Pitney Bowes 2010 Annual Report Download - page 26

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 26 of the 2010 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 126

  • 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
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126

7
ITEM 1B. – UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.
ITEM 2. – PROPERTIES
Our world headquarters is located in Stamford, Connecticut. We have facilities worldwide that are either leased or owned. We have
limited manufacturing and assembly operations in our Danbury, Connecticut and Harlow, United Kingdom locations. Our principal
research and development facilities are located in Shelton, Connecticut and Noida, India. 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 or other disputes with customers; or disputes with employees.
Some of these actions may be brought as a purported class action on behalf of a purported class of employees, customers or others.
Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Imagitas, Inc., is a defendant in several purported class actions initially filed in five different states.
These lawsuits have been coordinated in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, In re: Imagitas, Driver’s
Privacy Protection Act Litigation (Coordinated, 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 entered 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 assisted the state in performing
its governmental function of delivering these mailings and funding the costs of them. The plaintiffs in these actions were seeking
statutory damages under the DPPA. On December 21, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit Court affirmed the District Court’s summary
judgment decision in Rine, et al. v. Imagitas, Inc. (United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, filed August 1, 2006),
which ruled in Imagitas’ favor and dismissed that litigation. That decision is now final, with no further appeals available. With respect
to the remaining state cases, Imagitas filed its motion to dismiss these cases on October 8, 2010. Plaintiff’s opposition brief was filed
on December 6, 2010, and Imagitas filed its reply brief on December 22, 2010. Although the plaintiffs are still contending that the
cases filed in Ohio and Missouri can proceed, they have admitted in their response that the reasoning in the Rine decision does require
that actions based on Minnesota and New York laws be dismissed. We are awaiting a decision by the District Court on the motion to
dismiss.
On October 28, 2009, the Company and certain of its current and former officers were named as defendants in NECA-IBEW Health &
Welfare Fund v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of the
Company during the period between July 30, 2007 and October 29, 2007 alleging that the Company, in essence, missed two financial
projections. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 20, 2010. On December 3, 2010, defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint. Oral argument on that motion is scheduled for April 15, 2011.
We expect to prevail in the legal actions above; 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. – (REMOVED AND RESERVED)