¶'J56-66.
26
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 10 of 40
87. In the days that followed, shares of the Company continued to rally. As evidence
of this, on April 25, 2011, the MotleyFool.com reported, in part, the following:
Travelzoo Shares Popped Again: What You Need to Know
Although we don't believe in timing the market or panicking over market movements, we do like to keep an eye on big changes - just in case they're material to our investing thesis.
What: Shares of travel discount company Travelzoo (Nasdaq: TZOO) are shooting higher again today, one trading day after enjoying a nice earnings bump.
So what: There are a few things at work today driving shares higher. There's a little momentum left from the earnings spike but Benchmark Co. analyst Frederick Moran fueled the fire upgrading the stock to a buy and slapping a $123 price target on shares...
88. Also on April 25, 2011, Craig Hallum analyst Eric Martinuzzi raised revenue
expectations for the second quarter to $41.4 million and earnings per share to $.42.
89. Taking full advantage of the artificial inflation in the price of Company shares,
caused as a result of the publication of Defendants' false and misleading statements, between
April 26 and April 29, 2011, Defendant Ralph Bartel, alone and/or through entities he controlled,
sold over 625,000 shares of Company stock he owned and/or controlled to realize gross proceeds
of over $55 million.
90. Days later, on May 2, 2011, Defendant Loughlin sold all of his Travelzoo shares -
100% - to reap illicit gross proceeds of over $1 million.
91. As shares of the Company continued to trade at levels artificially inflated as a
result of the publication of Defendants' materially false and misleading statements, on May 10,
2011, Travelzoo CEO Chris Loughlin presented at the Jefferies 2011 Global Technology,
Internet, Media & Telecom Conference, at the Four Seasons Hotel in New York City.
27
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 11 of 40
92. Also on May 10, 2011, Defendants filed with the SEC the Company's Form 10-Q
for the First Quarter ended March 31, 2011, signed by Defendant Lee and certified by
Defendants Lee and Loughlin. The First Quarter Form 10-Q contained similar misstatements to
those in the 2010 Annual Report concerning competition:
Intense competition may adversely affect our ability to achieve or maintain market share and operate profitably.
We face intense competition. We compete for advertising dollars with large Internet portal sites, such as America Online, MSN, and Yahoo!, that offer listings or other advertising opportunities for travel and entertainment companies. These companies have significantly greater financial, technical, marketing, and other resources and larger client bases. We compete with search engines like Google and Yahoo! Search that offer pay-per-click listings. We compete with travel meta-search engines and online travel deal publishers. We compete with large online travel agencies like Expedia and Priceline that also offer advertising placements. We compete with companies like Groupon and LivingSocial that also sell vouchers for deals from local businesses such as spas and restaurants. In addition, we compete with newspapers, magazines, and other traditional media companies that operate websites which provide online advertising opportunities. We expect to face additional competition as other established and emerging companies, including print media companies, enter the online advertising market. Competition could result in reduced margins on our services, loss of market share, or less use of Travelzoo by travel companies, entertainment companies, and consumers. If we are not able to compete effectively with current or future competitors as a result of these and other factors, our business could be materially adversely affected.
93. These statements were materially false and misleading when made because, inter
a/ia, Defendants failed to disclose that Travelzoo was now essentially competing with itself in
that Getaways was cannibalizing revenues from the Company's core travel branch and, thus,
impairing Travelzoo' s revenue growth and/or earnings growth. See ¶J56-66.
94. The First Quarter Form 10-Q also stated, in pertinent part:
Revenues
Our total revenues increased to $37.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 from $28.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010. This represents an increase of $8.4 million or 30%. $5.2 million of the increase in revenues came
PW
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 12 of 40
from our operations in North America, which had an increase of 23% in revenues year-over-year and was attributed primarily to a $5.1 million increase in revenues from our publications, which includes the Travelzoo website, the Top 20 e-mail newsletter, the Newsflash e-mail alert service, and the Local Deals e-mail alert service. $3.3 million of the increase in revenues came from our operations in Europe, which had an increase of 53% in revenues year-over-year, and was attributed primarily to a $3.3 million increase in revenue from our publications, which includes the Travelzoo website, the Top 20 e-mail newsletter, the Newsflash e-mail alert service and the Local Deals e-mail alert service.
95. The highlighted statements were materially false and misleading when made
because, inter alia, Defendants failed to disclose that, since Travelzoo was now essentially
competing with itself, part of the revenues received through Local Deals were, as described
above, at the expense of the Company's core travel business, and would thus impair Travelzoo's
revenue growth and/or earnings growth. See ¶J56-66.
96. Defendants also continued to tout Travelzoo's growth strategy in the First Quarter
2011 Form 10-Q:
Growth Strategy
Our growth strategy has two main elements:
• International expansion: We want to grow our revenue and operating profit through replicating the Travelzoo business in attractive international markets in Europe and in North America. We want to develop a strong competitive position through building a strong global brand and unique global content.
• Expand scope of the Travelzoo business: We want to grow our revenue and operating profit through expanding the Travelzoo product offerings and content into entertainment and lifestyle (e.g., Broadway shows, sporting events, restaurants and spas).
97. These statements were materially false and misleading because Defendants failed
to disclose that, because Travelzoo was now essentially competing with itself, part of the
Company's growth fueled by Local Deals was, as described above, at the expense of the
29
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 13 of 40
Company's core travel business, and would thus impair Travelzoo's revenue growth. See ¶'j56-
66.
98. Defendants also continued their statements about the paramount importance of
growth to Travelzoo in the First Quarter Form 10-Q: "In order to execute our business plan, we
must be able to grow significantly."
99. On May 11, 2011, ten days after he sold 100% of his Travelzoo shares, Defendant
Loughlin appeared on Jim Cramer's Mad Money making glowing statements about Travelzoo's
growth and future health: "[Travelzoo has a] 50% growth rate in Europe. You know, there is a
tremendous opportunity."
100. On May 16, 2011, Travelzoo published a press release about Local Deals:
Travelzoo Subscribers in Europe Rapidly Adopt Local Deals: Sales Triple in the First Half of Q2
LONDON, May 16, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Travelzoo Inc. (NASDAQ: TZOO), a global Internet media company, today announced that its European subscribers bought $3.4 million in Local Deals during the first 45 days of the second quarter, up 196% from the first 45 days in the first quarter of 2011. Gross sales of Local Deals in Europe, halfway through the second quarter, are only $400,000 shy of the total gross revenues for the entire first quarter.
"We are pleased to see the rapid adoption of Local Deals among our European subscribers," said Chris Loughlin, Chief Executive Officer. "We see this as a clear validation of our international strategy, in that we can quickly take a product that is already very successful in North America and rapidly roll it out into other markets where we already have a large subscriber base."
Travelzoo has published 78 deals in Europe so far this quarter, generating average gross revenue of $43,600 per deal, well ahead of Travelzoo's average gross revenue per deal of $34,000 in Qi. Two deals in Europe in recent weeks each yielded more than $225,000 in gross revenue: A dining experience at Gordon Ramsay's Maze in London, which holds a Michelin-star rating, sold 2,916 covers, and a getaway at a 4-star Berlin hotel generated 2,379 room nights.
30
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 14 of 40
Travelzoo's fastest growing European Local Deals market is now Germany, where gross Local Deals revenue through 15 May was $810,000. This is up from $10,000 during the same period in the first quarter and 500% ahead of the full first quarter gross revenues of $130,000. The UK continues to be Travelzoo's largest Local Deals market in Europe, generating $2.2 million in gross revenue in the second quarter to 15 May, up 94% when compared to the first half of Qi. France and Spain are also trading well in excess of 100% ahead of Q on a like-for-like basis.
Glen Drury, Senior Vice President of Local Deals in Europe commented, "The recent results in London and Berlin were outstanding, but we are seeing similar results across the region. For example, a deal at the trendy Ice Bar on Montmartre in Paris just took 850 covers in 5 days. While it is very exciting to see these big cities light up, we are also very impressed with the response we are seeing in markets like Chester, Kent, Ludlow, Leipzig, Mainz and other lesser known cities across Europe."
As more and more Travelzoo subscribers start to enjoy their local experiences, merchants are commenting on the quality of Travelzoo's subscriber base and Travelzoo's quality leadership position in the local deals market. Ms. Cat Spencer, Head of Marketing at the Albannach, a high-end restaurant in Trafalgar Square, which received more than 1,000 covers from Travelzoo, said, "Travelzoo has been the best marketing campaign we have run in the past year. Not only did it drive covers through the door, but guests tended to spend more." Calum Colquhoun, General Manager, De Vere Daresbury Park near Manchester also commented, "We have used other companies to sell similar local promotions and only received a fraction of the sales. Added to that, the whole process was very easy for us and for the customers who booked."
Travelzoo has now published Local Deals in 28 markets across Europe as well as an additional 10 deals in getaway destinations such as Ireland, Morocco, Cote d'Azur and Biarritz.
To view the latest Local Deals from Travelzoo, visit www.travelzoo.co.uk , www.travelzoo . de, www.travelzoo.fr or www.travelzoo.es and click on Local Deals.
101. The highlighted statements were materially false and misleading when made
because, inter alia, Defendants failed to disclose that, since Travelzoo was now essentially
competing itself, part of the growth of, and revenues received through, Local Deals were, as
31
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 15 of 40
described above, at the expense of the Company's core travel business, and would thus impair
Travelzoo's revenue growth. See ¶J56-66.
102. On May 17, 2011, Defendants announced the imminent departure of Defendant
CFO Lee:
Travelzoo Appoints Glen Ceremony as Chief Financial Officer
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Travelzoo Inc. (NASDAQ: TZOO), a global Internet media company, today announced that Glen Ceremony will become Chief Financial Officer on June 15, 2011. Mr. Ceremony joins Travelzoo from eBay, where he serves as Corporate Controller. Wayne Lee, Travelzoo's current Chief Financial Officer, will stay at the company through the end of July 2011 to assist with the transition. After five years in the role, Mr. Lee plans to take time off with his family and to pursue other opportunities.
"We are delighted that Glen has decided to join the team," said Chris Loughlin, Travelzoo' s Chief Executive Officer, "With over 20 years experience within high-growth companies and six and a half years within eBay's financial organization, Glen comes with a wealth of Internet advertising and ecommerce experience. Glen also brings a new dimension of strategic financial leadership to our business at a time when our growth rate is accelerating and we are becoming a larger global organization. The transition is of course bitter-sweet, Wayne has done a tremendous job in guiding Travelzoo's financial organization over the past 5 years and he will remain a good friend."
103. Between May 25, 2011 and May 31, 2011, Defendant Bartel sold approximately
920,000 Travelzoo shares for gross proceeds of approximately $68 million.
104. Defendants continued to artificially inflate the price of Company shares by
presenting at investment conferences across the country, hosted by the nation's leading
brokerage houses. For example, on June 1, 2011, Defendant Loughlin presented at the 8th
Annual Craig-Hallum Institutional Investor Conference, at the Radisson Plaza Hotel in
Minneapolis. A week later, Defendant Loughlin also appeared at the 6th Annual Needham
Internet & Digital Media Conference, on June 7, 2011, at the Jumeirah Essex House in New
32
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 16 of 40
York City. Two weeks after that, Defendant Loughlin presented at the Goldman Sachs Second
Annual dotCommerce Day, at the Le Parker Meridien Hotel in New York City.
105. On June 1, 2011, Defendants specifically mentioned Getaways for the first time.
On that date, Defendants disseminated a press release trumpeting Getaways' success:
Travelzoo Getaways Delivers 28,000 Room Nights for 40 Upscale Resorts
NEW YORK, June 1, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Travelzoo Inc. (NASDAQ: TZOO), a global Internet media company, announced today that 40 upscale resorts have sold more than 28,000 incremental room nights through its new Travelzoo Getaways program. Travelzoo began testing the Getaways model in March; the new program alerts Travelzoo subscribers to upscale getaways within a two-hour drive or short flight from their home airport. Getaways typically include one or two nights at an upscale resort, with a fine-dining experience or a flexible resort credit to encourage Travelzoo subscribers to experience the resort's full amenities. Travelzoo Getaways uses the same booking mechanism as Travelzoo Local Deals, where Travelzoo subscribers purchase a voucher from the resort through the Travelzoo website and then book their stay directly with the property.
Forty upscale resorts have now participated in Travelzoo Getaways across North America and Europe, including: The Borgata in Atlantic City, Essex Resort & Spa in Vermont, Timberline Lodge in Oregon, Vintners Inn in Santa Rosa, Portola Hotel & Spa in Monterey Bay, Ravella at Lake Las Vegas, The Ellis Hotel in Atlanta, Woodmark Hotel on Lake Washington near Seattle, Sedona Rouge Hotel & Spa, The Canary Hotel in Santa Barbara, The Keating Hotel by Pininfarina in San Diego, Cambria Pines Lodge in California, the Dundee Resort & Golf Club in Nova Scotia, Solis Lough Eske Castle in Donegal, Ireland, Hotel Termes Carlemany in Andorra, the Radisson Blu in Cannes, Hotel Imperator Concorde Nimes, France, La Clairiere Bio et Spa Hotel in Alsace, France, l'Hotel Roussi'hotel in France, The Feathers in Cotswolds, England, Hotel Villa Lutece Port Royal in Paris, Pestana Hotel Berlin Tiergarten, Furstenhof Celle in Hanover, Schlosshotel Lerbach near Koln, Princeotel in Barcelona, Royal Spa Kitzbuhel Hotel in Austria and Ryad Mogador Agdal in Marrakesh.
Chris Loughlin, Travelzoo's Chief Executive Officer, said: "The results from the first 40 Getaways clearly indicate that our subscribers across the globe like our new Getaways program. Resorts are also very pleased that we can now showcase the complete resort experience, including rooms, restaurants and spas. It is also very compelling for resorts to offer these experiences to those Travelzoo subscribers who live within their local drive markets, these are
33
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 17 of 40
travelers who might not normally consider staying at a local resort, but if the offer is attractive enough, they are happy to take a leisure break, even during slower off-peak periods."
Emre Erkul, Director of Marketing, Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa, said: "Travelzoo's new Getaways program helped us sell over 1,000 midweek packages for last-minute stays in June. Most of the guests are new to the property and coming from our primary drive markets, Philadelphia, New Jersey and New York. Unlike other hotel marketing programs, Getaways allowed us to create a customized package that showcased the Borgata's exceptional fine dining and entertainment experiences, not just a discounted room rate. This promotion has been extremely positive for the brand and has exposed many new customers to Borgata."
Sandra Vivas, General Manager for The Keating Hotel by Pininfarina, explained, "We learned more about Getaways after we saw how successful our restaurant was with a Travelzoo Local Deal promotion. What we liked most about the program was the quality of the guests; Travelzoo definitely has a more mature crowd who are not afraid to spend. That's honestly why we did the Getaway promotion, because we knew what type of guests we would attract."
Jim Glanville, General Manager for The Essex Resort and Spa, shared: "The Getaways program afforded us the opportunity to fill distressed inventory during a transitional season while having the unexpected benefit of incremental spend exceeding $100 per visit on top of the package that already included spa and dining credits. Nearly 100 percent of the guests that were attracted through this promotion were first-time visitors and likely would not have experienced us otherwise."
Percy Brandon, General Manager of the Vintners Inn, offered up the following feedback, "As a boutique 4-Diamond luxury inn with 44 rooms in the heart of California Wine Country, we try to ensure we attract the right guest demographic to match our property. One highly-challenging guest can have a very detrimental impact on the mood of the entire property. With Travelzoo, we were able to attract very much the right match. This was driven by the high-quality nature of the audience they have attracted and the fact that the Getaway promotion was not just a cheap room, it included an entire experience - room, wine, dinner and local experiences. The offer itself was naturally up-market and priced as such."
Maja Zieman, Director of Sales at the Pestana Hotel Berlin Tiergarten, explained, "Travelzoo Getaways exceeded our expectations by far, with more than 1,500 room nights booked."
34
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 18 of 40
Patrick Brunet, Yield Manager de l'Hotel Roussi'hotel in France shared, "The distribution was well-targeted, and the journalistic write-up positioned the values of our establishment in a creative and objective manner. The results are very impressive."
Luc Morel, General Manager of the Feathers Hotel in the Cotswolds, England, said, "We were impressed with the quality of the guests Travelzoo brought. More than half of Travelzoo guests upgraded to a higher rate suite, and they were happy to spend additional money on food and beverage once on property."
106. The highlighted statements were materially false and misleading because, inter
alia, Defendants failed to disclose that, because Travelzoo was now essentially competing with
itself, part of the revenues received through Getaways were, as described above, at the expense
of the Company's core travel business, and thus impaired Travelzoo' s revenue growth and/or
earnings growth. See ¶1J56-66 .
107. On June 8, 2011, Defendants published another press release relating to Local
Deals' success and specifically referred to Getaways:
Travelzoo Asia Pacific Launches Local Deals in Hong Kong
Travelzoo Asia Pacific, a licensee of Travelzoo Inc. (NASDAQ: TZOO), a global Internet media company, today announced the launch of Travelzoo Local DealsTM in Hong Kong. This follows the successful launch in Australia in April this year, which has already sold over 7,000 vouchers and generated close to AUD 1 million in gross revenue.
The service extends Travelzoo's offerings with more quality lifestyle and entertainment deals, drawing the brand closer to its subscribers. Travelzoo Hong Kong's first trial Local Deal was a complete sell out. Launched on 30 May 2011, the deal introduced an evening of fine dining at Hotel Nikko's Japanese restaurant 'Sagano' -- with its reputation for authentic Japanese cuisine. The trial resulted in 532 vouchers sold and generated over HKD 630,000 in gross revenue within two days. It had to be stopped to contain capacity.
Given the success, more Local Deals have been launched in Hong Kong, including Getaway packages with the Kantary
35
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 19 of 40
Beach Hotel Villas and Suites in Thailand and Hotel Royal in Macau.
"The launch of Local Deals in Hong Kong extends our business to the next stage of growth in Asia Pacific," said Jason Yap, CEO, Travelzoo Asia Pacific. "We are confident in leveraging on our present operational momentum to propel the business with Local Deals, as shown by the enormous successes in Travelzoo North America and Europe. With over 3 million quality subscribers in Asia Pacific who are familiar with transacting high-valued travel items, we are sure that Local Deals will be very well received."
"Travelzoo Hong Kong has strong competitive advantages in this already crowded market. In addition to our high quality and loyal subscribers, we are not under pressure to deliver just any deal. With an existing media business that is operating well, we have the privilege to be selective on deals that we publish to our subscribers, which allows us to continue doing what we do best," said Katherine Lau, Deputy General Manager, Travelzoo Hong Kong. "We are delighted but not surprised by the Sagano result. In Hong Kong, we presently have more than 360,000 active subscribers, who are swift in responding to a great deal."
"We were impressed at the speed our offer was taken up," said Ricky Lai, F&B Director, Hotel Nikko. "This promotion generated additional demands for the hotel's restaurant, which generally caters to business travellers on weekdays. Travelzoo Local Deals and its deal experts provided an innovative channel that packaged our weekend offer to its subscribers. As we fill up the restaurant with Traveizoos subscribers, we can see the quality of patrons. We are certain that they will be return diners."
Travelzoo Asia Pacific applies the same rigorous deal selection and approval process to Local Deals, for which it has become well-known. The process distinguishes Travelzoo as the most trusted publisher of travel and entertainment deals.
For more information about Travelzoo Local Deals, please visit www.travelzoo.com.hk .
108. The highlighted statements were materially false and misleading because, inter
a/ia, Defendants failed to disclose that, because Travelzoo was now essentially competing with
itself, part of the revenues received through Getaways were, as described above, at the expense
36
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 20 of 40
of the Company's core travel business, and would thus impair Travelzoo' s revenue growth
and/or earnings growth. See ¶'i[56-66 .
109. Between June 1, 2011 and June 15, 2011, Defendant Bartel sold approximately
900,000 Travelzoo shares for gross proceeds of approximately $61 million.
110. On June 17, 2011, ThinkEquity analyst reiterated his $38 earnings per share
figure for Travelzoo.
111. On June 22, 2011, Forbes. com reported that Company shares rallied after
Benchmark Capital analyst, Frederick Moran, published a report touting Local Deals' success:
Travelzoo Rallies; Benchmark Says Local Deals Surge In June
Travelzoo shares are up sharply Wednesday following bullish comments on the company's Groupon-like Local Deals business by Benchmark Capital analyst Frederick Moran.
"Local Deals continue to ramp up with sales in June pacing meaningfully higher than May based on our channel checks," the analyst writes in a research note. Moran thinks the company's Local Deals unit can generate $110 million in gross revenue and $43 million in net revenue in 2011. He lifts his EPS forecast for the year to $1.72 from $1.64; for 2012, he goes to $2.78, from $2.65.
He thinks the company had gross revenue of $6.6 million in April, $9 million in May and as much as $11 million in June. He notes that the company now offers deals in about 100 markets.
Moran's price target on the stock is $124; the stock this morning is up $4.23, or 7.1 %, to $63.60. (Emphasis added).
THE TRUTH IS FINALLY DISCLOSED TO INVESTORS
112. On July 21, 2011, Defendants revealed to investors that the Company had lower
than expected revenues in the second quarter of 2011. Defendants reported second quarter
revenue of $37.6 million, well below analyst estimates as high as $41.4 million and consensus of
$40.2 million, as well as earnings per share of $30 per share, 21% below analyst consensus
expectations of $38 per share. The press release stated, in pertinent part:
37
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 21 of 40
Travelzoo Reports Second Quarter 2011 Results
NEW YORK, July 21, 2011 -- Travelzoo Inc. (NASDAQ: TZOO):
Revenue of $37.6 million, up 34% year-over-year
Operating profit of $7.6 million, up 29% year-over-year
Net income of $4.9 million, up 51% year-over-year
Earnings per share of $0.30, compared to $0.20 in the prior year period
Travelzoo Inc., a global Internet media company, today announced financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2011, with revenue of $37.6 million, an increase of 34% year-over-year. Operating profit was $7.6 million, up 29% year-over-year. Net income was $4.9 million, with diluted net income per share (EPS) of $0.30, up from $0.20 in the prior-year period....
113. As discussed below, Defendant Loughlin admitted during a conference call that
day that the lower revenue growth was caused, in part, by Getaways' cannibalization of revenue
from the Company's core travel business.
114. Defendants attempted to paint a happy face on the results by emphasizing the
increase in revenue year over year, but the market saw through it. Shares of the Company
immediately collapsed, falling approximately $30.00 per share, or 30 percent, to $60.00 per share
in morning trading on the Nasdaq, after touching a low of $57.48 per share.
115. The conference call Defendants held with analysts after the announcement of
Travelzoo' s second quarter financials is illuminating. In that call, Defendant Loughlin admitted
that Getaways' "cannibalization" of revenues from the Company's core travel business had
apparently impaired revenue growth in the core travel business.
116. Indeed, four of five analysts on the conference call, Frederick Moran, Eric
Martinuzzi, Atul Bagga, and Edward Woo, asked Defendant Loughlin about either
cannibalization, or the other side of the coin, weaker core travel revenues.
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 22 of 40
117. Significantly, Patterson, the fifth analyst, had further insight into the issue and
wrote in a report that revenue cannibalization, in part, caused the revenue shortfall. See ¶123.
118. First, Defendant Loughlin was questioned by Frederick Moran of Moran Capital
Management:
Frederick Moran - Moran Capital Management: Okay. So what is your take rate right now? And what is the reasonable range for that take rate going forward? And why did the core business growth disappear or flatten out in the quarter? And do you suspect that that will be the trend going forward?
Christopher Loughlin:. . . One thing, which we did this quarter as you can see we launched product called Getaways, which we tested in March. That did create a little bit of cannibalization and confusion, where it moved and moved hotel revenue from advertising to a voucher model. (Emphasis added).
119. Analyst Eric Martinuzzi of Craig-Hallum Capital Group followed up on Moran's
question about the cause of the lower revenues. By asking the question a different way,
Martinuzzi was able to obtain more information from Defendant Loughlin:
Eric Martinuzzi - Craig-Hallum Capital Group:. . . My question is again, on the North American travel. I know you guys don't report it this way, but maybe a better way to ask the question would be to, for somebody like me who models four different segments, so I've got you know travel and local, North America and Europe. Would it be correct to say that, if I saw a down year-on-year North American travel that the air [sic] in my model would be this Getaways would that be the likely explanation?
Christopher Loughlin: Yeah, I think, I think that's actually a reasonably good assumption, I mean obviously it's not the whole picture, but we took a decision back in April. We ran a test in April - actually ran a test in March for the Getaways. And some folks will probably remember there was a Napa Valley deal that all of sudden went through the roof. And we just said to ourselves, okay, do we attack ourselves, or do we just ignore this, and what we did is that right, let's roll it out, see what happens.
You noticed that the content is quite different, so hotel direct is strain to the hotel's booking engine. And what we find is the large corporations to have best price guarantees, and want you would manage a very interested and continue to get that direct business. And then there was smaller - smaller hotels and properties quite keen to get either via the voucher, or via the booking engine.
39
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 23 of 40
So we started to rollout this quarter, and, we have more than 30 people around the world focused on hotels. So as you're trying to disseminate a new product after new, you create some cannibalization on the one hand, you create a little bit of confusion, and then you get back up to speed, so that's in fact what happened, Eric, and I'm confident that we can really get that thing moving again. (Emphasis added).
120. Analyst Atul Bagga of ThinkEquity also discussed the cannibalization issue with
Defendant Loughlin:
Atul Bagga: Thanks for taking my questions. Couple of questions for you. Chris, you touched upon a little bit on the cannibalization between the Getaways product you have for the Local Deals side and the hotel business or your core business. And you shared some metrics around how you have been able to uplift that - your merchant spend on - with you guys.
Can you give us some sense how big is that segment for Travelzoo. I'm not sure if you can be very granular, but even if you can give some directional inputs on how big that market is for the core business and how should we see this overall business growing from this segment in the next 6 to 12 months?
Christopher Loughlin: Well, I mean needless to say it's a substantial part of our business the hotel business. And these product Getaways, I mean we've run less than 200 Getaways so far.
So I mean it's really quite early still what we see it seems to work very, very well for the local drive market and that's a need we haven't really serviced in the past. So to some degree, there is cannibalization, but also the traditional Travelzoo business is about getting you to fly from San Francisco to New York and stay in a hotel. But what we're not going to do Getaways to send the person sitting in San Francisco and Getaway to New York, certainly not yet. So that's why there is no cannibalization. Hopefully that sort of gives you an answer to the question. (Emphasis added).
121. Defendant Loughlin also confirmed during the conference call that (i) within a
week after each Getaways deal was issued, he was aware of what revenues that Getaways deal
was achieving; and (ii) that offering a Getaways deal was often at the expense of offering a core
travel deal:
Christopher Loughlin: . . . [W]hen you run a Getaway, you don't know what happen [sic] until next week. Right? So I mean that - and do you then say, okay I am willing to replace the hotel advertising solution with this Getaway
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 24 of 40
solution for a particular spa in the top 20. You honestly don't know the answer until the week from the day you do it.
122. Analyst Edward Woo of Wedbush Securities also discussed analysts' concerns
over weakening core travel with Glen Ceremony, Travelzoo' s Chief Financial Officer who
replaced Defendant Lee during the Class Period. But Ceremony dodged the question:
Edward Woo: .... But! think some of the investors are concerned with the core market. I know, you don't break out Local Deals in core revenue, but my rough estimates for Europe shows that revenues were down sequentially, could you comment a little bit about how the Europe growth outlook is going forward either in core or Local Deals?
Glen Ceremony: Ed, we don't break out the - we don't break out the two businesses in - on often times. Honestly, we think about it as one business. I mean, you think about what do you do, do you send out the newsflash for British Airways, or do you send out the Local Deals for Gordon Ramsay. And these are decisions that happen within the business.
We are not concerned about the growth rate within the European business. Some markets are growing phenomenally well. Some businesses have seasonal fluctuation. The point in the business is - it's about you bringing on all these people, introducing new products, I mean, let's think about what we did in the last six months. We took Local Deals across Europe. We put it into all of these different countries. We build teams around that. We integrate into new business. We also launched Getaways and there is a lot going on and that consumes a lot of time.
123. After the second quarter 2011 financial results and conference call, several
analysts reported on the cannibalization issue. In particular, in a July 22, 2011 Morgan Keegan
report, analyst Justin Patterson reported that, despite the higher Local Deals revenues for the
second quarter, total revenues were lower than expected as a result of the revenue
cannibalization of core travel by Getaways:
Gross deals revenue exceeded expectations at $26M (+40% Q/Q) vs our $23M, but total net revenue was ($2M) below due to 1) some cannibalization between the Media and Deals businesses and 2) seasonality appearing in Media.
Travelzoo's new Getaway solution, is essentially a Deals product that contributed to some media cannibalization this quarter. (Emphasis added).
41
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 25 of 40
124. Morgan Keegan Patterson's July 21 s' report also included a chart illustrating
analysts' expectations for the second quarter:
Q2 Results vs. Morgan Keegan
$M Reported MK Var Street Var
Revenue $37.6 $39.4 $(1.8) $40.2 8(2.6)
Y/Y Growth 34% 40% -7% 43% -9%
EBIT $7.6 $10.6 $(3.0) $10.7 8(3.1)
Y/Y Growth 28% 79% -51% 80% -52%
Non-GAAP EPS 8.30 $0.37 $(.07) $39 $(.09)
Y/YGrowth 50% 85% -35% 95% -45%
125. Analyst Eric Martinuzzi of Craig-Hallum wrote in a July 21, 2011 report:
On July 21st, Travelzoo reported Q2 results with total net revenue of $37.6 million, below our $41.4 million estimate, and adjusted EPS of $30, well below our $41.4 million estimate....
1. Getaways cannibalizing travel...
One of the major insights from Q2 is that some of the success with Getaways is coming from cannibalization of core travel deals. Because the company does not report the segment revenue for the two offerings we are unable to see how much impact there is when a hotel is shifted out of the travel deal email and into a Local Deal.
For example, Travelzoo recently offered a one night stay at a 5-star London hotel including breakfast at the Stafford London by Kempinski for $272. The offer was part of the weekly Top 20 email media for Australian subscribers. This type of revenue comes in as ad insertion revenue and we treat it as core travel revenue. However, the same hotel deal was offered to London subscribers as a Local Deal. This type of revenue comes in as voucher revenue and we treat it as Local Deal revenue.
(Emphasis added).
42
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 26 of 40
126. Significantly, Martinuzzi also wrote in his July 21 " report that, going forward, he
would take into account the cannibalization issue - and expected overall revenues to be lower as
a result:
We are modeling lower core travel revenue and lower Local Deal net revenue as we expect a continuation of modest core travel revenue cannibalization from Local Deals Getaways as was the case in Q2.
127. Another analyst, Edward Woo of Wedbush, also wrote a report after the July 21,
2011 conference call. In that report, Woo stated that the lower second quarter revenues were
caused by weakness in the Company's core newsletter business. However, this slower growth in
Travelzoo's core newsletter business is only another name for the cannibalization of Travelzoo's
core travel business by its Getaways business, which was identified in the reports of analysts
Patterson and Martinuzzi. Analyst Woo wrote:
Revenue was $38 million, compared with our and consensus estimates of $40 million. EPS was $.30, compared with our and consensus estimates of $.38.
Revenue growth (+34% y-o-y) was driven by Local Deals (an estimated $9 million compared to $6 million in Qi), but core revenue down an estimated $2 million from Qi....
Travelzoo reported much worse than expected Q2 revenue and earnings due to slower growth in its core business, and significant investments in its Local Deals business....
In addition, there are concerns about weakness in its core newsletter business (estimated +2% y-o-y, but -8% q-o-q). (Emphasis added).
128. That same day, July 21, 2011, The Motley Fool. com reported on how Travelzoo's
revenue shortfall, in part, caused the dramatic drop in Travelzoo stock price:
Travelzoo's New Exhibit: Bears!
Travel deals publisher and Groupon coattails hopper Travelzoo (Nasdaq: TZOO) was fed to the lions today after a shocking quarterly miss.
* * *
43
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 27 of 40
[T]he shares opened 30% lower today because Wall Street was banking on a profit of $0.38 a share on $39.9 million in revenue.
Missing on one end of the income statement is painful, but missing on both ends is an unforgivable mistake. [Emphasis added.]
129. On August 5, 2011, three months after Defendant CEO Loughlin unloaded all of
his Travelzoo shares, the Company announced that he was adopting a 10b5-1 trading plan:
Travelzoo Inc. (NASDAQ: TZOO), a global Internet media company, today announced that Christopher Loughlin, chief executive officer, has adopted a prearranged trading plan in order to exercise options which have vested, diversify his investment portfolio, and achieve liquidity. The stock trading plan was adopted in accordance with Rule lObS-i under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
Rule lObs-i allows persons to adopt written, pre.-arranged stock trading plans when they are not in possession of material, non-public information. Such plans establish parameters for future stock transactions to automatically take place, which may be modified or revoked by the person adopting the plan only in limited circumstances. In providing for these plans, the SEC recognized the need for corporate insiders to gradually diversify their holdings and spread stock trades out over extended periods of time to reduce market impact, without concerns about whether such individuals might have had access to material, non-public information at the time of a particular transaction.
Mr. Loughlin's plan provides for the exercise of up to 75,000 options of Travelzoo Inc. Common Stock and liquidation of a portion of the resulting shares at certain predetermined price levels. The exercises and sales are subject to satisfaction of certain conditions and continue through July 31, 2012, at which date the trading plan terminates.
130. On December 20, 2011, Brian Nichols published the following news article on
Seeking Alpha entitled "The Worst Directors/CEO's of 2011". The article discussed the
suspicious timing of Defendant Bartel's stock sales:
Ralph Bartel isn't the CEO of Travelzoo, instead he is the founder of Travelzoo and was previously the chairman of the board before limiting his duties and now serving as a director.
When the stock was trading near its highs, CEO Chris Loughlin went on Mad Money and talked about how fast the company was growing. The only problem was that when company executives were promoting its performance, founder
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 28 of 40
Ralph Bartel was selling nearly 2.5 million shares for an average price of $76.55.
CAUSATION AND ECONOMIC LOSS
131. During the Class Period, as detailed herein, Defendants engaged in a scheme to
deceive the market, and a course of conduct that artificially inflated Travelzoo's stock price and
operated as a fraud or deceit on Class Period purchasers of Travelzoo's stock by misrepresenting
and/or omitting material facts about the Company's business and growth prospects. Ultimately,
however, when Defendants' prior misrepresentations and omissions and fraudulent conduct were
revealed, shares of Travelzoo declined - evidence that the prior artificial inflation in the price of
Travelzoo's shares was eradicated. As a result of their purchases of Travelzoo's stock during the
Class Period, and later revelation of the truth, Lead Plaintiffs and other members of the Class
suffered economic losses, i.e., damages under the federal securities laws.
132. Defendants presented a misleading image of Travelzoo's business, revenues, and
growth strategy by concealing issues relating to Getaways' cannibalization of revenue from the
Company's core travel business. Defendants' statements caused and maintained the artificial
inflation in Travelzoo's stock price throughout the Class Period.
133. On April 21, 2011, after issuing the materially false and misleading statements
alleged herein, Travelzoo shares rose almost $20.00 per share, or almost 27%, to $93.70 per
share.
134. On July 21, 2011, however, investors learned the truth about the Company, and
realized or concluded that Defendants had issued misleading statements concerning revenue, the
relationship between the Getaways and core travel branches, and the Company's growth strategy.
When the truth was revealed, shares of the Company fell about 30%, to $60.00 per share in
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 29 of 40
morning trading on the Nasdaq, after touching a low of $57.48 per share. Thus, Defendants'
disclosures had an immediate, adverse impact on the price of Travelzoo stock.
135. The decline in Travelzoo's stock price at the end of the Class Period was a direct
result of the nature and extent of Defendants' fraud being revealed to investors and to the market.
The timing and magnitude of Travelzoo' s stock price decline negates any inference that the
losses suffered by Lead Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class were caused by changed
market conditions, macroeconomic or industry factors or even Company-specific facts unrelated
to Defendants' fraudulent conduct.
ADDITIONAL SCIENTER ALLEGATIONS
136. As alleged herein, Defendants acted with scienter in that each Defendant knew
that the public documents and statements issued or disseminated in the name of the Company
were materially false and misleading; knew that such statements or documents would be issued
or disseminated to the investing public; and knowingly and substantially participated or
acquiesced in the issuance or dissemination of such statements or documents as primary
violations of the federal securities laws. As set forth elsewhere herein in detail, Defendants, by
virtue of their receipt of information reflecting the true facts regarding Travelzoo, their control
over, and/or receipt and/or modification of Travelzoo' s allegedly materially misleading
misstatements and/or their associations with the Company which made them privy to
confidential proprietary information concerning Travelzoo, participated in the fraudulent scheme
alleged herein.
137. Defendants were motivated to materially misrepresent to the SEC and investors
the true financial condition of the Company because: (i) it deceived the investing public
regarding Travelzoo's business and the intrinsic value of Travelzoo securities; (ii) it enabled
Defendants to artificially inflate the price of Travelzoo shares; (iii) it enabled Travelzoo insiders
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 30 of 40
to sell approximately $190 million dollars of their privately held Travelzoo shares while in
possession of material adverse non-public information about the Company; and (iv) it caused
Plaintiffs and other members of the Class to purchase Travelzoo securities at artificially inflated
prices.
EVA
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 31 of 40
138. Defendants made the following insider sales during the Class Period:
INSIDER SALES BY TRAVELZOO DEFENDANTS
INSIDER DATE AMOUNT PRICE VALUE
BARTEL 04/26/2011 320,000 $ 91.8700 $ 29,398,400.00
BARTEL 04/27/2011 180,000 $ 86.4300 $ 15,557,400.00
BARTEL 04/28/2011 100,000 $ 84.9000 $ 8,490,000.00
BARTEL 04/29/2011 28,144 $ 85.3100 $ 2,400,964.64
BARTEL 05/25/2011 198,904 $ 73.1500 $ 14,549,827.60
BARTEL 05/26/2011 95,000 $ 72.1000 $ 6,849,500.00
BARTEL 05/27/2011 18,410 $ 70.4200 $ 1,296,432.20
BARTEL 05/31/2011 600,000 $ 76.2800 $ 45,768,000.00
BARTEL 06/01/2011 196,944 $ 73.1200 $ 14,400,545.28
BARTEL 06/02/2011 499,116 $ 71.0400 $ 35,457,200.64
BARTEL 06/03/2011 68,839 $ 66.6000 $ 4,584,677.40
BARTEL 06/15/2011 131,161 $ 59.3400 $ 7,783,093.74
BARTEL TOTALS
2,436,518 $ 186,536,041.50
LOUGHLIN 05/02/2011 12,500 $ 80.5000 $ 1,006,250.00
05/02/2011 140 $ 82.0000 $ 11,480.00
LOUGHLIN TOTALS
12,640 $ 1,017,730.00
URSO 04/25/2011 5,000 $ 100.01 $ 500,050.00
04/25/2011 4,000 $ 102.13 $ 408,520.00
URSO TOTALS 9,000 $ 908,570.00
TOTALS FOR ALL INSIDERS 2,458,158 $ 188,462,341.50
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 32 of 40
139. The pattern and suspicious nature of the Individual Defendants' sales is
unmistakable. Defendant Bartel did not sell any Travelzoo shares in the prior four and a half
years. Then, within seven weeks, Defendant Bartel sold $186 million worth of Travelzoo stock -
22% of his Travelzoo shares.
140. Defendant Loughlin, who never sold one Travelzoo share before, sold 100% of
his stock on May 2, 2011 - just ten days after the first quarter 2011 earnings and revenue
announcement that sent Travelzoo stock soaring, and only nine days before he appeared on Mad
Money touting Travelzoo's growth.
141. Defendant Urso, who sold Travelzoo stock only once in over six years, sold 95%
of her Travelzoo stock on April 25, 2011.
142. The fact that Defendant initiated a lOb-5 trading plan a few weeks after the end of
the Class Period (see ¶129) also highlights the suspicious nature of his May 2011 sales.
143. The resignation of CFO Lee during the Class Period on the heels of massive stock
sales by Defendants Bartel and Loughlin - including Defendant Loughlin's unloading of all his
Travelzoo shares - is suspicious in timing and indicative of Defendant Lee's scienter.
144. Travelzoo's Guide to Business Conduct and Ethics (the "Guide") is also probative
of Defendants' scienter. The Guide states as follows:
Introduction
This Guide to Business Conduct and Ethics covers a wide range of business practices and procedures. It does not cover every issue that may arise, but it sets out basic principles to guide all employees, directors, agents and consultants (collectively, "Representatives") of Travelzoo Inc. and its subsidiaries ("Travelzoo"). All Representatives must conduct themselves accordingly and seek to avoid even the appearance of improper behavior. If a law conflicts with a policy in this Guide, you must comply with the law. If you have any questions about these conflicts, you should ask your supervisor how to handle the situation. Those who violate the standards in this Guide will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 33 of 40
If you are in a situation which you believe may violate or lead to a violation of this Guide, follow the guidelines described in Section 14 of this Guide.
1. Compliance with Laws, Rules and Regulations Obeying the law, both in letter and in spirit, is the foundation on which Travelzoo's ethical standards are built. All Representatives must respect and obey the laws of the cities, states and countries in which we operate. Although not all Representatives are expected to know the details of these laws, it is important to know enough to determine when to seek advice from supervisors, managers or other appropriate personnel.
If requested, Travelzoo will hold information and training sessions to promote compliance with laws, rules and regulations, including insider-trading laws.
3. Insider Trading Representatives who have access to confidential information are not permitted to use or share that infonTnation for stock trading purposes or for any other purpose except the conduct of our business. All non-public information about Travelzoo should be considered confidential information. To use non-public information for personal financial benefit or to "tip" others who might make an investment decision on the basis of this information is not only unethical but also illegal. In order to assist with compliance with laws against insider trading, Travelzoo has adopted a specific policy governing R epresentatives ?
trading in securities of Travelzoo entitled the Trading in Shares of Travelzoo. If you have any questions or require a copy of such policy, please consult with Human Resources.
145. The Individual Defendants traded Travelzoo stock while in possession of material
non-public information, in violation of the Company's Guide.
APPLICABILITY OF PRESUMPTION OF RELIANCE:
FRAUD-ON-THE-MARKET DOCTRINE
146. At all relevant times, the market for Travelzoo' s securities was an efficient market
for the following reasons, among others:
(a) Travelzoo's stock met the requirements for listing on, and was listed and actively traded on, the Nasdaq national market exchange, a highly efficient and automated market;
(b) As a regulated issuer, Travelzoo filed periodic public reports with the SEC and the Nasdaq;
(c) Travelzoo regularly communicated with public investors via established market communication mechanisms, including
50
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 34 of 40
through regular disseminations of press releases on the national circuits of major newswire services and through other wide-ranging public disclosures, such as communications with the financial press and other similar reporting services; and
(d) Travelzoo was followed by several securities analysts employed by major brokerage firm(s) who wrote reports that were distributed to the sales force and certain customers of their respective brokerage finn(s). Each of these reports was publicly available and entered the public marketplace.
147. As a result of the foregoing, the market for Travelzoo's securities promptly
digested current information regarding Travelzoo from all publicly-available sources and
reflected such information in the price of Travelzoo's securities. Under these circumstances, all
purchasers of Travelzoo securities during the Class Period suffered similar injury through their
purchase of Travelzoo securities at artificially inflated prices and a presumption of reliance
applies.
NO SAFE HARBOR
148. The statutory safe harbor provided for forward-looking statements under certain
circumstances does not apply to any of the allegedly false statements pled in this complaint. To
the extent there were any forward-looking statements, there were no meaningful cautionary
statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from
those in the purportedly forward-looking statements. Alternatively, to the extent that the
statutory safe harbor does apply to any forward-looking statements pleaded herein, Defendants
are liable for those false forward-looking statements because at the time each of those forward-
looking statements was made, the particular speaker knew that the particular forward-looking
statement was false, and/or the forward-looking statement was authorized and/or approved by an
executive officer of Travelzoo who knew that those statements were false when made.
51
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 35 of 40
FIRST CLAIM VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(b) OF
THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 10b-5 PROMULGATED THEREUNDER AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
149. Lead Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as if
fully set forth herein.
150. During the Class Period, Defendants carried out a plan, scheme, and course of
conduct that was intended to and, throughout the Class Period, did: (i) deceive the investing
public regarding Travelzoo's business, operations, management and the intrinsic value of
Travelzoo's securities; (ii) enable Defendants to artificially inflate the price of Travelzoo's
shares; (iii) enable Travelzoo's insiders to sell millions of dollars of their privately held
Travelzoo's shares while in possession of materially adverse, non-public information about the
Company; and (iv) cause Lead Plaintiffs and other members of the Class to purchase Travelzoo's
securities at artificially inflated prices. In furtherance of this unlawful scheme, plan and course
of conduct, Defendants, jointly and individually (and each of them) took the actions set forth
herein.
151. Defendants, individually and in concert, directly and indirectly, by the use, means
or instrumentalities of interstate commerce and/or of the mails, engaged and participated in a
continuous course of conduct to misrepresent and/or conceal adverse material information about
the business, operations, and future prospects of Travelzoo as specified herein.
152. Defendants employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud, while in
possession of materially adverse, non-public information and engaged in acts, practices, and a
course of conduct as alleged herein in an effort to assure investors of Travelzoo' s value and
performance and continued substantial growth, which included the making of, or the
participation in the making of untrue statements of material facts and omitting to state material
52
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 36 of 40
facts necessary in order to make the statements made about Travelzoo and its business,
operations and future prospects in the light of the circumstances under which they were made not
misleading, as set forth more particularly herein, and engaged in transactions, practices, and a
course of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the purchasers of Travelzoo's
securities during the Class Period.
153. Defendants had actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and omissions of
material facts set forth herein, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth in that they failed to
ascertain and to disclose such facts. Such Defendants' material misrepresentations and/or
omissions were done knowingly or with reckless disregard for the purpose and effect of
concealing Travelzoo's operating condition and future business prospects from the investing
public and supporting the artificially inflated price of its securities.
154. As a result of the dissemination of the materially false and misleading information
and failure to disclose material facts, as set forth above, the market price of Travelzoo securities
was artificially inflated during the Class Period. In ignorance of the fact that market prices of
Travelzoo's publicly-traded securities were artificially inflated, and relying directly or indirectly
on the false and misleading statements made by Defendants, or upon the integrity of the market
in which the securities trade, and/or on the absence of material, adverse information that was
known to or recklessly disregarded by Defendants but not disclosed in public statements by
Defendants during the Class Period, Lead Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class acquired
Travelzoo securities during the Class Period at artificially high prices and were damaged by the
revelation of the true facts about Travelzoo, its business and operations.
155. At the time of said misrepresentations and omissions, Lead Plaintiffs and other
members of the Class were ignorant of their falsity, and believed them to be true. Had Lead
53
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 37 of 40
Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class and the marketplace known the truth regarding the
problems that Travelzoo was experiencing, which were not disclosed by Defendants, Lead
Plaintiffs and other members of the Class would not have purchased or otherwise acquired their
Travelzoo's securities, or, if they had acquired such securities during the Class Period, they
would not have done so at the artificially inflated prices that they paid.
156. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants have violated Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 1 Ob-5 promulgated thereunder.
157. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Lead Plaintiffs
and the other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with their respective
purchases and sales of the Company's securities during the Class Period and the revelation of the
truth at the end of the Class Period.
SECOND CLAIM VIOLATION OF SECTION 20(a) OF
THE EXCHANGE ACT AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
158. Lead Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as if
fully set forth herein.
159. The Individual Defendants acted as controlling persons of Travelzoo within the
meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged herein. By virtue of their high-level
positions, and their ownership and contractual rights, participation in, and/or awareness of the
Company's operations and/or intimate knowledge of the statements filed by the Company with
the SEC and disseminated to the investing public, the Individual Defendants had the power to
influence and control and did influence and control, directly or indirectly, the decision-making of
the Company, including the content and dissemination of the various statements that Lead
Plaintiffs contends are false and misleading. The Individual Defendants were provided with, or
had unlimited access to, copies of the Company's reports, press releases, public filings, and other
54
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 38 of 40
statements alleged by Lead Plaintiffs to be misleading prior to and/or shortly after these
statements were issued and had the ability to prevent the issuance of the statements or cause the
statements to be corrected.
160. In particular, each of these Defendants had direct and supervisory involvement in
the day-to-day operations of the Company and, therefore, is presumed to have had the power to
control or influence the particular transactions giving rise to the securities violations as alleged
herein, and exercised the same.
161. As set forth above, Travelzoo and the Individual Defendants each violated Section
10(b) and Rule 1 Ob-5 by their acts, statements, and omissions as alleged in this Complaint. By
virtue of their positions as controlling persons, the Individual Defendants are liable pursuant to
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful
conduct, Lead Plaintiffs and other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with
their purchases of the Company's securities during the Class Period.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment, as follows:
A. Determining that this action is a proper class action, designating Lead Plaintiffs as
class representatives under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
B. Awarding compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiffs and the other Class
members against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
Defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon;
C. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; and
D. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
55
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 39 of 40
Dated: January 6, 2012 BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
•tiebhard (lie [email protected] ) Seth Ottensoser ([email protected] )
Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. ([email protected] ) 10 East 401b Street 22m1 Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 Facsimile: (212) 779-3218
Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
56
Case 1:11-cv-05531-GBD Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/12 Page 40 of 40
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 6, 2012, I served all counsel of record listed below with
the attached document via email and federal express:
Rachel J. Barnett Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036-6522
Adam S. Hakki Shearman & Sterling 599 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022-6069
9 EPH. SEIDMAN, JR.
57