UPS 2013 Annual Report Download - page 62

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 62 of the 2013 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 136

  • 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

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
50
In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against us in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and
Québec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of 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 motion
to authorize the 2006 Québec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there was no
appeal, which ended that case in our favor. The 2013 Québec litigation also has been dismissed. We deny all liability and are
vigorously defending the one outstanding case in Ontario. 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
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 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.
Other Matters
On March 29, 2013, we entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) with the United States Attorney's Office in
the Northern District of California in connection with an investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration of shipments
by illicit online pharmacies. Under the NPA, we forfeited $40 million to the government, admitted to a Statement of Facts
describing the conduct leading to the agreement, and agreed to implement an online pharmacy compliance program. The term
of the NPA is two years, although we can petition the government to shorten that term in its discretion to one year. The NPA
did not have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity in 2013.
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. In November 2012, the Commerce Commission of Singapore initiated an
investigation with respect to similar matters.
We are cooperating with each of these investigations, 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 these matters
including: (1) we are vigorously defending each matter and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses;
(2) there are unresolved questions of law that could be of importance to the ultimate resolutions of these matters, including the
calculation of any potential fine; and (3) there is uncertainty about the time period that is the subject of the investigations.
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 operations or
liquidity.