UPS 2011 Annual Report Download - page 112

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 112 of the 2011 UPS 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 148

  • 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
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
brokerage services provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement
of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class-action was
declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British
Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in our favor. The Ontario class action was
certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the plaintiffs by the Ontario
motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that
decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and we are appealing that decision. The request
to certify the case in Québec will be heard in February 2012. We have denied all liability and are vigorously
defending the two outstanding cases. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the
amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters, including (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves
and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses and (2) there are unresolved questions of law
and fact that could be important to the ultimate resolution of these matters. Accordingly, at this time, we are not
able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such
loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operation or liquidity.
Other Matters
In May and December 2007 and August 2008 we received and responded to grand jury subpoenas from the
DOJ in the Northern District of California in connection with an investigation by the Drug Enforcement
Administration. We also have responded to informal requests for information in connection with this
investigation, which relates to transportation of packages on behalf of on-line pharmacies that may have operated
illegally. We are cooperating with this investigation and intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves. There
are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from
this matter, including (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe we have a number of meritorious
legal defenses and (2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate
resolution of this matter. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that
may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.
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. In February 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 additional information requests from the Commission in January and July 2011, and we
have responded to those requests.
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.
100