Thrifty Rent-a-car litigation history

The franchisor

Pending (2)

• Dollar Rent A Car Incorporated and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System Incorporated v. Yunus Moolla, Imraan Moolla, The Trustees Of Safy Trust, and Springs Car Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd.

  pending

  Brought against a franchisee · filed 2022 · Court in South Africa (not named)

  “Dollar Rent A Car Incorporated and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System Incorporated v. Yunus Moolla, Imraan Moolla, The Trustees Of Safy Trust, and Springs Car Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd. Following the expiration of SAFY’s franchise agreement in December 2021 for the territories of South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Mauritius, the franchisee continued operating both a franchise operation”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc. are now pursuing a separate damages claim, by way of action proceedings in court, against the SAFY parties. The parties attempted to mediate the damages claim without success and the action proceedings claiming damages remains active in court.”

• Yunus Moolla, Imraan Moolla, SAFY Trust, Springs Car Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd and Hired by Black Woman v. Dollar Rent A Car Incorporated and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System Incorporated, Hertz International Ltd. and CFAO Mobility (Pty) Ltd.

  pending

  Brought against a franchisee · High Court of South Africa · 2023 - 098485, 2023/098485

  “Yunus Moolla, Imraan Moolla, SAFY Trust, Springs Car Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd and Hired by Black Woman v. Dollar Rent A Car Incorporated and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System Incorporated, Hertz International Ltd. and CFAO Mobility (Pty) Ltd. (Case No: 2023 – 098485, 2023/098485) in the High Court of South Africa.”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“The parties jointly proposed an order to the court – the court issued an order by way of agreement to address return of Dollar Rent A Car Inc.’s and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System Inc.’s intellectual property.”

Concluded (4)

• In Re: Franchise No Poaching Provisions, State of Washington

  concluded

  Government or regulatory action · filed 2019-11-08 · State of Washington (Attorney General; Order Approving Entry of Assurance of Discontinuance) · 19-2-29669-1 SEA

  “In Re: Franchise No Poaching Provisions, State of Washington. (File No. 19-2-29669-1 SEA). On November 8, 2019 Thrifty Rent-a-Car System, LLC cooperated with the Attorney General of the State of Washington to submit an Order Approving an Entry of Assurance of Discontinuance in connection with the use of “No Poaching Provisions” in Franchise Agreements.”Page 36 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

• Liberty Representacoes e Servicos Ltda. V. Car Rental Systems do Brasil Locacao de Veiculos Ltda.

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · filed 2015-12-18 · Ninth Civil and Work Related Court of the District of Manaus/AM, Brazil · 0643614-93.2015.8.04.001

  “Liberty Representacoes e Servicos Ltda. V. Car Rental Systems do Brasil Locacao de Veiculos Ltda. (Ninth Civil and Work Related Court of the District of Manaus/AM, Brazil, Case No. 0643614-93.2015.8.04.001) On December 18, 2015, Plaintiff, the Thrifty licensee in Brazil, filed suit”Page 30 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“In November 2016, the case was settled with the reacquisition by the franchisor entities of the Thrifty licensee’s master franchise rights in Brazil for approximately 7 million Brazilian real (USD $2 million).”

• Users and Consumers Union v. Express Rent a Car, et al.

  judgment

  Third-party plaintiff · National Court of First Instance in Commercial Matters Nr. 12, Buenos Aires, Argentina · File No. 92655/2011

  “Users and Consumers Union v. Express Rent a Car, et al. (File No. 92655/2011) The Plaintiff filed suit in the National Court of First Instance in Commercial Matters Nr. 12, Buenos Aires,”Page 35 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc. was only found jointly liable with licensee for $857 USD in punitive damages subject to indemnification. The decision was appealed but in May 2021 the Court of Appeals upheld the decision and therefore finalized the judgment.” (page 36)

• Yunus Moolla, Imraan Moolla, and Springs Car Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd v. Dollar Rent A Car Incorporated and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System Incorporated and CFAO Mobility (Pty) Ltd.

  dismissed

  Brought by a franchisee · High Court of South Africa · 2023-080290

  “Yunus Moolla, Imraan Moolla, and Springs Car Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd v. Dollar Rent A Car Incorporated and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System Incorporated and CFAO Mobility (Pty) Ltd. (Case No: 2023-080290) in the High Court of South Africa.”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“In April 2024, the applicant (the SAFY parties) formally withdrew the remaining application and tendered legal costs (per court tariff). This application is now closed, and Dollar Rent A Car Inc. and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System Inc. are in the process of recovering legal costs (per court tariff) on taxation.”

Parent, affiliates and predecessor

Pending (5)

• DRAC Systems Corporation v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Canada Inc. and The Hertz Corporation

  pending

  Brought by a franchisee · The Hertz Corporation, with Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Canada Inc. · filed 2021 · Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Canada

  “DRAC Systems Corporation v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Canada Inc. and The Hertz Corporation. DRAC formerly held a license agreement entered into on March 11, 1998 for the Province of Saskatchewan for the Dollar and Thrifty brands.”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“The matter is currently pending in the Saskatchewan Provincial Court in Canada and remains active.”

• Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Indenture Trustee v. The Hertz Corporation, et al.

  pending

  Third-party plaintiff · The Hertz Corporation and certain subsidiaries · filed 2021-07-01 · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware

  “Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Indenture Trustee v. The Hertz Corporation, et al. On July 1, 2021, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), in its capacity as indenture trustee of a series of unsecured notes issued by the Company and maturing in 2022, 2024, 2026, and 2028 (collectively, the”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“Hertz paid approximately $346 million, which was the amount that was not disputed by the parties, including the interest through the date of payment. There will be a hearing on Wells Fargo’s claim to some additional interest on April 9, 2026.”

• Arquipélago Turismo S/A v. Car Rental Systems do Brasil Locação de Veículos Ltda.

  pending

  Brought by a franchisee · Car Rental Systems do Brasil Locação de Veículos Ltda. (a Hertz subsidiary; listed under the Parent Entities heading) · Brazil: first instance court; Sao Paulo Court of Appeals; Superior Court of Justice; Federal Supreme Court

  “Arquipélago Turismo S/A v. Car Rental Systems do Brasil Locação de Veículos Ltda. Following Hertz’s sale of its Brazilian business in 2017, Arquipelago, a former franchisee, filed suit against Car Rental seeking damages for the purported early termination of their franchise agreement.”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“On July 31, 2025, the State Court of Appeals reaffirmed its prior ruling. Car Rental appealed back to the Superior Court in October of 2025.” (page 27)

• Car Rental Systems do Brasil Locação de Veículos Ltda. and Hertz System, Inc. v. Pimentel & Pimenta Ltda.

  pending

  Brought against a franchisee · Car Rental Systems do Brasil Locação de Veículos Ltda. and Hertz System, Inc. (listed under 'Actions Brought by Thrifty or Parent') · 8th Civil Court of the Santo Amaro District, Sao Paulo

  “Car Rental Systems do Brasil Locação de Veículos Ltda. and Hertz System, Inc. v. Pimentel & Pimenta Ltda. Car Rental Systems brought an inhibitory action against Hertz’s former subfranchisee in Brazil post-termination for unlawfully continuing to use Hertz brands and trademarks in violation of the subfranchisee agreement.”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“Following an appeal, the decision became final in January 2019. The matter is suspended while the prospect of a collection action remains pending. The situation remains unchanged. We are still awaiting the outcome of further asset searches aimed at identifying assets subject to attachment.” (page 28)

• Localiza Car Rental Systems S.A. and Hertz System, Inc. v. Rovema Locadora de Veículos Ltda.

  pending

  Brought against a franchisee · Localiza Car Rental Systems S.A. and Hertz System, Inc. (listed under 'Actions Brought by Thrifty or Parent') · 4th Civil Court of the Santo Amaro District, Sao Paulo; Sao Paulo Court of Appeal

  “Localiza Car Rental Systems S.A. and Hertz System, Inc. v. Rovema Locadora de Veículos Ltda. Legal action was taken against a former Hertz subfranchisee in Brazil for the undue use of the HERTZ brand and name. The court granted an injunction to cease the use of the HERTZ brand and domain name and fixed a daily fine of R$ 5,000.”Page 28 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“The former subfranchisee appealed the decision on May 23, 2023 to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeal. This appeal was rejected on February 18, 2026 and we are waiting to see if the former sub- franchisee seeks a motion for clarification from the Sao Paulo Court of Appeal or appeals to the Superior Court of Justice. The matter remains active.”

Concluded (4)

• People of the State of California acting by and through San Francisco City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera v. The Hertz Corporation, American Traffic Solutions, Inc., ATS Processing Services, L.L.C., American Traffic Solutions Consolidated, L.L.C., and PlatePass, L.L.C.

  settled

  Government or regulatory action · The Hertz Corporation (with American Traffic Solutions, Inc. and affiliates) · filed 2017-03-01 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco · CGC-17-557336

  “People of the State of California acting by and through San Francisco City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera v. The Hertz Corporation, American Traffic Solutions, Inc., ATS Processing Services, L.L.C., American Traffic Solutions Consolidated, L.L.C., and PlatePass, L.L.C. (Case No. CGC-17-557336) filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco.”Page 30 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“The parties reached a formalized settlement during Q1 2019, with both Hertz and ATS agreeing to allocate fifty percent (50%) of the final settlement amount. Hertz’s allocated portion of the settlement payment to the City Attorney was $1,825,000.”

• Jenhanco, Inc. v. The Hertz Corporation, et al.

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · The Hertz Corporation (with Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., Dollar Rent A Car, Inc. and Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.) · filed 2015-04-23 · United States District Court of the Central District of California (removed from Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC579568) · 2:15-cv-04191-ODW

  “Jenhanco, Inc. v. The Hertz Corporation, et al. (Case No. 2:15-cv-04191-ODW) was brought in the United States District Court of the Central District of California. On April 23, 2015, Plaintiff, a Dollar licensee at the Salt Lake City airport, filed suit against Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. and The Hertz Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC579568).”Page 31 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“Effective as of October 31, 2017, the parties resolved this dispute in a settlement involving the re-acquisition of the territory rights for the Dollar brand in Utah, the assignment of the agreements relating to the Salt Lake City Airport, and the acquisition of certain vehicles and other fixed assets, for an aggregate acquisition price of approximately $9,225,000.”

• Federal Trade Commission. (File No. 8923190)

  concluded

  Government or regulatory action · Dollar (Dollar Rent A Car) · Federal Trade Commission · 8923190

  “Federal Trade Commission. (File No. 8923190). On December 18, 1991, Dollar signed an agreement which was filed with, and accepted by, the Federal Trade Commission on March 29, 1993. The agreement contains an Order to cease and desist certain acts and practices which occurred during 1989,”Page 36 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“The Order requires Dollar to disclose to customers the amount of all mandatory charges, not reasonably avoidable, in connection with any representation relating to the price of contemplated rentals.”

• More Automotive Products, Inc. v. Dollar Rent A Car, Inc.

  dismissed

  Brought by a franchisee · Dollar Rent A Car, Inc. (listed under the Parent Entities heading) · Federal court in Puerto Rico; U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; binding arbitration

  “More Automotive Products, Inc. v. Dollar Rent A Car, Inc. On February 22, 2024, Dollar terminated its franchise relationship with More Automotive, a franchisee operating in Puerto Rico, for various violations of the franchise agreement.”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome:“The former franchisee filed separate lawsuits in federal court in Puerto Rico and the Middle District of Florida, which were both dismissed. The matter was then sent to binding arbitration. In October 2025, the plaintiff dismissed the arbitration.”