Visa 2009 Annual Report Download - page 118

Table of Contents
VISA INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
September 30, 2009
(in millions, except as noted)
The Attridge Litigation
On December 8, 2004, a complaint was filed in California state court on behalf of a putative class of consumers asserting claims against Visa U.S.A.,
Visa International and MasterCard under California's Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law. The claims in this action, Attridge v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et
al., seek to piggyback on the portion of the DOJ litigation in which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that Visa's bylaw
2.10(e) and MasterCard's CPP constitute unlawful restraints of trade under the federal antitrust laws. On May 19, 2006, the court entered an order dismissing
plaintiff's Cartwright Act claims with prejudice but allowing the plaintiff to proceed with his Unfair Competition Law claims, which seek restitution,
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On December 14, 2007, the plaintiff amended his complaint to add Visa Inc. as a defendant. No new claims
were added to the complaint.
On July 1, 2009, the court denied in part the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication, but ordered the parties to submit
affidavits as to whether further discovery should be conducted prior to the court rendering judgment on the Motion for Summary Adjudication. On August 3,
2009, the court ruled the Motion submitted without any such further discovery.
On September 14, 2009, Visa entered into a settlement agreement in the California "Indirect Purchaser" Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases, also pending in
California state court. The settlement agreement is subject to the approval of the court in those cases, and provides that it would release the claims not only in
those cases but also in the Attridge case. On September 24, 2009, the Attridge court deferred decision on the Motion for Summary Adjudication pending the
ruling on preliminary approval of the settlement by the court in the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases.
The Interchange Litigation
Kendall. On October 8, 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a group of merchants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against Visa U.S.A., MasterCard and several Visa U.S.A. member financial institutions alleging, among other things, that Visa U.S.A.'s and
MasterCard's interchange reimbursement fees contravene the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act (Kendall v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al.). On July 25, 2005, the
court granted Visa U.S.A.'s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
On March 7, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. The court concluded that the
plaintiffs had failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a conspiracy, and that no amendment could cure the pleading defect. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit
also held that the plaintiffs were "indirect purchasers" of Visa U.S.A. and could not recover antitrust damages for their claims. Plaintiffs did not seek review
of the Ninth Circuit's ruling.
Multidistrict Litigation Proceedings (MDL). Beginning in May 2005, approximately 55 complaints, all but 10 of which were styled as class actions,
have been filed in U.S. federal district courts on behalf of merchants against Visa U.S.A. and/or MasterCard, and in some cases, certain Visa member
financial institutions. Visa International was also named as a defendant in more than 30 of these complaints. The cases allege, among other things, that Visa's
and MasterCard's purported setting of interchange reimbursement fees, their "no surcharge" rules, and alleged tying and bundling of transaction fees violate
federal antitrust laws. On October 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
117