Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Notes To Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

12. Commitments and Contingencies

In the ordinary course of business, we are routinely defendants in, or party to a number of pending and threatened legal actions. These may involve litigation by or against us relating to, among other things, contractual rights under vendor, insurance or other contracts; intellectual property or patent rights; equipment, service, payment or other disputes with customers; or disputes with employees. Some of these actions may be brought as a purported class action on behalf of a purported class of employees, customers or others.

Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Imagitas, Inc., is a defendant in several purported class actions. These lawsuits were originally filed in six different states and later coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, In re: Imagitas, Driver's Privacy Protection Act Litigation (Coordinated, May 28, 2007).  Each of these lawsuits alleges that the Imagitas DriverSource program violated the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).  Under the DriverSource program, Imagitas entered into contracts with state governments to mail out automobile registration renewal materials along with third party advertisements, without revealing the personal information of any state resident to any advertiser.  The DriverSource program assisted the state in performing its governmental function of delivering these mailings and funding the costs of them.  The plaintiffs in these actions were seeking statutory damages under the DPPA.  On December 21, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit Court affirmed the District Court's summary judgment decision in  Rine, et al. v. Imagitas, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, filed August 1, 2006), which ruled in Imagitas' favor and dismissed that litigation. That decision is now final, with no further appeals available.  With respect to the remaining state cases, Imagitas filed its motion to dismiss these cases on October 8, 2010.  Plaintiff's opposition brief was filed on December 6, 2010, and Imagitas filed its reply brief on December 22, 2010.  Although the plaintiffs are still contending that the cases filed in Massachusetts, Ohio and Missouri can proceed, they have admitted in their response that the reasoning in the Rine decision does require that actions based on Minnesota and New York laws be dismissed.  We are awaiting a decision by the District Court on the motion to dismiss. Based upon our current understanding of the facts and applicable laws, we do not believe there is a reasonable possibility that any loss has been incurred.

On October 28, 2009, the company and certain of its current and former officers were named as defendants in NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of the company during the period between July 30, 2007 and October 29, 2007 alleging that the company, in essence, missed two financial projections.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 20, 2010. On December 3, 2010, we moved to dismiss the complaint. The parties have completed briefing on this motion and the motion is now pending before the court. Based upon our current understanding of the facts and applicable laws, we do not believe there is a reasonable possibility that any loss has been incurred.

We expect to prevail in the legal actions above; however, as litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurance in this regard. If the plaintiffs do prevail, the results may have a material effect on our financial position, future results of operations or cash flows, including, for example, our ability to offer certain types of goods or services in the future.