First Data 2007 Annual Report Download - page 27

Leased Facilities Owned Facilities
No. Sq. Ft. No. Sq. Ft.
Facilities in the United States
First Data Commercial Services 66 1,348,787 6 657,280
First Data Financial Institution Services 15 592,963 14 1,852,242
Integrated Payment Systems 5 149,799 — —
All Other and Corporate 10 580,064 — —
International Facilities
First Data Commercial Services 1 2,250 — —
First Data Financial Institution Services 1 50,059 — —
First Data International 54 974,519 9 557,002
Integrated Payment Systems has principal operations in Englewood, Colorado. Commercial Services' principal operations are conducted in Melville,
New York; Hagerstown, Maryland; Coral Springs and Maitland, Florida; Kennesaw and Marietta, Georgia; Houston, Texas; Moorpark and Roseville,
California; and Wilmington, Delaware. The principal operations for Financial Institution Services are located in Omaha, Nebraska; Wilmington, Delaware;
and Chesapeake, Virginia. The principal operations for First Data International are located in Basildon, United Kingdom; Frankfurt, Germany; Athens
(Kryoneri), Greece; Sydney, Australia; Vienna, Austria; and Buenos Aires, Argentina. The Company's All Other and Corporate facilities include the
Company's corporate offices in Greenwood Village, Colorado.
The Company believes that its facilities are suitable and adequate for its current business; however, the Company periodically reviews its space
requirements and may acquire new space to meet the needs of its businesses or consolidate and dispose of or sublet facilities which are no longer required.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
From time to time, the Company is involved in various litigation matters arising in the ordinary course of its business. None of these matters, either
individually or in the aggregate, currently is material to the Company except the matters reported below.
In Re: Concord EFS, Inc. Shareholders Litigation
On or about April 3 and 4, 2003, two purported class action complaints were filed on behalf of the public holders of Concord's common stock (excluding
shareholders related to or affiliated with the individual defendants) in the Circuit Court of Tennessee for the Thirtieth Judicial District by Charles Reed and
Coralyn Stransky. The defendants in those actions were certain current and former officers and directors of Concord. The complaints generally alleged
breaches of the defendants' duty of loyalty and due care in connection with the defendants' alleged attempt to sell Concord without maximizing the value to
shareholders in order to advance the defendants' alleged individual interests in obtaining indemnification agreements related to litigation against Concord and
its directors alleging Concord's financial statements were materially misleading and other derivative litigation. The complaints sought class certification,
injunctive relief directing the defendants' conduct in connection with an alleged sale or auction of Concord, reasonable attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other
costs and relief the Court deems just and proper. These complaints were consolidated into one action (In Re Concord EFS, Inc. Shareholders Litigation) and
transferred to the Shelby County Circuit for the State of Tennessee.
On or about April 2, 2003, an additional purported class action complaint was filed in the Chancery Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, by Barton K.
O'Brien. The defendants were Concord, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the Company. This complaint contained allegations
regarding the individual defendants' alleged insider trading and alleged violations of securities and other laws and asserted that this alleged misconduct
reduced the consideration offered to Concord shareholders in the proposed merger between Concord and one of the Company's subsidiaries. The complaint
sought class certification, attorneys' fees, experts' fees, costs and other relief the Court deems just and proper. Moreover, the complaint also sought an order
enjoining consummation of the merger, rescinding the merger if it is consummated and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages to members of the
putative class, and directing the defendants to account to the putative class members for unspecified damages. On April 24, 2003, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the claims against it which was granted by the Court. On June 25, 2003, this complaint was transferred to the Shelby County Circuit Court in which
In re Concord EFS, Inc. Shareholders Litigation is pending. Through a Court-ordered second amended consolidated complaint filed September 19, 2003, the
two matters were consolidated.
26