LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES |
3 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Mar. 31, 2018 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES |
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 The UPS Store, Inc. are defendants in Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al., an action in the Los Angeles Superior Court brought on behalf of a certified class of all franchisees who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes Etc. franchises to The UPS Store in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges that UPS and The UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented and omitted facts to the class about the market tests that were conducted before offering the class the choice of whether to rebrand to The UPS Store. Defendants’ motion to decertify the class was granted in August 2017. The plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal, and further proceedings in the trial court are stayed pending resolution by the California Court of Appeal. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from the remaining aspects of this case, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; (2) it remains uncertain what evidence of damages, if any, plaintiffs will be able to present; and (3) plaintiff’s notice of appeal is pending. 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 Court granted summary judgment motions filed by UPS and FedEx, entered judgment in favor of UPS and FedEx, and dismissed the case. Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In August 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's order dismissing the case. AFMS filed a petition for rehearing in September 2017, which was denied. AFMS filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court, which was denied on February 26, 2018. The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) opened a civil investigation of our policies and practices for dealing with third-party negotiators. These matters are now concluded with no liability to UPS.
We are a defendant in Ryan Wright and Julia Zislin v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd., an action brought on behalf of a certified class of customers in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada. Plaintiffs filed suit in February 2007, alleging 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. Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court in August 2011, when it dismissed plaintiffs' complaint under the Criminal Code and granted plaintiffs' complaint of inadequate disclosure. We appealed the Court's decision pertaining to inadequate disclosure in September 2011. In October 2017, we reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case for an immaterial amount. Final resolution of this matter is subject to the negotiation, execution and delivery of a settlement agreement and court approval.
In February 2015, the State and City of New York filed suit against UPS in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, arising from alleged shipments of cigarettes to New York State and City residents. The complaint asserted claims under various federal and state laws. The complaint also included a claim that UPS violated the Assurance of Discontinuance it entered into with the New York Attorney General in 2005 concerning cigarette deliveries. On March 24, 2017, the District Court issued an opinion and order finding liability against UPS on each of the plaintiffs’ causes of action. On May 25, 2017, the District Court issued a corrected opinion and order on liability and an order awarding the plaintiffs damages of $9.4 million and penalties of $237.6 million. An accrual of $9.4 million with respect to the damages awarded by the court is included on our consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2018. We estimate that the amount of losses could be up to $247 million, plus interest; however, the amount of penalties ultimately payable, if any, is subject to a variety of complex factors and potential outcomes that remain to be determined in future legal proceedings. Consequently, we are unable to reasonably estimate a likely amount of loss within that range. We strongly disagree with the District Court’s analysis and conclusions, and have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. UPS filed its opening brief with the Appellate Court in October 2017 the State and City of New York filed their brief on February 21, 2018. We expect oral argument will be scheduled during 2018.
Other Matters
In October 2015, the DOJ informed us of an industry-wide inquiry into the transportation of mail under the United States Postal Service ("USPS") International Commercial Air contracts. In October 2017, we received a Civil Investigative Demand seeking certain information relating to our contracts. The DOJ has indicated it is investigating potential violations of the False Claims Act or other statutes. We are cooperating with the DOJ. The Company is unable to predict what action, if any, might be taken in the future by any government authorities as a result of their investigation. 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 August 2016, Spain’s National Markets and Competition Commission (“CNMC”) opened an investigation into 10 companies in the commercial delivery and parcel industry, including UPS, related to alleged agreements to allocate customers. In May 2017, UPS received a Statement of Objections issued by the CNMC. In July 2017, UPS received a Proposed Decision from the CNMC. On March 8, 2018, the CNMC adopted a final decision, finding an infringement and imposing a fine on UPS of €19.2 million. UPS will seek a suspension of the implementation of the decision (including payment of the fine) and intends to appeal the decision on the merits. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this matter, 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 this matter. 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 February 2018 the Turkish competition authority opened an investigation into nine companies (including UPS) in the small package industry related to alleged customer allocations in violation of Turkish competition law. The investigation is in its early stages. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this matter, 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 this matter. 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.
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.
|