Note 11—Legal Matters

The Company is party to various legal and regulatory proceedings. Some of these proceedings involve complex claims that are subject to substantial uncertainties and unascertainable damages. Accordingly, except as disclosed, the Company has not established reserves or ranges of possible loss related to these proceedings, as at this time in the proceedings, the matters do not relate to a probable loss and/or amounts are not reasonably estimable. Although the Company believes that it has strong defenses for the litigation and regulatory proceedings described below, it could, in the future, incur judgments or fines or enter into settlements of claims that could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. From time to time, the Company may engage in settlement discussions or mediations with respect to one or more of its outstanding litigation matters, either on its own behalf or collectively with other parties.

The litigation accrual is an estimate and is based on management’s understanding of its litigation profile, the specifics of each case, advice of counsel to the extent appropriate and management’s best estimate of incurred loss at the balance sheet date.

The following table summarizes activity related to accrued litigation.



	Fiscal 2013			Fiscal 2012
	(in millions)
Balance at October 1	$	4,386		$	425
Provision for unsettled matters	4			—
Interest accretion on settled matters	—			1
Payment on unsettled matters⁽¹⁾	(4,033		)	—
Payment on settled matters	(351		)	(140		)
Balance at March 31	$	6		$	286

⁽¹⁾

On December 10, 2012, the Company paid approximately $4.0 billion from the litigation escrow account into a settlement fund established pursuant to the definitive class settlement agreement in the Multidistrict Litigation Proceedings. The settlement with the class plaintiffs is subject to final court approval, which the Company cannot assure will be received, and to the adjudication of any appeals. See further discussion below.

Covered Litigation

Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. and Visa International are parties to certain legal proceedings that are covered by the retrospective responsibility plan, which the Company refers to as the covered litigation. See Note 2—Retrospective Responsibility Plan. An accrual for the covered litigation and a charge to the litigation provision are recorded when loss is deemed to be probable and reasonably estimable. In making this determination, the Company evaluates available information, including but not limited to actions taken by the litigation committee.

The Attridge Litigation. The parties in the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases subsequently agreed upon a revised written settlement agreement, which was submitted to the court for preliminary approval on August 20, 2012 and executed as of September 6, 2012. The court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement on November 20, 2012. On April 11, 2013, the settlement in the Credit/Debit Tying Cases was granted final approval. On April 25, 2013, in light of the proceedings in the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases, the Attridge case was stayed until September 20, 2013.

The Interchange Litigation

Multidistrict Litigation Proceedings (MDL). The district court entered the preliminary approval order on November 27, 2012. On November 27, 2012, certain objectors filed a notice of appeal from the preliminary approval order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Objectors also moved to stay the preliminary approval order in the district court and moved for expedited briefing in the court of appeals. On December 10, 2012, the court of appeals entered an order deferring briefing for the appeal until after the district court enters an order of final approval and final judgment with respect to the settlement, or otherwise concludes the matters by entry of a final judgment. On December 17, 2012, certain objectors filed a motion asking the court of appeals to reconsider its decision, which was denied on January 31, 2013. On January 15, 2013, the district court denied as moot objectors' request to stay the preliminary approval order.

On December 10, 2012, Visa paid approximately $4.0 billion from the litigation escrow account into a settlement fund established pursuant to the definitive class settlement agreement.

Other Litigation

“Indirect Purchaser” Actions. In the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement on November 20, 2012. On April 11, 2013, the court entered an order finally approving the settlement and entered judgment.

European Interchange Proceedings

European Commission. On March 8, 2013, Visa Inc. and Visa International received a redacted copy of the supplementary Statement of Objections (“SSO”) that was previously announced by the European Commission (“EC”) on July 31, 2012. On April 24, 2013, Visa Inc. and Visa International received a less redacted version of the SSO from the EC, but to date have not received a complete copy of the SSO without redactions. The SSO alleges a breach of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement. Among other things, the SSO asserts claims jointly against Visa Europe, Visa Inc., and Visa International, objecting to: (1) the level of domestic credit interchange, primarily in the following eight European Economic Area member states: Ireland, Luxembourg, Sweden, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Belgium, and Hungary; (2) the level of cross-border credit interchange for transactions at European merchants with respect to cards issued both in Europe and outside of Europe, and seeking the substantial reduction of both domestic and such cross-border credit interchange; (3) Visa Europe's rule prohibiting cross-border acquiring; and (4) other point-of-sale rules, such as the “Honor All Cards” and “no-surcharge” rules. The SSO also announces the EC's intention to impose fines. The potential amount of any fine resulting from the action could be substantial but cannot be estimated at this time. Visa Europe is obligated to indemnify Visa Inc. and Visa International in connection with this proceeding, in our opinion, including payment of any fines that may be imposed. However, on April 4, 2013, Visa Europe expressed an "initial" view that it is not obligated to indemnify Visa Inc. or Visa International for any claim in the SSO. Visa Inc. continues to firmly believe that Visa Europe is obligated to indemnify for all claims contained in the SSO, and has been in discussions with Visa Europe to resolve this issue.

Threatened Merchant Litigation. On March 22, 2013, Visa Inc. learned that counsel for private merchant plaintiffs have threatened to file litigation against Visa Europe, Visa Inc., and Visa International with respect to interchange rates in Europe. While the amount of interchange being challenged could be substantial, the full scope of the claims is not known at this time. On March 28, 2013, Visa Europe, Visa Inc., Visa International and the plaintiffs entered into (1) a standstill agreement, which tolled any limitation periods that would have been applicable to the claims which had not yet expired; and (2) a costs agreement, which preserved the then-current recoverability rules in the United Kingdom which changed on April 1, 2013. Visa Europe is obligated to indemnify Visa Inc. and Visa International in connection with this proceeding, in our opinion, and Visa Europe has agreed to bear certain costs contemplated by the standstill agreement. However, on April 4, 2013, Visa Europe expressed an "initial" view that they are not obligated to indemnify Visa Inc. or Visa International for claims included within this threatened litigation. Visa Inc. continues to firmly believe that Visa Europe is obligated to indemnify for these claims, and has been in discussions with Visa Europe to resolve this issue.

Canadian Competition Proceedings

Merchant Litigation. In the Watson case, the plaintiff's reply materials in support of class certification were received on November 30, 2012. The class certification hearing commenced on April 22, 2013.

On December 3, 2012, plaintiff's counsel in the 1023926 Alberta Ltd. action filed an application for certification of a class action. On December 14, 2012, the Watson plaintiff's counsel filed another merchant class action in Alberta (Macaronies Hair Club and Laser Centre Inc.), which effectively mirrors the claims in the Watson case.

On January 4, 2013, plaintiff's counsel in the Canada Rent A Heater (2000) Ltd. action (now titled Crown and Hand Pub Ltd.) filed an application for certification of a class action. On January 23, 2013, the Watson plaintiff's counsel filed another action in Saskatchewan (Hello Baby Equipment Inc.), which effectively mirrors the claims in the Watson case.

Dynamic Currency Conversion ("DCC")

On February 4, 2013, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ("ACCC") commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., V.W.P.L., and Visa AP (Australia) Pty Limited alleging that certain Visa policies related to the provision of DCC services violated Australian competition law. Among other things, the ACCC alleges that: (1) from May 2010 to October 2010, Visa prohibited DCC services with respect to transactions on Visa international payment cards conducted at Australian merchant outlets that had not previously been conducting DCC transactions; and (2) from at least May 2007, Visa prohibited DCC services with respect to cash withdrawals at Australian ATMs on Visa international payment cards. The ACCC seeks declaratory relief and a monetary fine. The potential amount of any fine cannot be estimated at this time.

U.S. ATM Access Fee Litigation

On February 13, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the cases without prejudice. On March 12, 2013, plaintiffs in the National ATM Council class action and the consumer class actions moved for an order altering or amending the court's February 13, 2013 order to provide that (1) the complaints (as opposed to the cases) are dismissed without prejudice, and (2) plaintiffs may move to amend their complaints. On April 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the National ATM Council class action and the Stoumbos case moved for leave to file amended complaints. On April 18, 2013, plaintiffs in the Mackmin case moved for leave to file an amended complaint.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. On February 7, 2013, Visa received a letter from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") seeking documents and information, on a voluntary basis, regarding Visa's practices with respect to the conversion of U.S. cardholder foreign transactions from foreign currency into U.S. dollars. On March 20, 2013, Visa met with the CFPB and provided information and materials in response to the requests. Visa is continuing to cooperate with the CFPB's inquiry.