item 2 . properties a summary of our significant locations at december 31 , 2011 is shown in the following table . all facilities are leased , except for 165000 square feet of our office in alpharetta , georgia . square footage amounts are net of space that has been sublet or part of a facility restructuring. .
as of december 31 , 2011 what was the percent of space not leased space in alpharetta , georgia .
all of our facilities are used by either our trading and investing or balance sheet management segments , in addition to the corporate/other category . all other leased facilities with space of less than 25000 square feet are not listed by location . in addition to the significant facilities above , we also lease all 28 e*trade branches , ranging in space from approximately 2500 to 7000 square feet . we believe our facilities space is adequate to meet our needs in 2012 . item 3 . legal proceedings on october 27 , 2000 , ajaxo , inc . ( 201cajaxo 201d ) filed a complaint in the superior court for the state of california , county of santa clara . ajaxo sought damages and certain non-monetary relief for the company 2019s alleged breach of a non-disclosure agreement with ajaxo pertaining to certain wireless technology that ajaxo offered the company as well as damages and other relief against the company for their alleged misappropriation of ajaxo 2019s trade secrets . following a jury trial , a judgment was entered in 2003 in favor of ajaxo against the company for $ 1.3 million for breach of the ajaxo non-disclosure agreement . although the jury found in favor of ajaxo on its claim against the company for misappropriation of trade secrets , the trial court subsequently denied ajaxo 2019s requests for additional damages and relief . on december 21 , 2005 , the california court of appeal affirmed the above-described award against the company for breach of the nondisclosure agreement but remanded the case to the trial court for the limited purpose of determining what , if any , additional damages ajaxo may be entitled to as a result of the jury 2019s previous finding in favor of ajaxo on its claim against the company for misappropriation of trade secrets . although the company paid ajaxo the full amount due on the above-described judgment , the case was remanded back to the trial court , and on may 30 , 2008 , a jury returned a verdict in favor of the company denying all claims raised and demands for damages against the company . following the trial court 2019s filing of entry of judgment in favor of the company on september 5 , 2008 , ajaxo filed post-trial motions for vacating this entry of judgment and requesting a new trial . by order dated november 4 , 2008 , the trial court denied these motions . on december 2 , 2008 , ajaxo filed a notice of appeal with the court of appeal of the state of california for the sixth district . oral argument on the appeal was heard on july 15 , 2010 . on august 30 , 2010 , the court of appeal affirmed the trial court 2019s verdict in part and reversed the verdict in part , remanding the case . e*trade petitioned the supreme court of california for review of the court of appeal decision . on december 16 , 2010 , the california supreme court denied the company 2019s petition for review and remanded for further proceedings to the trial court . on september 20 , 2011 , the trial court granted limited discovery at a conference on november 4 , 2011 , and set a motion schedule and trial date . the trial will continue on may 14 , 2012 . the company will continue to defend itself vigorously . on october 2 , 2007 , a class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the united states district court for the southern district of new york against the company and its then .