XML 45 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

(10)       COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Credit Facility

On October 1, 2010, the Company entered into a five-year, $350.0 million revolving line of credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) with a syndicate of lenders led by KeyBank National Association, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Bank of America, N.A., BBVA Compass, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. On March 27, 2012, the Company amended the Credit Agreement by increasing the aggregate commitment by $150.0 million to $500.0 million and revising certain definitions.

The Company primarily utilizes its Credit Agreement to fund working capital, general operations, stock repurchases and other strategic activities, such as the acquisitions described in Note 2. As of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had borrowings of $88.0 million and $64.0 million, respectively, under our Credit Agreement, and our average daily utilization was $144.4 million and $104.7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. After consideration for issued letters of credit under the Credit Agreement, totaling $4.4 million, our remaining borrowing capacity was $407.6 million as of September 30, 2012. As of September 30, 2012, the Company was in compliance with all covenants and conditions under its Credit Agreement.

Letters of Credit

As of September 30, 2012, outstanding letters of credit under the Credit Agreement totaled $4.4 million and primarily guaranteed workers' compensation and other insurance related obligations. As of September 30, 2012, letters of credit and contract performance guarantees issued outside of the Credit Agreement totaled $1.3 million.

Guarantees

Indebtedness under the Credit Agreement is guaranteed by certain of the Company's present and future domestic subsidiaries.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company has been involved in claims and lawsuits, both as plaintiff and defendant, which arise in the ordinary course of business. Accruals for claims or lawsuits have been provided for to the extent that losses are deemed both probable and estimable. Although the ultimate outcome of these claims or lawsuits cannot be ascertained, on the basis of present information and advice received from counsel, the Company believes that the disposition or ultimate resolution of such claims or lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, cash flows or results of operations.

In 2009, the municipality of Sao Paolo, Brazil assessed the Company's Brazilian subsidiary a services tax on certain equipment rental income earned in 2004 and 2005. In March 2011, the Company's Brazilian subsidiary filed a tax annulment action in the Sao Paolo municipal court to challenge the assessment of services taxes on rental income. Further, in order to halt the possibility of any further interest being charged against the alleged due tax assessments, the Company's Brazilian subsidiary gave a bank guarantee of 6.9 million Brazilian reais (approximately $4.1 million USD) in the first quarter of 2012. In the second quarter of 2012, the Sao Paolo municipal court issued a ruling in favor of Sao Paolo on this tax annulment action, which ruling the Company's Brazilian subsidiary has challenged. The Company's Brazilian subsidiary filed this challenge in the state court of Sao Paolo which is not bound by the decision of the Sao Paolo municipal court and where a ruling is not expected for the next one to two years. Based on an opinion received from legal counsel in Brazil, the Company believes that (i) the ruling issued by the Sao Paolo municipal court was incorrect and in contravention of a Brazil Supreme Court ruling concerning the invalidity of services taxes on rental income, (ii) the Brazilian subsidiary has valid defenses against the assessed services taxes and (iii) that payment of these services taxes is not probable. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded an expense in the nine months ended September 30, 2012 for the Sao Paolo services tax assessment.

On October 12, 2012, David Calkins filed an amended class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against TeleTech Services Corp. and Google Inc. (“Google”), as co-defendants. The action alleges that the defendants violated California Penal Code Section 632 by recording telephone calls made on behalf of Google to residents in California without disclosing that the calls might be recorded. The plaintiff seeks class certification, cash statutory damages and attorney fees. Pursuant to our agreement with Google, Google has made a claim for full indemnification from the Company for all expenses incurred by Google in connection with the lawsuit. The ultimate outcome of this litigation, and consequently, an estimate of the possible loss, if any, related to this litigation, cannot reasonably be determined at this time. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these proceedings.