12.  Defendant Hertz, through its subsidiaries, engages in the car and  equipment rental businesses worldwide.  As of November 2012, Hertz was the  second-largest U.S. car rental company by sales.  The Company operates in two  segments, Car Rental and Equipment Rental.  Hertz also offers claims administration  services, such as investigating, evaluating, negotiating, and disposing of various  claims, including third-party, first-party, bodily injury, property damage, general  liability, and product liability.   14.  The Equipment Rental segment rents earthmoving equipment, material  handling equipment, aerial and electrical equipment, air compressors, generators,  pumps, small tools, compaction equipment, and construction-related trucks.  This  segment also sells new equipment, and consumables, such as gloves and hardhats.   15.  In the Car Rental Segment, Hertz, which primarily appeals to a  corporate clientele amenable to paying higher prices, has increasingly relied upon  increased sales in the “opaque” market following its December 2012 divestiture of  the U.S. operations of Advantage Rent A Car (“Advantage”), the division that had  appealed more to lower-budget leisure travelers.  An opaque rental is a reservation  that permits online customers to bid the price they want to pay for a specific travel- related product or service and location without knowing the brand.  The brand is  revealed after the customer makes the online purchase.  While such opaque sales  through travel discounting websites permit airlines, hotels and car rental firms to  increase their market share and, importantly, their utilization, they do so at the  expense of pricing, margins and profits.  Although the number of discount travel  websites offering opaque car rental bookings has mushroomed, the most popular  opaque travel websites have traditionally been Priceline.com and Hotwire.com.   67.  Plaintiff brings 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 the common stock of Hertz during the Class Period and who were  damaged thereby (the “Class”).  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.   69.  Plaintiff’s 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.   70.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members  of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and  securities litigation.   71.  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, operations  and management of Hertz; and  (c)  to what extent the members of the Class have sustained damages  and the proper measure of damages.   73.  Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶1-72 by reference.   74.  During the Class Period, Defendants disseminated or approved the false  statements specified above, which they knew or deliberately disregarded were  misleading in that they contained misrepresentations and failed to disclose material  facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances  under which they were made, not misleading.   76.  Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages in that, in reliance on the  integrity of the market, they paid artificially inflated prices for Hertz common stock.   Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased Hertz common stock at the prices  they paid, or at all, if they had been aware that the market prices had been artificially  and falsely inflated by Defendants’ misleading statements.   77.  As a direct and proximate result of these Defendants’ wrongful conduct,  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with  their purchases of Hertz common stock during the Class Period.  78.  Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶1-77 by reference.   Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act  and Rule 10b-5 Promulgated Thereunder  Against All Defendants   Violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act  Against All Defendants  