UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

FORM 8-K

 

 

CURRENT REPORT

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): January 28, 2010

 

 

HARTE-HANKS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

Delaware		001-07120		74-1677284
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)		(Commission File Number)		(IRS Employer Identification No.)

200 Concord Plaza Drive

San Antonio, Texas 78216

(210) 829-9000

(Address of principal executive offices and Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

 

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):

 

¨	Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

 

¨	Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

 

¨	Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

 

¨	Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

 

 

 

---

Item 1.01.

Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On January 25, 2010, Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (“Shoppers”), a California corporation and a subsidiary of Harte-Hanks, Inc. (“Harte-Hanks”), reached an agreement in principle with Shoppers employee Frank Gattuso and former employee Ernest Sigala, individually and on behalf of a certified class, to settle and resolve a previously disclosed class action lawsuit filed in 2001. The lawsuit, including the class period, is described further below. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Shoppers, without any admission of liability, agreed, subject to certain conditions, that it will pay to the class settlement fund a total of $6.95 million. The proposed settlement is subject to the entry of an order of the trial court granting preliminary approval and, following notice to class members, final approval of the settlement and providing for the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice against all class members. The parties have agreed in principle to promptly negotiate, sign and submit a formal, binding stipulation of settlement to the trial court to resolve this matter. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, in return for the above consideration, each member of the class, including Gattuso and Sigala, will release all claims against Shoppers and its affiliates that in any way arose from or related to the matters which were the subject of, or could have been the subject of, the claims alleged in the class action lawsuit.

As previously disclosed in Harte-Hanks filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, on March 23, 2001, Shoppers employee Frank Gattuso and former employee Ernest Sigala filed a putative class action against Shoppers, claiming that Shoppers failed to comply with a California statutory provision requiring an employer to indemnify employees for expenses incurred on behalf of the employer. The plaintiffs allege that Shoppers failed to reimburse them for expenses of using their automobiles as outside sales representatives and failed to accurately itemize these expenses on plaintiffs’ wage statements. The suit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The class that plaintiffs seek to represent has been limited to all California Harte-Hanks outside sales representatives who were not separately reimbursed apart from their base salary and commissions for the expenses they incurred in using their own automobiles after early 1998. The plaintiffs seek indemnification and compensatory damages, statutory damages, exemplary damages, penalties, interest, costs of suit, and attorneys’ fees. Shoppers filed a cross-complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the plaintiffs have been indemnified for their automobile expenses by the higher salaries and commissions paid to them as outside sales representatives. The cross-complaint also alleges conversion, unjust enrichment, constructive trust and rescission and restitution based on mutual mistake. On January 30, 2002, the trial court ruled that California Labor Code Section 2802 requires employers to reimburse employees for mileage and other expenses incurred in the course of employment, but that an employer is permitted to pay increased wages or commissions instead of indemnifying actual expenses. On May 28, 2003, the trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On October 27, 2005, the California Court of Appeal issued a unanimous opinion affirming the trial court’s rulings, including the interpretation of Labor Code Section 2802 and denial of class certification. On November 23, 2005, the Court of Appeal denied the plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing. On November 5, 2007, the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Labor Code Section 2802 permits lump sum reimbursement and that an employer may satisfy its obligations to indemnify employees for reasonable and necessary business expenses under Labor Code Section 2802 by paying enhanced taxable compensation. The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings related to the class certification issue and directed the trial court to consider whether the following issues could properly be resolved on a class-wide basis: (1) did Shoppers adopt a practice or policy of reimbursing outside sales representatives for automobile expenses by paying them higher commission rates and base salaries than it paid to inside sales representatives, (2) did Shoppers establish a method to apportion the enhanced compensation payments between compensation for labor performed and expense reimbursement and (3) was the amount paid for expense reimbursement sufficient to fully reimburse the employees for the automobile expenses they reasonably and necessarily incurred. On July 29, 2008, the trial court stated its intention to issue a split class action certification ruling, certifying a class action with respect to the first two questions listed immediately above (adoption of a policy or practice, and establishment of an apportionment method) and denying class certification on the third question listed immediately above (sufficiency of reimbursement). On May 19, 2009, the trial court issued its written partial class certification order, as described in the immediately preceding sentence. This matter was set for a class trial in April 2010 on the first two questions noted above (adoption of a policy or practice, and establishment of an apportionment method).

---

Harte-Hanks expects to incur a $6.95 million charge in the quarter ended December 31, 2009, associated with the proposed settlement.

Forward-looking statements

This Item 1.01 contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities laws. All such statements are qualified by this cautionary note, which is provided pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Statements other than historical facts are forward-looking and may be identified by words such as “may,” “will,” “expects,” “believes,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “estimates,” “seeks,” “could,” “intends,” or words of similar meaning. Examples include statements regarding our ability to formally settle the class action lawsuit described in this Report and other statements regarding future events, conditions or outcomes. These forward-looking statements are based on current information, expectations and estimates and involve risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other factors that are difficult to predict and that could cause actual results to vary materially from what is expressed in or indicated by the forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements included in this Report are made only as of the date hereof, and, except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statement in this Report for any reason, even if new information becomes available or other events occur in the future.

---

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.