Pitney Bowes 2007 Annual Report Download - page 25

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 25 of the 2007 Pitney Bowes annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 110

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110

7
locations, principally in Danbury, Connecticut; Harlow, United Kingdom; and Lyon and St. Denis, France. We believe that
our manufacturing, administrative and sales office properties are adequate for the needs of all of our operations.
ITEM 3. – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
In the ordinary course of business, we are routinely defendants in or party to a number of pending and threatened legal
actions. These may involve litigation by or against us relating to, among other things:
• contractual rights under vendor, insurance or other contracts
• intellectual property or patent rights
• equipment, service, payment, contractual or other disputes with customers
• disputes with employees
These litigations are on occasion brought on behalf of purported classes of customers, employees or others.
We are a defendant in a patent action brought by Ricoh Company, Ltd., in which there are allegations of infringement against
certain of our important mailing products, including the DM SeriesTM. Ricoh Corporation et al. v. Pitney Bowes Inc. (United
States District Court, District of New Jersey, filed November 26, 2002). The plaintiff in this action is seeking both large
damages and injunctive relief. We prevailed at the trial held in this matter in the fall of 2006. The jury found the Ricoh
patents at issue to be invalid. Even though a finding of invalidity means that the plaintiff’ s claim must fail, the jury was also
required to rule on infringement and found that we infringed the Ricoh patents and did so willfully. As a result of the
invalidity finding, we prevailed and no damages were awarded. The matter is currently on appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Imagitas, Inc., is a defendant in ten purported class actions filed in six different states. These
litigations have been consolidated into a single federal multi-district litigation in the United States District for the Middle
District of Florida, In re: Imagitas, Driver’ s Privacy Protection Act (Consolidated, May 28, 2007). Each of these lawsuits
alleges that the Imagitas DriverSource program violates the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA). Under the
DriverSource program, Imagitas enters into contracts with state governments to mail out automobile registration renewal
materials along with third party advertisements, without revealing the personal information of any state resident to any
advertiser. The DriverSource program assists the state in performing its function of delivering these mailings and funding the
costs of them. The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking both statutory damages under the DPPA and an injunction against
the continuation of the program. The plaintiffs have also sued state officials in four of the affected states, Florida, Minnesota,
Missouri, and Ohio. Those suits have also been consolidated into the multi-district litigation. The state officials from Florida
who were sued in their individual capacity have reached a settlement with the plaintiffs. As a result of that settlement,
Imagitas has agreed to voluntarily suspend a portion of the program, pending a ruling in the litigation against it. During this
period, Imagitas will still be placing advertisements in the registration renewal forms in Florida.
We expect to prevail in both the Ricoh litigation and the lawsuits against Imagitas; however, as litigation is inherently
unpredictable, there can be no assurance in this regard. If the plaintiffs do prevail, the results may have a material effect on
our financial position, future results of operations or cash flows, including, for example, our ability to offer certain types of
goods or services in the future.
ITEM 4. – SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
We did not submit any matters to a vote of our stockholders during the three months ended December 31, 2007.
PART II
ITEM 5. – MARKET FOR THE COMPANY’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
Pitney Bowes common stock is traded under the symbol “PBI”. The principal market is the New York Stock Exchange
(NYSE). Our stock is also traded on the Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pacific and Cincinnati stock exchanges. At
December 31, 2007, we had 21,574 common stockholders of record.
On November 14, 2007, our Board of Directors authorized a two-cent increase of our quarterly common stock dividend to
$0.35 per share, marking the 26th consecutive year that we have increased the dividend on our common stock. This
represents a 6 percent increase and applies to the dividend with a record date of February 18, 2008.
See Equity Compensation Plan Information Table in Item 12 of this Form 10-K for information regarding securities for
issuance under our equity compensation plans.