|
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES
|
9 Months Ended |
|---|---|
|
Sep. 30, 2012
|
|
| Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract] | |
| LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES |
We are involved in a number of judicial proceedings and other matters arising from the conduct of our business activities.
Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome, we have generally denied, or believe we have a meritorious defense and will deny, liability in all litigation pending against us, including (except as otherwise noted herein) the matters described below, and we intend to defend vigorously each case. We have accrued for legal claims when, and to the extent that, amounts associated with the claims become probable and can be reasonably estimated. The actual costs of resolving legal claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for those claims.
For those matters as to which we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss, we are not able to determine whether the loss will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations or liquidity. For matters in this category, we have indicated in the descriptions that follow the reasons that we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss.
Judicial Proceedings
We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various class action allegations under state wage-and-hour laws. At this time, we do not believe that any loss associated with these matters, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.
UPS and our subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. are defendants in a lawsuit in California Superior Court about the rebranding of The UPS Store franchises. In Morgate, the plaintiffs are 125 individual franchisees who did not rebrand to The UPS Store and a certified class of all franchisees who did rebrand. The trial court entered judgment against a bellwether individual plaintiff, which was affirmed in January 2012. The trial court granted our motion for summary judgment against the certified class, which was reversed in January 2012.
There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from whatever remaining aspects of this case proceeds including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) it remains uncertain what evidence of damages, if any, plaintiffs will be able to present. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.
In AFMS LLC v. UPS and FedEx Corporation, a lawsuit filed in federal court in the Central District of California in August 2010, the plaintiff asserts that UPS and FedEx violated U.S. antitrust law by conspiring to refuse to negotiate with third party negotiators retained by shippers and by individually imposing policies that prevent shippers from using such negotiators. The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has informed us that it has opened a civil investigation of our policies and practices for dealing with third party negotiators. We are cooperating with this investigation. We deny any liability with respect to these matters and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1) we believe that we have a number of meritorious defenses; (2) discovery is ongoing; and (3) the DOJ investigation is ongoing. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.
In Canada, three purported class-action cases were filed against us in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Québec (2006). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in our favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and we are appealing that decision. The motion to authorize the Québec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the trial judge in October 2012; there may be an appeal. We have denied all liability and are vigorously defending the two outstanding cases. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate resolution of these matters. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operation or liquidity.
Other Matters
In May and December 2007 and August 2008 we received and responded to grand jury subpoenas from the DOJ in the Northern District of California in connection with an investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration. We also have responded to informal requests for information in connection with this investigation, which relates to transportation of packages on behalf of on-line pharmacies that may have operated illegally. We have been cooperating with this investigation and are exploring the possibility of resolving this matter, which could include our undertaking further enhancements to our compliance program and/or a payment. Such a payment may exceed the amounts previously accrued with respect to this matter, but we do not expect that the amount of such additional loss would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.
We received a grand jury subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the DOJ regarding the DOJ's investigation into certain pricing practices in the freight forwarding industry in December 2007.
In August 2010, competition authorities in Brazil opened an administrative proceeding to investigate alleged anticompetitive behavior in the freight forwarding industry. Approximately 45 freight forwarding companies and individuals are named in the proceeding, including UPS, UPS SCS Transportes (Brasil) S.A., and a former employee in Brazil. UPS will have an opportunity to respond to these allegations.
We are cooperating with each of these investigations, and intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1) we are vigorously defending each matter and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; (2) there are unresolved questions of law that could be of importance to the ultimate resolutions of these matters, including the calculation of any potential fine; and (3) there is uncertainty about the time period that is the subject of the investigations. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.
In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the amended complaint. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1) the court has dismissed the complaint, with leave to amend, and the scope of the plaintiffs' claims is therefore unclear; (2) the scope and size of the proposed class is ill-defined; (3) there are significant legal questions about the adequacy and standing of the putative class representatives; and (4) we believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.
We are a defendant in various other lawsuits that arose in the normal course of business. We do not believe that the eventual resolution of these other lawsuits (either individually or in the aggregate), including any reasonably possible losses in excess of current accruals, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.
Tax Matters
In addition to the income tax matters described in Note 14, we received an IRS Revenue Agent Report (RAR) covering excise taxes for tax years 2003 through 2007 in June 2011. The excise tax RAR proposed two alternate theories for asserting additional excise tax on transportation of property by air. We disagree with these proposed excise tax theories and related adjustments.
We believe that these theories are not based on a reasonable interpretation of the applicable law, are inconsistent with our historical operating structure, and are in direct conflict with previously issued guidance to UPS from the IRS National Office. We filed protests and, in the third quarter of 2011, the IRS responded to our protests and forwarded the case to IRS Appeals.
We believe the likelihood that these theories will ultimately be sustained is remote.
Further, we have asserted that if the current excise tax theories are sustained, UPS will be entitled to correlative income tax refunds for the 1999 through 2007 tax years. Accordingly, we have filed protective income tax refund claims for amounts significantly greater than the proposed excise tax assessments. The IRS has not completed its audit or made any claims with respect to any tax year after 2007, nor have we filed protective income tax refund claims for those tax years. However, the income tax refund claims for those tax years would also be significantly greater than the amount of any excise tax assessment proposed under similar theories.
Because we believe there is only a remote likelihood that the excise tax RAR theories will ultimately be sustained, we have concluded that the uncertain income tax positions associated with the protective refund claims based on the same theories do not currently meet the applicable standard for recognition of an income tax benefit. Accordingly, we have not accrued any income tax benefit of such claims in our financial statements or in the disclosures in Note 14.
In the third quarter of 2012, following the Appeals Opening Conference in July 2012, we had settlement discussions which we expect will lead to a complete resolution of all excise tax matters and correlative income tax refund claims for the 2003 through 2007 tax years within the next twelve months. At this time, we do not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.
|