eTrade 2009 Annual Report Download - page 20

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
A summary of our significant locations at December 31, 2009 is shown in the following table. All facilities
are leased, except for 165,000 square feet of our office in Alpharetta, Georgia. Square footage amounts are net of
space that has been sublet or part of a facility restructuring.
Location Approximate Square Footage
Alpharetta, Georgia 260,000
Arlington, Virginia 140,000
Jersey City, New Jersey 107,000
Sandy, Utah 77,000
Menlo Park, California 76,000
New York, New York 53,000
Chicago, Illinois 25,000
All of our facilities are used by either our trading and investing or balance sheet management segments. All
other leased facilities with space of less than 25,000 square feet are not listed by location. In addition to the
significant facilities above, we also lease all of our 28 E*TRADE Branches, ranging in space from approximately
2,500 to 13,000 square feet. We believe our facilities space is adequate to meet our needs in 2010.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
On October 27, 2000, Ajaxo, Inc. (“Ajaxo”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Santa Clara. Ajaxo sought damages and certain non-monetary relief for the Company’s
alleged breach of a non-disclosure agreement with Ajaxo pertaining to certain wireless technology that Ajaxo
offered the Company as well as damages and other relief against the Company for their alleged misappropriation
of Ajaxo’s trade secrets. Following a jury trial, a judgment was entered in 2003 in favor of Ajaxo against the
Company for $1.3 million dollars for breach of the Ajaxo non-disclosure agreement. Although the jury also
found in favor of Ajaxo on its claim against the Company for misappropriation of trade secrets, the trial court
subsequently denied Ajaxo’s requests for additional damages and relief. On December 21, 2005, the California
Court of Appeal affirmed the above-described award against the Company for breach of the nondisclosure
agreement but remanded the case to the trial court for the limited purpose of determining what, if any, additional
damages Ajaxo may be entitled to as a result of the jury’s previous finding in favor of Ajaxo on its claim against
the Company for misappropriation of trade secrets. Although the Company paid Ajaxo the full amount due on the
above-described judgment, the case, consistent with the rulings issued by the Court of Appeal, was remanded
back to the trial court, and on May 30, 2008, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company denying all claims
raised and demands for damages against the Company. Following the trial court’s filing of entry of judgment in
favor of the Company on September 5, 2008, Ajaxo filed post-trial motions for vacating this entry of judgment
and requesting a new trial. On November 4, 2008, the trial court denied these motions. On December 2, 2008,
Ajaxo filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeal of the State of California for the Sixth District, and the
parties completed the briefing of Ajaxo’s appeal on December 14, 2009. The Company will continue to
vigorously defend itself and oppose Ajaxo’s appeal.
On October 11, 2006, a state class action was filed by Nikki Greenberg on her own behalf and on behalf of
all those similarly situated plaintiffs, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles on
behalf of all customers or consumers who allegedly made or received telephone calls from the Company that
were recorded without their knowledge or consent. On February 7, 2008, class certification was granted and the
class defined to consist of (1) all persons in California who received telephone calls from the Company and
whose calls were recorded without their consent within three years of October 11, 2006, and (2) all persons who
made calls from California to the Beverly Hills branch of the Company on August 8, 2006. Plaintiffs sought to
recover unspecified monetary damages plus injunctive relief, including punitive and exemplary damages,
interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 16, 2009, the court granted final approval of the parties’ proposed
17