First Data 2009 Annual Report Download - page 29

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
From time to time, the Company is involved in various litigation matters arising in the ordinary course of its
business. None of these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, currently is material to the Company
except the matter reported below.
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 and on April 6, 2009, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint. On September 4, 2009, the Court entered an order dismissing the Second Amended
Complaint and, on October 16, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint. The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on November 13, 2009.
The Company believes the complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend them.
ITEM 4. RESERVED
29