XML 58 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies |
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 June 30, 2014, the Company had established reserves for proceeding-related contingencies of $3,765,407 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 June 30, 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 $5,505,944. 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 June 30, 2014, there were 32 lawsuits pending against our Argentine subsidiary in the Argentine ordinary courts and 590 pending claims in the Argentine Consumer Protection Agencies, where a lawyer is not required to file or pursue a claim. As of June 30, 2014, there were 95 claims pending against our Mexican subsidiary in the Mexican Consumer Protection Agencies. As of June 30, 2014, 651 legal actions were pending in the Brazilian ordinary courts. In addition, as of June 30, 2014, there were 3,126 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 $3.5 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. Vintage appealed the decision of the State Court of Appeals of the State of São Paulo to the Brazilian Federal Superior Court of Justice. On July 3, 2014, Vintage appeal was denied by the Brazilian Federal Superior Court of Justice. In the opinion of the Company and its legal counsel, as of June 30, 2014, the amount of $3.5 million was not reserved since, $3.1 million was considered remote and $0.4 million was considered reasonably possible but not probable. 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. On May 5, 2014 the Company presented its response to Citizen’s appeal to The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. As of the date of this report the lower court’s ruling was still pending. In the opinion of the Company’s management and its legal counsel the risk of loss is reasonably possible but not probable. On June 12, 2007, 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 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. On May 23, 2014 the State Court of Appeals issued its ruling stating that MercadoLivre shall not be held responsible for the quality, nature or defective products or services purchased through the Brazilian website. While the decision is not clear, it could be understood that the State Court of Appeals ruled that MercadoLivre could be held joint and severally liable for fraud committed by sellers buyers when using the website. On June 13, 2014, MercadoLivre filed a motion to clarify the decision which as of the date of this report was not ruled. In the opinion of 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 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 $4.7 million, according to the exchange rate at June 30, 2014, 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 June 30, 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 $18.6 million, according to the exchange rate at June 30, 2014. On January 28, 2014 São Paulo Municipal Council was summoned and on April 8, 2014 the São Paulo Municipal Council presented its defense. On April 24, 2014 the Company presented its response to the mentioned defense. As of June 30, 2014, the lower court’s ruling was still pending. 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 and the lower court’s proceeding was suspended, awaiting for mentioned ruling by the State Court. 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.

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration