Visa 2010 Annual Report Download - page 130

Table of Contents
VISA INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
September 30, 2010
(in millions, except as noted)
In California, in the consolidated Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases, the court dismissed claims brought under the Cartwright Act, but denied a similar
motion with respect to Unfair Competition Law claims for unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent business practices. On October 31, 2007, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion to give collateral estoppel effect to certain elements of their "tying" claim based on statements in the ruling on cross-motions for summary
judgment in In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation. On October 3, 2008, the parties agreed to confidential settlement terms to resolve the dispute.
On September 14, 2009, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement that was then submitted to the court for approval. After the parties amended
the settlement agreement in certain respects, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement on January 5, 2010 and entered an order
granting final approval on August 23, 2010. The plaintiff in Attridge, who had filed objections to the settlement, has filed a notice of appeal from the final
approval order, as have other objectors to the settlement. The amount of the settlement is not considered material to the consolidated financial statements.
New Zealand Interchange Proceedings. The Commerce Commission, New Zealand's competition regulator, filed a civil Statement of Claim in the High
Court in Wellington on November 9, 2006, alleging that, among other things, the fixing of default interchange rates by Cards NZ Limited, Visa International,
MasterCard and certain Visa International member financial institutions contravenes the New Zealand Commerce Act. On November 27, 2006, a group of
New Zealand retailers filed a nearly identical claim against the same parties before the same tribunal. Both the Commerce Commission and the retailers seek
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief. Both cases were transferred to the commercial list at the High Court in Auckland in April 2007.
The Commerce Commission, Visa International and Visa Worldwide Pte Ltd settled the Commerce Commission case on August 11, 2009, and the
court granted leave to discontinue the claim on August 26, 2009. On October 3, 2009, Visa and the New Zealand retailers entered into an agreement to settle
the retailers' case, and the retailers filed a notice of discontinuance on October 7, 2009. The terms of the settlements are not considered material to the
consolidated financial statements.
Currency Conversion Litigation. In 2000, a "representative" action was filed in California state court against Visa U.S.A. and Visa International in
connection with an asserted 1% currency conversion "fee" assessed on member financial institutions by the payment card networks on transactions involving
the purchase of goods or services in a foreign currency and the disclosure of that fee (Schwartz). Plaintiffs claimed Visa's currency conversion practices
violated California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. Additional California state class actions were filed against Visa U.S.A. and Visa
International challenging currency conversion practices (Shrieve, Mattingly, and Baker). Visa U.S.A., Visa International, MasterCard, Citicorp Diners Club,
Inc. (Diners Club) and several Visa member financial institutions are also defendants in a number of federal class actions that allege, among other things,
violations of federal antitrust laws based on the 1% currency conversion fee. The federal complaints were consolidated or coordinated in MDL 1409 (In re
Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On July 20, 2006, Visa U.S.A. and Visa International entered into a settlement agreement in MDL 1409. Under the terms of that settlement, Visa
U.S.A. and Visa International paid $100.1 million into a settlement fund and agreed that for five years they would separately identify or itemize any fees
added to transactions because they occurred in a foreign country or involved a foreign currency and would require U.S. issuing members to disclose certain
changes, if any, to exchange rate practices. Visa
129