Visa 2013 Annual Report Download - page 127

VISA INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
September 30, 2013
settlement. On June 10, 2013, Visa filed a similar complaint in the Eastern District of New York against
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Both complaints seek a declaration that, from January 1, 2004 to November 27,
2012, the time period for which opt-outs may seek damages under the MDL class settlement, Visa’s
conduct in, among other things, continuing to set default interchange rates, maintaining its “honor all
cards” rule, enforcing certain rules relating to merchants, and restructuring itself, did not violate federal
or state antitrust laws. Both cases have been assigned to the same district court judge presiding over
MDL 1720.
Other Litigation
“Indirect Purchaser” Actions
Complaints were filed on behalf of consumers in nineteen different states and the District of
Columbia against Visa U.S.A. and MasterCard (and, in California, Visa International). The complaints
allege, among other things, that Visa U.S.A.’s “honor all cards” rule and a similar MasterCard rule
violated state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and common law. The claims in these class
actions asserted that merchants, faced with excessive merchant discount fees, passed on some
portion of those fees to consumers in the form of higher prices on goods and services sold. Plaintiffs
seek money damages and injunctive relief. Visa U.S.A. has been successful in the majority of these
cases, as courts in eighteen jurisdictions have granted Visa U.S.A.’s motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim or plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their complaints. 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 3, 2008, the parties agreed to confidential settlement terms
to resolve the dispute. A written settlement agreement executed on September 14, 2009, was
submitted to the court for approval. After the parties amended the settlement agreement in certain
respects, the court entered an order granting final approval on August 23, 2010. The plaintiff in
Attridge, who had filed objections to the settlement, filed a notice of appeal from the final approval
order, as did other objectors to the settlement. The amount of the settlement is not considered material
to the consolidated financial statements.
On January 9, 2012, the Court of Appeal of the State of California reversed the judgment
approving the settlement agreement, and the case was remanded to the trial court for consideration of
the fairness and adequacy of the settlement in light of the inclusion of the Attridge claims in the
release. The parties subsequently agreed upon a revised written settlement agreement. On April 11,
2013, the court entered an order finally approving the settlement and entered judgment. Objectors to
the settlement have filed notices of appeal.
Vale Canjeable
In November and December of 2006, Vale Canjeable Ticketven, C.A. filed two separate actions
against Todoticket 2004, C.A., and Visa International. In the first action, the plaintiff was granted an
injunction on November 29, 2006 prohibiting the defendants’ use of the “Vale” mark in Venezuela’s
food voucher market (the “Injunction”). In the second action, plaintiffs sought damages for trademark
infringement (the “Trademark Action”). The Injunction and Trademark Action have been litigated
extensively through the Venezuelan court system. On June 5, 2013, the Supreme Tribunal’s
Commercial Chamber dismissed the Trademark Action in its entirety and invalidated the Injunction
effective immediately. On August 7, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Supreme
119