beatandraise : SEC Filings Research with AI

beatandraise.com

2.2.0.25falsefalse116 - Disclosure - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIEStruefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDfalsefalse1/1/2011 - 3/31/2011 USD ($) USD ($) / shares $eol_PE10216---1110-Q0006_STD_90_20110331_0http://www.sec.gov/CIK0001090727duration2011-01-01T00:00:002011-03-31T00:00:00iso4217_USDStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170sharesStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instanceshares0pureStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancepure0iso4217_USD_per_sharesDividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instanceshares0USDUSD$5false0us-gaap_ScheduleOfLossContingenciesByContingencyTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00<div> NOTE 9. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES 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. In one of these cases, Marlo v. UPS, which was certified as a class action in a California federal court in September 2004, plaintiffs allege that they improperly were denied overtime, and seek penalties for missed meal and rest periods, and interest and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of 1,300 full-time supervisors. In August 2005, the court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS on all claims, and plaintiffs appealed the ruling. In October 2007, the appeals court reversed the lower court’s ruling. In April 2008, the court decertified the class and plaintiffs appealed. After decertification and while the appeal was pending, some plaintiffs filed individual lawsuits raising the same allegations as in the underlying class action. These individual lawsuits are in various stages. On April 28, 2011, the appeals court upheld the decertification decision. We have denied any liability with respect to these claims and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these cases. At this time, we have not determined the amount of any liability that may result from these matters or whether such liability, if any, 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 various lawsuits brought by franchisees who operate Mail Boxes Etc. centers and The UPS Store locations. These lawsuits relate to the rebranding of Mail Boxes Etc. centers to The UPS Store, The UPS Store business model, the representations made in connection with the rebranding and the sale of The UPS Store franchises, and UPS’s sale of services in the franchisees’ territories. In one of the actions, which is pending in California state court, the court certified a class consisting of all Mail Boxes Etc. branded stores that rebranded to The UPS Store in March 2003. We have denied any liability with respect to these claims and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. At this time, we have not determined the amount of any liability that may result from these matters or whether such liability, 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 reported by the shipper. We have denied any liability with respect to these claims and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. At this time, we have not determined the amount of any liability that may result from this matter or whether such liability, 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/or to monopolize a so-called market for the time sensitive delivery of letters and packages. 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. At this time, we have not determined the amount of any liability that may result from these matters or whether such liability, 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 believe that the eventual resolution of these cases will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. We file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction, most U.S. state and local jurisdictions, and many non-U.S. jurisdictions. We have substantially resolved all U.S. federal income tax matters for tax years prior to 2003. During the fourth quarter of 2010, we received a refund of $139 million as a result of the resolution of tax years 2003 through 2004 with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Appeals Office. Along with the audit for tax years 2005 through 2007, the IRS is currently examining non-income based taxes, including employment and excise taxes, which could lead to proposed assessments. The IRS has not presented an official position with regard to these taxes at this time, and therefore we are not able to determine the technical merit of any potential assessment. We anticipate receipt of the IRS reports on these matters by the end of the second quarter of 2011. We have filed all required U.S. state and local returns reporting the result of the resolution of the U.S. federal income tax audit of the tax years 2003 and 2004. A limited number of U.S. state and local matters are the subject of ongoing audits, administrative appeals or litigation. As of December 31, 2010, we had approximately 250,000 employees employed under a national master agreement and various supplemental agreements with local unions affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“Teamsters”). These agreements run through July 31, 2013. We have approximately 2,800 pilots who are employed under a collective bargaining agreement with the Independent Pilots Association (“IPA”), which becomes amendable at the end of 2011. Our airline mechanics are covered by a collective bargaining agreement with Teamsters Local 2727, which became amendable in November 2006. We began formal negotiations with Teamsters Local 2727 in October 2006. In January 2011, we reached an agreement with Teamsters Local 2727 which was ratified by its members in April 2011. The agreement will run through November 1, 2013. In addition, the majority (approximately 3,300) of our ground mechanics who are not employed under agreements with the Teamsters are employed under collective bargaining agreements with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (“IAM”). Our agreement with the IAM runs through July 31, 2014. We participate in a number of trustee-managed multi-employer pension and health and welfare plans for employees covered under collective bargaining agreements. Several factors could cause us to make significantly higher future contributions to these plans, including unfavorable investment performance, changes in demographics and increased benefits to participants. At this time, we are unable to determine the amount of additional future contributions, if any, or whether any material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity would result from our participation in these plans. 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. On July 21, 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. At this time, we have not determined the amount of any liability that may result from these matters or whether such liability, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Other Matters 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. On February 9, 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 an additional information request from the Commission in January 2011, and we have responded to that request. 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 also received and responded to related information requests from competition authorities in other jurisdictions. We are cooperating with each of these investigations, and intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves. At this time, we are unable to determine the amount of any liability that may result from these matters or whether any such liability would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. </div>NOTE 9. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various class actionfalsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringDescribes and quantifies the loss contingencies that were reported in the period or disclosed as of the balance sheet date.Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9-12, 22-40 falsefalseLEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES11LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIESUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue