7.	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, 2014, the Company had established reserves for proceeding-related contingencies of $3,524,776 to cover legal actions against the Company in which its Management has assessed the likelihood of a final adverse outcome as probable. In addition, as of March 31, 2014 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 $4,063,145.

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

As of March 31, 2014, 636 legal actions were pending in the Brazilian ordinary courts. In addition, as of March 31, 2014, there were 3,191 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 August 25, 2010, Citizen Watch do Brasil S/A, or Citizen, sued Brazilian subsidiaries in the 31th Central Civil Court State of São Paulo, Brazil. Citizen alleged that the Brazilian subsidiaries were infringing Citizen’s trademarks as a result of users selling allegedly counterfeit Citizen watches through the Brazilian page of the Brazilian subsidiaries’ website. Citizen sought an order enjoining the sale of Citizen-branded watches on the Brazilian subsidiaries’ Marketplace with a $6,000 daily non-compliance penalty. On September 23, 2010, the Brazilian subsidiaries were summoned of an injunction granted to prohibit the offer of Citizen products on its platform, but the penalty was established at $6,000 per day. On September 26, 2010, the Brazilian subsidiaries presented their defense and appealed the decision of the injunction relief to the State Court of Appeals of São Paulo on September 27, 2010. On October 22, 2010 the injunction granted to Citizen was suspended. On March 23, 2011, the Company’s appeal regarding the injunction granted to Citizen was ruled in favor of the Brazilian subsidiaries. On May 4, 2011, Citizen presented a motion to clarify the decision but it was dismissed on March 14, 2012. On May 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a special recourse related to the injunction relief to the State Court of Appeals, and the Brazilian subsidiaries presented their defense on August 16, 2012 which was not admitted. In September 2012, the Plaintiff filed a legal action against the Brazilian subsidiaries with same arguments alleged in the injunction request and seeking for compensatory and statutory damages and defenses were presented on March 20, 2013. On January 9, 2013, Citizen presented a motion to request the appeal to be ruled by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça). On March 1, 2013, the Company presented its response to that appeal. On August 27, 2013, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice ruled against Citizen’s appeal. The Superior Court of Justice ruled that the Brazilian subsidiaries were not responsible for alleged infringement of intellectual property rights by its users and that they should comply with the “notice and take down” procedure it already have in place. On October 4, 2013, Citizen presented a motion to clarify mentioned decision issued by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice and such motion was denied on November 11, 2013. Citizen then filed, on November 25, 2013, an Extraordinary Appeal aiming the decision rendered by Brazilian Superior Court of Justice to be reviewed by Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. On February 21, 2014, Brazilian subsidiaries presented its response to Citizen’s Extraordinary Appeal. On March 10, 2014, Citizen’s extraordinary appeal was not accepted by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice and, on March 26, 2014, Citizen filed an appeal against such decision, aiming at its Extraordinary Appeal to be accepted and ruled by Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. The Brazilian subsidiaries must present its responses to Citizen’s last appeal. As of the date of this report the lower court’s ruling was still pending. In the opinion of the Brazilian subsidiaries’ management and its legal counsel the risk of loss is reasonably possible but not probable.

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 in effect at that time. 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 affirmed the reduction of the fine. As of the date of these 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, which including accrued interests amounted to R$ 10.4 million or $4.4 million, according to the exchange rate at December 31, 2013, and filed a lawsuit in 8th Public Treasury Court of the County of São Paulo, State of São Paulo, Brazil, to contest the taxes and fines asserted by the Tax Authorities. As of March 31, 2014, the 8th Public Treasury Court of the County of São Paulo ruling was still pending.

In September 2012 São Paulo tax authorities have asserted taxes and fines against our Brazilian subsidiary related to our Brazilian subsidiary’s activities in São Paulo for the period from 2007 through 2010. On July 27, 2012, the Company presented administrative defenses against the authorities’ claim. On February 2, 2013, São Paulo tax authorities ruled against the Brazilian subsidiary maintaining claimed taxes and fines. On March 4, 2013, the Company presented an appeal to the Conselho Municipal de Tributos or São Paulo Municipal Council of Taxes. On August 23, 2013, the Câmaras Reunidas do Egrégio Conselho Municipal de Tributos or Superior Chamber of the São Paulo Municipal Council of Taxes ruled against the Company’s appeal. On September 5, 2013, the Company presented a special appeal to the Superior Chamber of the São Paulo Municipal Council of Taxes. On October 18, 2013, the mentioned appeal was denied to our Brazilian subsidiary and confirmed the fines. With this decision the administrative stage is finished. On November 13, 2013, the Company filed a lawsuit before the 9th Treasury Court of the City of São Paulo, State of São Paulo, Brazil, to contest the taxes and fines asserted by the Tax Authorities. On November 14, 2013, the Company made a deposit in court related to the lawsuit filed, of approximately R$41 million or $18.1 million, according to the exchange rate at March 31, 2014. On January 28, 2014 São Paulo Municipal Council was summoned and on April 8, 2014 the São Paulo Municipal Council presented its defense. The Company will present its response to mentioned defense.

In January 2005 the Brazilian subsidiary moved its operations to Santana de Parnaíba City, Brazil and began paying taxes to that jurisdiction and therefore the Company believes that has strong defenses to the claims of the São Paulo authorities with respect to these periods.

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 these claims.

The collection date of the legal deposits cannot be determined since it will depend on the actual duration of the related legal proceedings.

State of Rio Grande do Sul Service Claim

On November 20, 2013, a state prosecutor of the County of Porto Alegre, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, presented a claim against our Brazilian subsidiary before the 15th Civil Court of Porto Alegre, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The state prosecutor alleged that MercadoLivre should be held liable for any offer or sale of any unlawful products or services through its website. A preliminary injunction was granted on November 25, 2013 ordering the Brazilian subsidiary to monitor and prevent any offer of unlawful products or services. On January 22, 2014, the Brazilian subsidiary was summoned. On March 11, 2014, the Company presented its defense. On March 24, 2014, the Company filed an appeal against the preliminary injunction before the State Court of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, and on March 26, 2014 it was granted a motion to stay, revoking temporarily the effects of the injunction until the final ruling of the Interlocutory Appeal. As of the date of this report the Interlocutory Appeal of the Brazilian subsidiary was not yet ruled by the State Court of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. In the opinion of the Company’s management the risk of losing the case is reasonably possible, but not probable.

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.