Visa 2007 Annual Report Download - page 66

Table of Contents
CardSystems filed for bankruptcy in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in May 2006, staying the litigation as to it. The plaintiffs removed
the case to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on August 10, 2006, and then sought to transfer the case to federal court in Arizona. Visa
U.S.A., Visa International and MasterCard moved for remand to state court. On October 11, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion for remand and
denied the plaintiffs' motion to transfer the case. Proceedings involving CardSystems continue in the bankruptcy court in Arizona, and the California state
court plaintiffs appear to be pursuing claims against CardSystems in that forum. The state court in California has not set discovery deadlines or a trial date.
The parties are currently engaged in settlement negotiations. The potential settlement amount is not considered material to the Company's financial
statements.
The ATM Exchange
On November 14, 2005, The ATM Exchange filed a complaint for money damages against Visa U.S.A. and Visa International in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio. The plaintiff asserts claims of promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation, alleging
that Visa's deferment of a July 1, 2004 member deadline that required newly deployed ATMs to be certified by a Visa- recognized laboratory as meeting
certain PIN-entry device testing requirements harmed the plaintiff by reducing demand for its ATM upgrade solution. The parties engaged in written
discovery, party and third-party depositions and expert discovery. On June 29, 2007, Visa U.S.A. and Visa International filed motions for summary judgment
on liability and damages. On July 30, 2007, the court vacated the tentative September 2007 trial date. The court indicated that it would set another trial date, if
necessary, in its forthcoming ruling on the motions for summary judgment.
District of Columbia Civil Investigative Demand
On January 5, 2007, the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia issued a Civil Investigative Demand, or "CID," to Visa U.S.A.
seeking information regarding a potential violation of Section 28-4502 of the District of Columbia Antitrust Act. The D.C. Attorney General's office is
coordinating parallel investigations by the Attorneys General of New York and Ohio. The CID seeks documents and narrative responses to several
interrogatories and document requests, which focus on PIN debit. Visa U.S.A. continues to cooperate with the Attorneys General in connection with the CID.
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Investigative Demands
On September 26, 2007, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (the "Division") issued a Civil Investigative Demand, or
"CID," to Visa U.S.A. seeking information regarding a potential violation of Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2. The CID seeks documents,
data and narrative responses to several interrogatories and document requests, which focus on PIN debit and Visa's No Signature Required program.
On September 27, 2007, the Division issued a second CID to Visa U.S.A., also seeking information regarding a potential violation of Section 1 or 2 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2. The CID seeks documents in response to several requests, which focus on Visa U.S.A.'s agreements with banks that issue
Visa debit cards. Visa U.S.A. is cooperating with the Division in connection with both CIDs.
AAA Antiques Mall
On November 13, 2007, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in Maryland state court against Visa U.S.A., MasterCard Worldwide, and Discover
Financial Services. Plaintiff AAA Antiques Mall, Inc. alleges that "credit card fees" assessed by defendants as to the state tax portion of a sales transaction
constitute unjust enrichment and/or intentional misrepresentation. At this time, it is too early to make any reasonable evaluation of the claims alleged.
65