According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, on July 2, 2003, a committee of the Company’s Board of Directors conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter. The settlement would provide, among other things, a release of the Company and of the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful in the Amended Complaint. The Company would agree to undertake other responsibilities under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims the Company may have against its underwriters. Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the Company’s insurers. The committee agreed to approve the settlement subject to a number of conditions, including the participation of a substantial number of other Issuer Defendants in the proposed settlement, the consent of the Company’s insurers to the settlement, and the completion of acceptable final settlement documentation. On August 31, 2005, the court issued a formal preliminary approval for the settlement. On April 24, 2006, a hearing was held for the court to consider the motion for final approval of the settlement. The court has not yet ruled on the motion.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, in July and August 2001, various class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Company, its Chairman and CEO, a former officer, and four brokerage firms that served as underwriters in the Company’s initial public offering. The actions were filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company’s stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the initial public offering during the period from June 23, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The lawsuit filed against the Company is one of several hundred lawsuits filed against other companies based on substantially similar claims. On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended complaint was filed to consolidate all of the complaints and claims into one case. The consolidated amended complaint alleges claims that are virtually identical to the amended complaint filed on December 7, 2001 and the original complaints. In October 2002, the Company’s officer and a former officer that were named in the amended complaint were dismissed without prejudice. In July 2002, the Company, along with other issuer defendants in the case, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On February 19, 2003, the court issued a written decision denying the motion to dismiss with respect to CyberSource and the individual defendants.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus (the"Prospectus") that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The Prospectus was issued in connection with CyberSource's initial public offering of four million shares of common stock at $11.00 per share that was commenced on or about June 23, 1999 (the "IPO"). The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose (i) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of CyberSource shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase CyberSource shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.