Vistaprint 2009 Annual Report Download - page 98

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 98 of the 2009 Vistaprint 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 160

  • 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
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • 154
  • 155
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160

VISTAPRINT LIMITED
(predecessor to Vistaprint N.V.)
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
Years Ended June 30, 2009, 2008 and 2007
(in thousands, except share and per share data)
resolution of the requests for reexamination. On October 28, 2008, a St. Paul, Minnesota law firm also
filed requests with the U.S. Patent Office seeking reexamination of the three patents-in-suit. The name
of the client who engaged the firm to prepare and file the reexamination requests was not disclosed by
the firm, but the Company believes that the client was either Taylor Corporation or an affiliate of Taylor
Corporation. The reexamination requests were granted in May and June 2009. The Company is unable
to express an opinion as to the likely outcome of any such reexamination or of the underlying lawsuit.
On July 29, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas (the “Texas Complaint”) against VistaPrint Corp., VistaPrint USA, Inc.,
Vertrue, Inc. and Adaptive Marketing, LLC (collectively, the “Defendants”). Adaptive Marketing, LLC is
a Vertrue, Inc. company that provides subscription-based membership discount programs, including
programs that are offered on our Vistaprint.com website (Vertrue, Inc. and Adaptive Marketing, LLC
are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the “Vertrue Defendants”). The Texas Complaint
alleges that the Defendants violated, among other statutes, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection
Act and the Texas Theft Liability Act, in connection with certain membership discount programs offered
to Vistaprint customers on our Vistaprint.com website. The Texas Complaint also seeks recovery for
unjust enrichment, conversion, and similar common law claims. Subsequent to the filing of the Texas
complaint, on July 31, 2008, August 25, 2008, September 3, 2008, September 10, 2008 and
September 11, 2008, nearly identical purported class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court, District of New Jersey, the United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama, the
United States District Court, District of Nevada, the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, and the United States District Court, District of Florida, respectively, against the same
Defendants, and in one case Vistaprint Limited, on behalf of different plaintiffs. The complaints in each
of these nearly identical lawsuits include substantially the same purported Federal and common law
claims as the Texas Complaint but contain different state law claims. In addition, on August 28, 2008, a
purported class action lawsuit asserting substantially the same Federal and common law claims as the
Texas Complaint, but containing a state law claim under the Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices
Act, was filed by a different plaintiff in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts,
against Vistaprint Limited, VistaPrint USA, Inc. and the Vertrue Defendants.
Among other allegations, the plaintiffs in each action claim that after ordering products on the
Company’s Vistaprint.com website they were enrolled in certain membership discount programs
operated by the Vertrue Defendants and that monthly subscription fees for the programs were
subsequently charged directly to the credit or debit cards they used to make purchases on
Vistaprint.com, in each case purportedly without their knowledge or authorization. The plaintiffs also
claim that the Defendants failed to disclose to them that the credit or debit card information they
provided to make purchases on Vistaprint.com would be disclosed to the Vertrue Defendants and
would be used to pay for monthly subscriptions for the membership discount programs. The plaintiffs
have requested that the Defendants be enjoined from engaging in the practices complained of by the
plaintiffs. They also are seeking an unspecified amount of damages, including statutory and punitive
damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees and costs for the
purported class.
On September 8, 2008, VistaPrint USA, Incorporated filed an Answer to the Texas Complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and on September 9, 2008,
92