NOTE 9. 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 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 two lawsuits about the rebranding or purchase of The UPS Store franchises—Morgate and Samica. We prevailed at the trial court level in both cases, and plaintiffs appealed. Morgate was filed in March 2003. The plaintiffs are 125 individual franchisees who did not rebrand and a certified class of all franchisees who did rebrand to The UPS Store. A bellwether trial for three individual plaintiffs was set for early 2010, but the trial court entered judgment against one of the three plaintiffs prior to trial, which was affirmed in January 2012. The trial court also granted our motion for summary judgment against the members of the certified class, which was reversed in January 2012. The remainder of the case has been stayed pending appeal. Samica was filed in March 2006. The plaintiffs are 250 individual The UPS Store franchisees who either elected to rebrand or purchased new The UPS Store franchises. Summary judgment was granted in UPS’s favor and affirmed on appeal in December 2011. 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) three separate components of these cases are being appealed to federal and state courts following decisions favorable to UPS and we cannot predict the final outcomes of these appeals; and (2) it remains uncertain what evidence of damages, if any, plaintiffs will be able to present if any aspects of these cases proceed forward. 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 Barber Auto Sales v. UPS, which a federal court in Alabama certified as a class action in September 2009, the plaintiff asserts a breach of contract claim arising from UPS’s assessment of shipping charge corrections when UPS determines that the “dimensional weight” of packages is greater than that reported by the shipper. On June 1, 2011, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the case for an immaterial amount. The settlement has been preliminarily approved, and remains subject to a final fairness hearing.

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/or to monopolize a so-called market for shipping consultation services. 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) AFMS has not articulated any measure of damages; 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 request to certify the case in Québec will be heard in February 2012. 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 are cooperating with this investigation 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 this matter, including (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe 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 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 October 2007, June 2008 and February 2009, we received information requests from the European Commission (“Commission”) relating to its investigation of certain pricing practices in the freight forwarding industry, and subsequently responded to each request. In February 2010, UPS received a Statement of Objections by the Commission. This document contains the Commission’s preliminary view with respect to alleged anticompetitive behavior in the freight forwarding industry by 18 freight forwarders, including UPS. Although it alleges anticompetitive behavior, it does not prejudge the Commission’s final decision, as to facts or law (which is subject to appeal to the European courts). The options available to the Commission include taking no action or imposing a monetary fine; the range of any potential action by the Commission is not reasonably estimable. Any decision imposing a fine would be subject to appeal. UPS has responded to the Statement of Objections, including at a July 2010 Commission hearing, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves in this proceeding. We received additional information requests from the Commission in January and July 2011, and we have responded to those requests.

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 magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant our motion to dismiss, 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.