XML 51 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Commitments and Contingencies
 3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies

8. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation and Other Legal Matters

The Company is subject to certain contingent liabilities with respect to existing or potential claims, lawsuits and other proceedings. The Company accrues liabilities when it considers probable that future costs will be incurred and such costs can be reasonably estimated. The proceeding-related reserve is based on developments to date and historical information related to actions filed against the Company. As of March 31, 2012, the Company had established reserves for proceeding-related contingencies of $2,115,635 to cover legal actions against the Company. In addition, as of March 31, 2012 the Company and its subsidiaries are subject to certain legal actions considered by the Company’s management and its legal counsels to be reasonably possible for an aggregate amount up to $2,713,854.

No loss amount has been accrued for such possible legal actions of which most significant (individually or in the aggregate) are described below.

As of March 31, 2012, 444 legal actions were pending in the Brazilian ordinary courts, 8 of which were related to alleged intellectual property infringement. In addition, as of March 31, 2012, there were 2,077 cases still pending in Brazilian consumer courts. Filing and pursuing of an action before Brazilian consumer courts do not require the assistance of a lawyer. In most of the cases filed against the Company, the plaintiffs asserted that the Company was responsible for fraud committed against them, or responsible for damages suffered when purchasing an item on the Company’s website, when using MercadoPago, or when the Company invoiced them.

 

On March 17, 2006, Vintage Denim Ltda., or Vintage, sued the Company’s Brazilian subsidiaries MercadoLivre.com Atividades de Internet Ltda. and eBazar.com.br Ltda. in the 29th Civil Court of the County of São Paulo, State of São Paulo, Brazil. Vintage requested a preliminary injunction alleging that these subsidiaries were infringing Diesel trademarks and their right of exclusive distribution as a result of sellers listing allegedly counterfeit and original imported Diesel branded clothing through the Brazilian page of the Company’s website, based on Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Law 9,279/96). Vintage sought an order enjoining the sale of Diesel-branded clothing on the Company’s platform. A preliminary injunction was granted on April 11, 2006 to prohibit the offer of Diesel-branded products, and a fine for non-compliance was imposed in the approximate amount of $5,300 per defendant per day of non-compliance. The Company appealed that fine and obtained its suspension in 2006. Because the appeal of the preliminary injunction failed, in March of 2007, Vintage presented petitions alleging the Company’s non-compliance with the preliminary injunction granted to Vintage and requested a fine of approximately $3.3 million against the Company’s subsidiaries, which represents approximately $5,300 per defendant per day of alleged non-compliance since April 2006. In July 2007, the judge ordered the payment of the fine mandated in the preliminary injunction, without specifying the amount. In September 2007, the judge decided that (i) the Brazilian subsidiaries were not responsible for alleged infringement of intellectual property rights by its users; and that (ii) the plaintiffs did not prove the alleged infringement of its intellectual property rights. However, the decision maintained the injunction until such ruling is non-appealable. The plaintiff appealed the judge’s ruling regarding the subsidiary’s non-responsibility and the Company appealed the decision that maintained the preliminary injunction. On July 26, 2011 the State Court of Appeals of the State of São Paulo confirmed the judge’s ruling regarding our subsidiary’s non-responsibility. The decision on the appeal regarding the decision that maintained the preliminary injunction is still pending. In the opinion of the Company’s legal counsel, as of March 31, 2012, the amount of $219,527 was not reserved since it was considered reasonably possible but not probable.

State of São Paulo Fraud Claim

On June 12, 2007, a state prosecutor of the State of São Paulo, Brazil presented a claim against the Brazilian subsidiary. The state prosecutor alleges that the Brazilian subsidiary should be held liable for any fraud committed by sellers on the Brazilian version of the Company’s website, or responsible for damages suffered by buyers when purchasing an item on the Brazilian version of the MercadoLibre website. On June 26, 2009, the Lower Court Judge ruled in favor of the State of São Paulo prosecutor, declaring that the Brazilian subsidiary shall be held joint and severally liable for fraud committed by sellers and damages suffered by buyers when using the website, and ordering the Brazilian subsidiary to remove from the Terms of Service of the Brazilian website any provision limiting the Company’s responsibility, with a penalty of approximately $2,500 per day of non-compliance. On June 29, 2009 the Company presented a recourse to the lower court, which was not granted. On September 29, 2009 the Company presented an appeal and requested to suspend the effects of the ruling issued by the lower court until the appeal is decided by State Court of Appeals, which request was granted on December, 1, 2009. The decision on the appeal is still pending. In the opinion of the Company’s management and its legal counsel the risk of loss is reasonably possible.

 

City of São Paulo Tax Claim

In 2007 São Paulo tax authorities have asserted taxes and fines against our Brazilian subsidiary relating to the period from 2005 to 2007 in an approximate amount of $5.9 million according to the exchange rate at that moment. In 2007 the Company presented administrative defenses against the authorities’ claim and the tax authorities ruled against the Brazilian subsidiary. In 2009 the Company presented an appeal to the Conselho Municipal de Tributos or São Paulo Municipal Council of Taxes which reduced the fine. On February 11, 2011, the Company appealed this decision to the Câmaras Reunidas do Egrégio Conselho Municipal de Tributos or Superior Chamber of the São Paulo Municipal Council of Taxes which maintained the reduction of the Infraction. As of the date of these condensed consolidated financial statements, the total amount of the claim is approximately $ 5.8 million including surcharges and interest. With this decision the administrative stage is finished. On August 15, 2011, the Company made a deposit in court of approximately R$ 9.5 million or $ 5.2 million, according to the exchange rate at December 31, 2011, and filed a lawsuit in 8 th Public Treasury Court of the County of São Paulo, State of São Paulo, Brazil order to contest the taxes and fines asserted by the Tax Authorities. The Company´s management and its legal counsel believe that the risk of loss is remote, and as a result, has not reserved any provisions for this claim.

Brazilian Federal Tax Claims

On September 2, 2011, the Brazilian Federal tax authority has asserted taxes and fines against our Brazilian subsidiary relating to the Income Tax for the 2006 period in an approximate amount of R$ 5.2 million or $2.9 million, according to the exchange rate at March 31, 2012. On September 30, 2011 the Company presented administrative defenses against the tax authorities’ claim. The Company´s management and its legal counsel believe that the risk of loss is remote, and as a result, the Company has not reserved any provisions for this claim.

State of São Paulo Customer Service Level Claim

On September 1, 2010, a state prosecutor of the State of São Paulo, Brazil presented a claim against the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary. The state prosecutor alleges that the Brazilian subsidiary should improve its customer service level and provide (among other things) a telephone number for customer support. On November 17, 2010, the Judge of the first instance court granted an injunction against the Brazilian subsidiary imposing the obligation to provide customer service over telephone means within 60 days with a penalty of approximately $65,000 per day of non-compliance. On April 8, 2011, the Company was summoned of the lawsuit and the injunction. On April 14, 2011, the Company presented recourse to the lower court; even though, the injunction was not lifted, an extension of 30 days was granted, and the non-compliance fine would not start running until July 11, 2011. On April 20, 2011 the Company presented an appeal and requested to suspend the effects of the injunction issued by the lower court until the appeal is decided by State Court of Appeals which was granted on May 4, 2011. On November 29, 2011, the state prosecutor signed an agreement with the Brazilian subsidiary and presented a motion for dismissal of the case. On January 16, 2012, Instituto Barão de Mauá de Defesa de Vítimas e Consumidores contra Entes Poluidores e Maus Fornecedores or The Instituto Barão de Mauá, a consumer protection entity which had joined the case as a co-plaintiff, presented a petition manifesting its partial disagreement with the commitments assumed by the Company. On March 22, 2012, the Lower Court Judge ruled in favor of the agreement and dismissed the claim against the Company. The Instituto Barão de Mauá can still appeal the decision. In the opinion of the Company’s management and its legal counsel the risk associated with this claim is considered remote.

State of Rio de Janeiro Customer Service Level Claim

On August 19, 2011, a state prosecutor of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil presented a claim against the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary. The state prosecutor alleges that the Brazilian subsidiary should improve our customer service level and provide (among other things) a telephone number for customer support and requested an injunction against our Brazilian subsidiary. On August 23, 2011, the Judge of the first instance court denied the aforementioned injunction. On December 7, 2011, the Company was summoned of the lawsuit. On March, 1, 2012 the Company presented its defense. In the opinion of the Company’s management and its legal counsel the risk of loss is reasonably possible.

Other third parties have from time to time claimed, and others may claim in the future, that the Company was responsible for fraud committed against them, or that the Company has infringed their intellectual property rights. The underlying laws with respect to the potential liability of online intermediaries like the Company are unclear in the jurisdictions where the Company operates. Management believes that additional lawsuits alleging that the Company has violated copyright or trademark laws will be filed against the Company in the future.

Intellectual property and regulatory claims, whether meritorious or not, are time consuming and costly to resolve, require significant amounts of management time, could require expensive changes in the Company’s methods of doing business, or could require the Company to enter into costly royalty or licensing agreements. The Company may be subject to patent disputes, and be subject to patent infringement claims as the Company’s services expand in scope and complexity. In particular, the Company may face additional patent infringement claims involving various aspects of the payments businesses.

 

From time to time, the Company is involved in other disputes or regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of business. The number and significance of these disputes and inquiries are increasing as the Company’s business expands and the Company grows larger.