First Data 2013 Annual Report Download - page 22


None.

As of December 31, 2013, the Company and its subsidiaries owned or leased approximately 58 domestic properties and approximately 91 international
properties. These facilities are used for operational, sales and administrative purposes, and are substantially all currently being utilized.
 
   
Facilities in the United States
Retail and Alliance Services 20 815,105 91,033,310
Financial Services 14 544,221 7 1,261,987
All Other and Corporate 4554,724 4322,664
International Facilities 81 931,313 10 375,217
Retail and Alliance Services’ principal operations are conducted in Melville, New York; Hagerstown, Maryland; Marietta, Georgia; Coral Springs,
Florida; and Houston, Texas. The principal operations for Financial Services are located in Omaha, Nebraska; Wilmington, Delaware; Chesapeake, Virginia,
and Maitland, Florida. The principal operations for International are located in Basildon, United Kingdom; Frankfurt, Germany; Athens (Kryoneri), Greece;
Sydney, Australia; and Buenos Aires, Argentina. The Company’s All Other and Corporate facilities include the Company’s corporate offices in Atlanta,
Georgia and 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.

From time to time, the Company is involved in various litigation matters arising in the ordinary course of its business. None of these matters,
individually or in the aggregate, currently is material to the Company except the matter reported below.
ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation
On July 2, 2004, Pamela Brennan, Terry Crayton, and Darla Martinez filed a class action complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various
financial institutions (“Brennan”). Plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated antitrust laws by conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM fees that were
ultimately charged to ATM cardholders. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and such other
relief as the nature of the case may require or as may seem just and proper to the court. Five similar suits were filed and served in July, August and
October 2004, two in the Central District of California (Los Angeles), two in the Southern District of New York, and one in the Western District of Washington
(Seattle). All cases were transferred to the Northern District Court of California and the Court consolidated all of the ATM interchange cases pending against
the defendants in Brennan (referred to collectively as the “ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation”).
On August 3, 2007, Concord filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiffs’ per se claims. On March 24, 2008, the Court entered
an order granting the defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment. On February 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint and on
April 6, 2009, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On September 4, 2009, the Court entered an order dismissing the
Second Amended Complaint and, on October 16, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint on November 13, 2009. On June 21, 2010, the Court partially dismissed plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint and ordered the parties
to brief a summary judgment on an alternative claim by plaintiffs. On September 16, 2010, the Court entered an order granting defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, dismissing all of the claims against the defendants except for the claims for equitable relief. The Court granted judgment in favor of the
defendants, dismissing the case on September 17, 2010. On October 14, 2010, the plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment. On July 12, 2012, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Northern District Court of California’s dismissal of all the claims against the defendants. On
July 26, 2012, the plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for rehearing en banc and on March 13, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit issued an order denying the
21