First Data 2008 Annual Report Download - page 32

ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation
On July 2, 2004, Pamela Brennan, Terry Crayton, and Darla Martinez filed a class action complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial
institutions ("Brennan"). Plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated antitrust laws by conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM fees that were ultimately
charged to ATM cardholders. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as
the nature of the case may require or as may seem just and proper to the court. Five similar suits were filed and served in July, August and October 2004, two
in the Central District of California (Los Angeles), two in the Southern District of New York, and one in the Western District of Washington (Seattle). All
cases were transferred to the Northern District Court of California and the Court consolidated all of the ATM interchange cases pending against the
defendants in Brennan (referred to collectively as the "ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation").
On August 3, 2007, Concord filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' per se claims, arguing that there are procompetitive
justifications for the ATM interchange. On March 24, 2008, the Court entered an order granting the defendants' motions for partial summary judgment,
finding that the claims raised in this case would need to be addressed under a "Rule of Reason" analysis. On February 2, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint. The Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is due on April 6, 2009.
The Company believes the complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend them.
Data Treasury
In May 2002, DataTreasury Corporation ("DataTreasury") commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
(the "Court") against the Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries First Data Merchant Services Corporation, TeleCheck Services, Inc. d/b/a Telecheck
International, Inc., and Microbilt Corporation (subsequently merged into TASQ Technology, Inc.), (collectively, the "First Data Defendants"), alleging
infringement of United States Patent No. 5,910,988 (the "988 Patent") and Patent No. 6,032,137 (the "137 Patent"). On September 12, 2005, DataTreasury
filed a second complaint with the Court asserting that the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries Remitco, LLC ("Remitco") and Integrated Payment Systems
Inc. also infringed the 988 Patent and the 137 Patent. The complaints sought a declaration that the 988 Patent and the 137 Patent were valid and enforceable,
injunctive relief, unidentified damages, pre-judgment interest, treble damages, costs of suit and attorneys' fees. The 988 Patent and the 137 Patent generally
relate to remote data acquisition, encryption, centralized processing and storage.
On February 24, 2006, DataTreasury filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division,
naming more than 50 defendants, including the Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries Telecheck Services, Inc. and Remitco, for the infringement of
Patent No. 5,930,778 (the "778 Patent"). The complaint seeks a declaration that the 778 Patent is valid and enforceable, injunctive relief, unidentified
damages, prejudgment interest, treble damages, costs of suit and attorneys' fees. The 778 patent generally relates to the clearing of financial instruments.
On November 7, 2008, the parties entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which all claims filed by the plaintiff were dismissed. Pursuant to the
settlement agreement, the Company paid a settlement amount and received a license to the patents that were at issue in the actions.
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
None.
31