First Data 2012 Annual Report Download - page 21

Company’s All Other and Corporate facilities include the Company’s corporate offices in Atlanta, Georgia and Greenwood Village,
Colorado.
The Company believes that its facilities are suitable and adequate for its current business; however, the Company periodically
reviews its space requirements and may acquire new space to meet the needs of its businesses or consolidate and dispose of or sublet
facilities which are no longer required.
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. On March 24,
2008, the Court entered an order granting the defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment. 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.
On June 21, 2010, the Court partially dismissed plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint and ordered the parties to brief a summary
j
udgment on an alternative claim by plaintiffs. On September 16, 2010, the Court entered an order granting defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, dismissing all of the claims against the defendants except for the claims for equitable relief. The Court granted
j
udgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the case on September 17, 2010. On October 14, 2010, the plaintiffs appealed the
summary judgment. On July 12, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Northern District Court
of California’s dismissal of all the claims against the defendants. On July 26, 2012, the plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for
rehearing en banc.
The Company believes the complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend them.
ITEM 4. MINING SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable.
21