CyberSource (CYBS)

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

For legal proceedings, see Note 7 – Legal Matters in the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements appearing in Item 1, Part I to this Quarterly Report, which is incorporated by reference into this Item 1, Part II.

Set forth below are risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results contemplated by the forward-looking statements contained in this report. There have been no material changes to the Risk Factors in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008. In addition, some risk factors below update the relevant date cited although the risk remains materially unchanged. As a matter of practice, however, we choose to fully restate the Risk Factors in our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. The occurrence of any of the developments or risks identified below may make the occurrence of one or more of the other risk factors below more likely to occur.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

For legal proceedings, see Note 7 – Legal Matters in the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements appearing in Item 1, Part I to this Quarterly Report, which is incorporated by reference into this Item 1, Part II.

19

Table of Contents

Set forth below are risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results contemplated by the forward-looking statements contained in this report. There have been no material changes to the Risk Factors in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 other than as follows: “Our Revenue and Customer Relationships Could be Impacted if We Were to Lose Bank Sponsorship” provides additional information about the risk, “Loss of Key Personnel Could Have a Material Adverse Effect on the Business and Results of Operations of the Combined Company” reflects the departure of an certain officer, and “If We Lose Key Management Personnel, We May Not be Able to Successfully Manage Our Business and Achieve Our Objections” reflects employment agreements with certain officers and the departure of one such officer. In addition, some risk factors below update the relevant date cited although the risk remains materially unchanged. As a matter of practice, however, we choose to fully restate the Risk Factors in our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. The occurrence of any of the developments or risks identified below may make the occurrence of one or more of the other risk factors below more likely to occur.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

In July and August 2001, various class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against CyberSource, our Chairman and CEO, a former officer, and four brokerage firms that served as underwriters in our initial public offering. The actions were filed on behalf of persons who purchased our stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the initial public offering during the period from June 23, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The action alleges that our underwriters charged secret excessive commissions to certain of their customers in return for allocations of our stock in the offering. The two individual defendants are alleged to be liable because of their involvement in preparing and signing the registration statement for the offering, which allegedly failed to disclose the supposedly excessive commissions. On December 7, 2001, an amended complaint was filed in one of the actions to expand the purported class to persons who purchased our stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the follow-on public offering during the period from November 4, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The lawsuit filed against CyberSource 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 claims against our 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. On July 2, 2003, a committee of our Board of Directors approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter. The settlement would have provided, among other things, a release of CyberSource and of the individual defendants for the alleged wrongful conduct in the Amended Complaint in exchange for a guarantee from our insurers regarding recovery from the underwriter defendants and other consideration from CyberSource regarding its underwriters. While the partial settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants. The district court directed that the litigation proceed within a number of “focus cases” rather than in all of the 310 cases that have been consolidated. Our case is not one of

20

Table of Contents

these focus cases. On October 13, 2004, the district court certified the focus cases as class actions. The underwriter defendants appealed that ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s class certification decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing. In light of the Second Circuit opinion, we informed the district court that the settlement could not be approved because the defined settlement class, like the litigation class, could not be certified. On June 25, 2007, the district court entered an order terminating the settlement agreement. On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated amended class action complaints against the focus cases and on September 27, 2007, again moved for class certification. On November 12, 2007, certain of the defendants in the focus cases moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaints. On March 26, 2008, the district court denied the motions to dismiss except as to Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and those who purchased outside the previously certified class period. Briefing on the class certification motion was filed on April 22, 2008, and briefing on these motions was completed in May 2008. We cannot predict whether we will be able to renegotiate a settlement that complies with the Second Circuit’s mandate. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.

On August 11, 2004, we filed suit in the Northern District of California against Retail Decisions, Inc. (“ReD US”) and Retail Decisions Plc (“ReD UK”) (collectively, “ReD”), Case No. 3:04-CIV-03268, alleging that ReD infringes our U.S. Patent No. 6,029,154 (the “‘154 Patent”). We served ReD US with the complaint on August 12, 2004, and we served ReD UK with the complaint on August 13, 2004. On September 30, 2004, ReD responded to our complaint. ReD filed a motion to stay the case for 90 days pending a determination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) as to whether it will grant ReD’s request that the PTO re-examine the ‘154 Patent. ReD also filed a motion for a more definite statement by CyberSource with respect to our allegation that ReD is willfully infringing the ‘154 Patent. In addition, ReD UK filed a motion to dismiss the action against it on the ground that it is not subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California. On October 27, 2004, ReD filed a request for re-examination with the PTO, based on prior art ReD discovered that allegedly invalidates the Patent. On October 28, 2004, we filed an opposition to ReD’s motion to stay the case for 90 days and an opposition to ReD’s motion for a more definite statement with respect to willful infringement. Based on ReD UK’s representation that ReD US is the sole entity that develops, operates, and distributes the eBitGuard service, we agreed to dismiss ReD UK while reserving the right to reinstitute action against ReD UK in the event we later discover that ReD UK is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. In return, ReD UK agreed that if we later establish that personal jurisdiction existed, we could re-file against ReD UK in this action without prejudice to its damages claim. We also filed an amended complaint, removing ReD UK as a named defendant and restating the willful infringement claim. On November 16, 2004, the court granted ReD’s motion to stay the proceedings pending the PTO’s decision as to whether it will grant ReD’s request for re-examination. On December 30, 2004, the PTO granted ReD’s request for a re-examination. On January 19, 2005, ReD filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice or to extend the stay until completion of the re-examination process. On January 24, 2005, the court extended the stay pending the re-examination process, vacated ReD’s motion to dismiss, and ordered quarterly updates as to the status of the re-examination process. On April 25, 2005, the parties filed a joint status report that was approved by the court. On June 20, 2005, the PTO issued a preliminary office action rejecting all of the claims of the ‘154 Patent based on one of the prior art references cited by ReD. On July 14, 2005, we met with the PTO examiner handling the re-examination to distinguish the prior art from the claims of the ‘154 Patent. On August 9, 2006, the PTO issued a final office action rejecting all of the claims of the ‘154 Patent. On September 7, 2006, we filed a response to the office action requesting certain amendments to the claims. On October 10, 2006, the PTO filed a response rejecting the amendments and extending our deadline to file a notice of appeal. On October 30, 2006, we filed a notice of appeal. On December 22, 2006, we filed the appeal brief. On May 3, 2007, the PTO issued a “Notice of Intent to Issue Reexam Certificate,” reversing its action of August 9, 2006. Accordingly, the patent has been re-validated and we expect to receive a new patent certificate shortly. While there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the lawsuit, we do not presently believe that the lawsuit would have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

On June 25, 2008, we filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Verisign, Inc. (“Verisign”), Case No. 650207/2008, seeking declaratory judgment to order the release of $1.725 million held in escrow (“Escrow Funds”) to CyberSource. The Escrow Funds constitute a portion of the purchase price paid by Verisign to Lightbridge, Inc. for certain assets of Lightbridge related to Lightbridge’s Intelligent Network Systems business unit, including Lightbridge’s Prepay IN software, which was acquired by Verisign in April 2005 pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”). Lightbridge, Inc., which later became Lightbridge Holdings, Inc. and then Authorize.Net Holdings, Inc. (collectively “Lightbridge”), was acquired by us on November 1, 2007. On December 12, 2006, Lightbridge received a letter from Verisign asserting that Lightbridge is obliged to indemnify Verisign with respect to a lawsuit filed against Verisign on November 30, 2006 by Freedom Wireless, Inc. (“Freedom Wireless”), in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division), which alleged that Verisign is infringing certain patents of Freedom Wireless. Verisign asserts that Lightbridge’s obligation to indemnify it arises in connection with certain assets purchased by Verisign under the APA. Lightbridge objected to Verisign’s claim in a letter dated December 15, 2006 and asked for additional information. Lightbridge received no further correspondence from Verisign. On March 14, 2008, we received a letter from Verisign advising that it was engaged in settlement discussions with Freedom Wireless. On April 14, 2008, we sent a letter to Verisign denying any indemnification obligations and demanding release of the Escrow Funds. Neither Lightbridge nor CyberSource was ever a party to the litigation by Freedom Wireless at any time. In May 2008, Verisign entered into a settlement with Freedom Wireless. On June 9, 2008, we sent another letter demanding release of the Escrow Funds. On June 19, 2008, Verisign responded to our letter of April 14, 2008 and reiterated its position on indemnification. The indemnification obligation

21

Table of Contents

under the Asset Purchase Agreement is limited to a maximum of $5 million. We filed the suit asking the court to declare that Verisign is not entitled to indemnification under the APA and to order the escrow agent to release the Escrow Funds to CyberSource. To our knowledge, no answer or response has yet been filed by Verisign. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.

We are currently party to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the outcome of any of these claims or any of the above mentioned legal matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Set forth below, elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, and in other documents we file with the SEC are risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results contemplated by the forward-looking statements contained in this report. The occurrence of any of the developments or risks identified below may make the occurrence of one or more of the other risk factors below more likely to occur.

There are no material changes to the Risk Factors described under the title “Factors That May Affect Future Performance” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007. The fact that some of the risk factors may be the same or similar to our past filings means only that the risks are present in multiple periods.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

In July and August 2001, various class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against CyberSource, our Chairman and CEO, a former officer, and four brokerage firms that served as underwriters in our initial public offering. The actions were filed on behalf of persons who purchased our stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the initial public offering during the period from June 23, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The action alleges that our underwriters charged secret excessive commissions to certain of their customers in return for allocations of our stock in the offering. The two individual defendants are alleged to be liable because of their involvement in preparing and signing the registration statement for the offering, which allegedly failed to disclose the supposedly excessive commissions. On December 7, 2001, an amended complaint was filed in one of the actions to expand the purported class to persons who purchased our stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the follow-on public offering during the period from November 4, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The lawsuit filed against CyberSource 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 claims against our 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. On July 2, 2003, a committee of our Board of Directors approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter. The settlement would have provided, among other things, a release of CyberSource and of the individual defendants for the alleged wrongful conduct in the Amended Complaint in exchange for a guarantee from our insurers regarding recovery from the underwriter defendants and other consideration from CyberSource regarding its underwriters. While the partial settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants. The district court directed that the litigation proceed within a number of “focus cases” rather than in all of the 310 cases that have been consolidated. Our case is not one of these focus cases. On October 13, 2004, the district court certified the focus cases as class actions. The underwriter defendants appealed that ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s class certification decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing. In light of the Second Circuit opinion, we informed the district court that the settlement could not be approved because the defined settlement class, like the litigation class, could not be certified. On June 25, 2007, the district court entered an order terminating the settlement agreement. On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated amended class action complaints against the focus cases and on September 27, 2007, again moved for class certification. On November 12, 2007, certain of the defendants in the focus cases moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaints. On March 26, 2008, the district court denied the motions to dismiss except as to Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and those who purchased outside the previously certified class period. Briefing on the class certification motion was filed on April 22, 2008. We cannot predict whether we will be able to renegotiate a settlement that complies with the Second Circuit’s mandate. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.

19

Table of Contents

On August 11, 2004, we filed suit in the Northern District of California against Retail Decisions, Inc. (“ReD US”) and Retail Decisions Plc (“ReD UK”) (collectively, “ReD”), Case No. 3:04-CIV-03268, alleging that ReD infringes our U.S. Patent No. 6,029,154 (the “‘154 Patent”). We served ReD US with the complaint on August 12, 2004, and we served ReD UK with the complaint on August 13, 2004. On September 30, 2004, ReD responded to our complaint. ReD filed a motion to stay the case for 90 days pending a determination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) as to whether it will grant ReD’s request that the PTO re-examine the ‘154 Patent. ReD also filed a motion for a more definite statement by CyberSource with respect to our allegation that ReD is willfully infringing the ‘154 Patent. In addition, ReD UK filed a motion to dismiss the action against it on the ground that it is not subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California. On October 27, 2004, ReD filed a request for re-examination with the PTO, based on prior art ReD discovered that allegedly invalidates the Patent. On October 28, 2004, we filed an opposition to ReD’s motion to stay the case for 90 days and an opposition to ReD’s motion for a more definite statement with respect to willful infringement. Based on ReD UK’s representation that ReD US is the sole entity that develops, operates, and distributes the eBitGuard service, we agreed to dismiss ReD UK while reserving the right to reinstitute action against ReD UK in the event we later discover that ReD UK is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. In return, ReD UK agreed that if we later establish that personal jurisdiction existed, we could re-file against ReD UK in this action without prejudice to its damages claim. We also filed an amended complaint, removing ReD UK as a named defendant and restating the willful infringement claim. On November 16, 2004, the court granted ReD’s motion to stay the proceedings pending the PTO’s decision as to whether it will grant ReD’s request for re-examination. On December 30, 2004, the PTO granted ReD’s request for a re-examination. On January 19, 2005, ReD filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice or to extend the stay until completion of the re-examination process. On January 24, 2005, the court extended the stay pending the re-examination process, vacated ReD’s motion to dismiss, and ordered quarterly updates as to the status of the re-examination process. On April 25, 2005, the parties filed a joint status report that was approved by the court. On June 20, 2005, the PTO issued a preliminary office action rejecting all of the claims of the ‘154 Patent based on one of the prior art references cited by ReD. On July 14, 2005, we met with the PTO examiner handling the re-examination to distinguish the prior art from the claims of the ‘154 Patent. On August 9, 2006, the PTO issued a final office action rejecting all of the claims of the ‘154 Patent. On September 7, 2006, we filed a response to the office action requesting certain amendments to the claims. On October 10, 2006, the PTO filed a response rejecting the amendments and extending our deadline to file a notice of appeal. On October 30, 2006, we filed a notice of appeal. On December 22, 2006, we filed the appeal brief. On May 3, 2007, the PTO issued a “Notice of Intent to Issue Reexam Certificate,” reversing its action of August 9, 2006. Accordingly, the patent has been re-validated and we expect to receive a new patent certificate shortly. While there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the lawsuit, we do not presently believe that the lawsuit would have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

We are currently party to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the outcome of any of these claims or any of the above mentioned legal matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Set forth below, elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, and in other documents we file with the SEC are risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results contemplated by the forward-looking statements contained in this report. The occurrence of any of the developments or risks identified below may make the occurrence of one or more of the other risk factors below more likely to occur.

There are no material changes to the Risk Factors described under the title “Factors That May Affect Future Performance” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007. The fact that some of the risk factors may be the same or similar to our past filings means only that the risks are present in multiple periods.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

In July and August 2001, various class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against us, our Chairman and CEO, a former officer, and four brokerage firms that served as underwriters in our initial public offering. The actions were filed on behalf of persons who purchased our stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the initial public offering during the period from June 23, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The action alleges that our underwriters charged secret excessive commissions to certain of their customers in return for allocations of our stock in the offering. The two individual defendants are alleged to be liable because of their involvement in preparing and signing the registration statement for the offering, which allegedly failed to disclose the supposedly excessive commissions. On December 7, 2001, an amended complaint was filed in one of the actions to expand the purported class to persons who purchased our stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the follow-on public offering during the period from November 4, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The lawsuit filed against us 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 claims against our officer and a former officer that were named in the amended complaint were dismissed without prejudice. In July 2002, we, 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. On July 2, 2003, a committee of our Board of Directors approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter. The settlement would have provided, among other things, a release of CyberSource and of the individual defendants for the alleged wrongful conduct in the Amended Complaint in exchange for a guarantee from our insurers regarding recovery from the underwriter defendants and other consideration from us regarding our underwriters. The plaintiffs have continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants. The district court directed that the litigation proceed within a number of “focus cases” rather than in all of the 310 cases that have been consolidated. Our case is not one of these focus cases. On October 13, 2004, the district court certified the focus cases as class actions. The underwriter defendants appealed that ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s class certification decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing. In light of the Second Circuit opinion, we have informed the district court that this settlement cannot be approved because the defined settlement class, like the litigation class, cannot be certified. We cannot predict whether we will be able to renegotiate a settlement that complies with the Second Circuit’s mandate. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter. However, any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by our insurers.

21

Table of Contents

On August 11, 2004, we filed suit in the Northern District of California against Retail Decisions, Inc. (“ReD US”) and Retail Decisions Plc (“ReD UK”) (collectively, “ReD”), Case No. 3:04-CIV-03268, alleging that ReD infringes our U.S. Patent No. 6,029,154 (the “‘154 Patent”). We served ReD US with the complaint on August 12, 2004, and we served ReD UK with the complaint on August 13, 2004. On September 30, 2004, ReD responded to our complaint. ReD filed a motion to stay the case for 90 days pending a determination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) as to whether it will grant ReD’s request that the PTO re-examine the ‘154 Patent. ReD also filed a motion for a more definite statement by us with respect to our allegation that ReD is willfully infringing the ‘154 Patent. In addition, ReD UK filed a motion to dismiss the action against it on the ground that it is not subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California. On October 27, 2004, ReD filed a request for re-examination with the PTO, based on prior art ReD discovered that allegedly invalidates the Patent. On October 28, 2004, we filed an opposition to ReD’s motion to stay the case for 90 days and an opposition to ReD’s motion for a more definite statement with respect to willful infringement. Based on ReD UK’s representation that ReD US is the sole entity that develops, operates, and distributes the eBitGuard service, we agreed to dismiss ReD UK while reserving the right to reinstitute action against ReD UK in the event we later discover that ReD UK is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. In return, ReD UK agreed that if we later establish that personal jurisdiction existed, we could re-file against ReD UK in this action without prejudice to our damages claim. We also filed an amended complaint, removing ReD UK as a named defendant and restating the willful infringement claim. On November 16, 2004, the court granted ReD’s motion to stay the proceedings pending the PTO’s decision as to whether it will grant ReD’s request for re-examination. On December 30, 2004, the PTO granted ReD’s request for a re-examination. On January 19, 2005, ReD filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice or to extend the stay until completion of the re-examination process. On January 24, 2005, the court extended the stay pending the re-examination process, vacated ReD’s motion to dismiss, and ordered quarterly updates as to the status of the re-examination process. On April 25, 2005, the parties filed a joint status report that was approved by the court. On June 20, 2005, the PTO issued a preliminary office action rejecting all of the claims of the ‘154 Patent based on one of the prior art references cited by ReD. On July 14, 2005, we met with the PTO examiner handling the re-examination to distinguish the prior art from the claims of the ‘154 Patent. On August 9, 2006, the PTO issued a final office action rejecting all of the claims of the ‘154 Patent. On September 7, 2006, we filed a response to the office action requesting certain amendments to the claims. On October 10, 2006, the PTO filed a response rejecting the amendments and extending our deadline to file a notice of appeal. On October 30, 2006, we filed a notice of appeal. On December 22, 2006, we filed the appeal brief. On May 3, 2007, the PTO issued a “Notice of Intent to Issue Reexam Certificate,” reversing its action of August 9, 2006. Accordingly, the patent has been re-validated and we expect to receive a new patent certificate shortly. While there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the lawsuit, we do not presently believe that the lawsuit would have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

We are currently party to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the outcome of any of these claims or any of the above mentioned legal matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Set forth below, elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, and in other documents we file with the SEC are risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results contemplated by the forward-looking statements contained in this report. The occurrence of any of the developments or risks identified below may make the occurrence of one or more of the other risk factors below more likely to occur.

Other than the addition of risk factors related to our acquisition of Authorize.Net, there are no material changes to the Risk Factors described under the title “Factors That May Affect Future Performance” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006. The fact that some of the risk factors may be the same or similar to our past filings means only that the risks are present in multiple periods.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

In July and August 2001, various class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against us, our Chairman and CEO, a former officer, and four brokerage firms that served as underwriters in our initial public offering. The actions were filed on behalf of persons who purchased our stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the initial public offering during the period from June 23, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The action alleges that our underwriters charged secret excessive commissions to certain of their customers in return for allocations of our stock in the offering. The two individual defendants are alleged to be liable because of their involvement in preparing and signing the registration statement for the offering, which allegedly failed to disclose the supposedly excessive commissions. On December 7, 2001, an amended complaint was filed in one of the actions to expand the purported class to persons who purchased our stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the follow-on public offering during the period from November 4, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The lawsuit filed against us 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 claims against our officer and a former officer that were named in the amended complaint were dismissed without prejudice. In July 2002, we, 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. On July 2, 2003, a committee of our Board of Directors approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter. The settlement would have provided, among other things, a release of CyberSource and of the individual defendants for the alleged wrongful conduct in the Amended Complaint in exchange for a guarantee from our insurers regarding recovery from the underwriter defendants and other consideration from us regarding our underwriters. The plaintiffs have continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants. The district court directed that the litigation proceed within a number of “focus cases” rather than in all of the 310 cases that have been consolidated. Our case is not one of these focus cases. On October 13, 2004, the district court certified the focus cases as class actions. The underwriter defendants appealed that ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s class certification decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing. In light of the Second Circuit opinion, we have informed the district court that this settlement cannot be approved because the defined settlement class, like the litigation class, cannot be certified. We cannot predict whether we will be able to renegotiate a settlement that complies with the Second Circuit’s mandate. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter. However, any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by our insurers.

On August 11, 2004, we filed suit in the Northern District of California against Retail Decisions, Inc. (“ReD US”) and Retail Decisions Plc (“ReD UK”) (collectively, “ReD”), Case No. 3:04-CIV-03268, alleging that ReD infringes our U.S. Patent No. 6,029,154 (the “‘154 Patent”). We served ReD US with the complaint on August 12, 2004, and we served ReD UK with the

21

Table of Contents

complaint on August 13, 2004. On September 30, 2004, ReD responded to our complaint. ReD filed a motion to stay the case for 90 days pending a determination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) as to whether it will grant ReD’s request that the PTO re-examine the ‘154 Patent. ReD also filed a motion for a more definite statement by us with respect to our allegation that ReD is willfully infringing the ‘154 Patent. In addition, ReD UK filed a motion to dismiss the action against it on the ground that it is not subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California. On October 27, 2004, ReD filed a request for re-examination with the PTO, based on prior art ReD discovered that allegedly invalidates the Patent. On October 28, 2004, we filed an opposition to ReD’s motion to stay the case for 90 days and an opposition to ReD’s motion for a more definite statement with respect to willful infringement. Based on ReD UK’s representation that ReD US is the sole entity that develops, operates, and distributes the eBitGuard service, we agreed to dismiss ReD UK while reserving the right to reinstitute action against ReD UK in the event we later discover that ReD UK is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. In return, ReD UK agreed that if we later establish that personal jurisdiction existed, we could re-file against ReD UK in this action without prejudice to our damages claim. We also filed an amended complaint, removing ReD UK as a named defendant and restating the willful infringement claim. On November 16, 2004, the court granted ReD’s motion to stay the proceedings pending the PTO’s decision as to whether it will grant ReD’s request for re-examination. On December 30, 2004, the PTO granted ReD’s request for a re-examination. On January 19, 2005, ReD filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice or to extend the stay until completion of the re-examination process. On January 24, 2005, the court extended the stay pending the re-examination process, vacated ReD’s motion to dismiss, and ordered quarterly updates as to the status of the re-examination process. On April 25, 2005, the parties filed a joint status report that was approved by the court. On June 20, 2005, the PTO issued a preliminary office action rejecting all of the claims of the ‘154 Patent based on one of the prior art references cited by ReD. On July 14, 2005, we met with the PTO examiner handling the re-examination to distinguish the prior art from the claims of the ‘154 Patent. On August 9, 2006, the PTO issued a final office action rejecting all of the claims of the ‘154 Patent. On September 7, 2006, we filed a response to the office action requesting certain amendments to the claims. On October 10, 2006, the PTO filed a response rejecting the amendments and extending our deadline to file a notice of appeal. On October 30, 2006, we filed a notice of appeal. On December 22, 2006, we filed the appeal brief. On May 3, 2007, the PTO issued a “Notice of Intent to Issue Reexam Certificate,” reversing its action of August 9, 2006. Accordingly, the patent has been re-validated and we expect to receive a new patent certificate shortly. While there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the lawsuit, we do not presently believe that the lawsuit would have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

We are currently party to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the outcome of any of these claims or any of the above mentioned legal matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Set forth below, elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, and in other documents we file with the SEC are risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results contemplated by the forward-looking statements contained in this report. The occurrence of any of the developments or risks identified below may make the occurrence of one or more of the other risk factors below more likely to occur.

Other than the addition of risk factors related to our acquisition of Authorize.Net, there are no material changes to the Risk Factors described under the title “Factors That May Affect Future Performance” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006. The fact that some of the risk factors may be the same or similar to our past filings means only that the risks are present in multiple periods.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

In July and August 2001, various class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against us, our Chairman and CEO, a former officer, and four brokerage firms that served as underwriters in our initial public offering. The actions were filed on behalf of persons who purchased our stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the initial public offering during the period from June 23, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The action alleges that our underwriters charged secret excessive commissions to certain of their customers in return for allocations of our stock in the offering. The two individual defendants are alleged to be liable because of their involvement in preparing and signing the registration statement for the offering, which allegedly failed to disclose the supposedly excessive commissions. On December 7, 2001, an amended complaint was filed in one of the actions to expand the purported class to persons who purchased our stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the follow-on public offering during the period from November 4, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The lawsuit filed against us 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, our officer and a former officer that were named in the amended complaint were dismissed without prejudice. In July 2002, we, 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. On July 2, 2003, a committee of our Board of Directors approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter. The settlement would have provided, among other things, a release of CyberSource and of the individual defendants for the alleged wrongful conduct in the Amended Complaint in exchange for a guarantee from our insurers regarding recovery from the underwriter defendants and other consideration from us regarding our underwriters. The plaintiffs have continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants. The district court directed that the litigation proceed within a number of “focus cases” rather than in all of the 310 cases that have been consolidated. Our case is not one of these focus cases. On October 13, 2004, the district court certified the focus cases as class actions. The underwriter defendants appealed that ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s class certification decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing. In light of the Second Circuit opinion, we have informed the district court that this settlement cannot be approved because the defined settlement class, like the litigation class, cannot be certified. We cannot predict whether we will be able to renegotiate a settlement that complies with the Second Circuit’s mandate. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter. However, any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by our insurers.

On August 11, 2004, we filed suit in the Northern District of California against Retail Decisions, Inc. (“ReD US”) and Retail Decisions Plc (“ReD UK”) (collectively, “ReD”), Case No. 3:04-CIV-03268, alleging that ReD infringes our U.S. Patent No. 6,029,154 (the “’154 Patent”). We served ReD US with the complaint on August 12, 2004, and we served ReD UK with the complaint on August 13, 2004. On September 30, 2004, ReD responded to our complaint. ReD filed a motion to stay the case for 90 days pending a determination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) as to whether it will grant ReD’s request that the PTO re-examine the ’154 Patent. ReD also filed a motion for a more definite statement by us with respect to our allegation that ReD is willfully infringing the ’154 Patent. In addition, ReD UK filed a motion to dismiss the action against it on the ground that it is not subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California. On October 27, 2004, ReD filed a request for re-examination with the PTO, based on prior art ReD discovered that allegedly invalidates the Patent. On October 28, 2004, we filed an opposition to ReD’s motion to stay the case for 90 days and an opposition to ReD’s motion for a more definite statement with respect to willful infringement. Based on ReD UK’s representation that ReD US is the sole entity that develops, operates, and distributes the eBitGuard service, we agreed to dismiss ReD UK while reserving the right to reinstitute action against ReD UK in the event we later discover that ReD UK is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. In return, ReD UK agreed that if we later establish that personal jurisdiction existed, we could re-file against ReD UK in this action without prejudice to our damages claim. We also filed an amended complaint, removing ReD UK as a named defendant and restating the willful infringement claim. On November 16, 2004, the court granted ReD’s motion to stay the proceedings pending the PTO’s decision as to whether it will grant ReD’s request for re-examination. On December 30, 2004, the PTO granted ReD’s request for a re-examination. On January 19, 2005, ReD filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice or to extend the stay until completion of the re-examination process. On January 24, 2005, the court extended the stay pending the re-examination process, vacated ReD’s motion to dismiss, and ordered quarterly updates as to the status of the re-examination process. On April 25, 2005, the parties filed a joint status report that was approved by the court. On June 20, 2005, the PTO issued a preliminary office action rejecting all of the claims of the ’154 Patent based on one of the prior art references cited by ReD. On July 14, 2005, we

19

Table of Contents

met with the PTO examiner handling the re-examination to distinguish the prior art from the claims of the ’154 Patent. On August 9, 2006, the PTO issued a final office action rejecting all of the claims of the ’154 Patent. On September 7, 2006, we filed a response to the office action requesting certain amendments to the claims. On October 10, 2006, the PTO filed a response rejecting the amendments and extending our deadline to file a notice of appeal. On October 30, 2006, we filed a notice of appeal. On December 22, 2006, we filed an appeal brief. No response brief has yet been filed by the PTO. While there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the lawsuit, we do not presently believe that the lawsuit would have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

We are currently party to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the outcome of any of these claims or any of the above mentioned legal matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Set forth below, elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, and in other documents we file with the SEC are risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results contemplated by the forward-looking statements contained in this report. The occurrence of any of the developments or risks identified below may make the occurrence of one or more of the other risk factors below more likely to occur.

There are no material changes to the Risk Factors described under the title “Factors That May Affect Future Performance” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In July and August 2001, various class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against us, our Chairman and CEO, a former officer, and four brokerage firms that served as underwriters in our initial public offering. The actions were filed on behalf of persons who purchased our stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the initial public offering during the period from June 23, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The action alleges that our underwriters charged secret excessive commissions to certain of their customers in return for allocations of our stock in the offering. The two individual defendants are alleged to be liable because of their involvement in preparing and signing the registration statement for the offering, which allegedly failed to disclose the supposedly excessive commissions. On December 7, 2001, an amended complaint was filed in one of the actions to expand the purported class to persons who purchased our stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the follow-on public offering during the period from November 4, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The lawsuit filed against us 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, our officer and a former officer that were named in the amended complaint were dismissed without prejudice. In July 2002, we, 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. On July 2, 2003, a committee of our 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 us and of the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful in the Amended Complaint. We would agree to undertake other responsibilities under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims we may have against our underwriters. Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by our 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 our 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 and set a final approval hearing date for April 24, 2006. While there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the lawsuit, we do not presently believe that an adverse outcome in the lawsuit would have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

On August 11, 2004, we filed suit in the Northern District of California against Retail Decisions, Inc. (“ReD US”) and Retail Decisions Plc (“ReD UK”) (collectively, “ReD”), Case No. 3:04-CIV-03268, alleging that ReD infringes our U.S. Patent No. 6,029,154 (the “‘154 Patent”). We served ReD US with the complaint on August 12, 2004, and we served ReD UK with the complaint on August 13, 2004. On September 30, 2004, ReD responded to our complaint. ReD filed a motion to stay the case for 90 days pending a determination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) as to whether it will grant ReD’s request that the PTO re-examine the ‘154 Patent. ReD also filed a motion for a more definite statement by us with respect to our allegation that ReD is willfully infringing the ‘154 Patent. In addition, ReD UK filed a motion to dismiss the action against it on the ground that it is not subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California. On October 27, 2004, ReD filed a request for re-examination with the PTO, based on prior art ReD discovered that allegedly invalidates the patent. On October 28, 2004, we filed an opposition to ReD’s motion to stay the case for 90 days and an opposition to ReD’s motion for a more definite statement with respect to willful infringement. Based on ReD UK’s representation that ReD US is the sole entity that develops, operates, and distributes the eBitGuard service, we agreed to dismiss ReD UK while reserving the right to reinstitute action against ReD UK in the event we later discover that ReD UK is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. In return, ReD UK agreed that if we later establish that personal jurisdiction existed, we could re-file against ReD UK in this action without prejudice to our damages claim. We also filed an amended complaint, removing ReD UK as a named defendant and restating the willful infringement claim. On November 16, 2004, the court granted ReD’s motion to stay the proceedings pending the PTO’s decision as to whether it will grant ReD’s request for re-examination. On December 30, 2004, the PTO granted ReD’s request for a re-examination. On January 19, 2005, ReD filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice or to extend the stay until completion of the re-examination process. On January 24, 2005, the court extended the stay pending the re-examination process, vacated ReD’s motion to dismiss, and ordered quarterly updates as to the status of the re-examination process. On April 25, 2005, the parties filed a joint status report that was approved by the court. On June 20, 2005, the PTO issued a preliminary office action rejecting all of the claims of the ‘154 patent based on one of the prior art references cited by ReD. On July 14, 2005, we met with the PTO examiner handling the re-examination to distinguish the prior art from the claims of the ‘154 patent. The PTO has not yet issued a final office action. While there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the lawsuit, we do not presently believe that the lawsuit would have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

On October 21, 2005, we filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against CardSystems Solutions, Inc. (“CardSystems”) and individual members of CardSystems’ board of directors, Case No. 1-05-CV-051137, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and unjust enrichment. We served CardSystems with the complaint on October 21, 2005. The individual defendants have not yet been served and CardSystems has not yet responded to the complaint. While there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the lawsuit, we do not presently believe that the lawsuit would have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

26

Table of Contents

We are currently party to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the outcome of any of these claims or any of the above mentioned legal matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

ITEM 2. CHANGES IN SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS

None

ITEM 3. DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES

None

ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITIES HOLDERS

None

ITEM 5. OTHER INFORMATION

In accord with Section 10A(i)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as added by Section 202 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Company is responsible for disclosing the non-audit services approved in the third quarter of fiscal year 2005 by the Company’s Audit Committee to be performed by Ernst & Young, the Company’s independent auditors. Non-audit services are defined in the law as services other than those provided in connection with an audit or a review of the financial statements of the Company. The non-audit services approved by the Audit Committee in the third quarter are each considered by the Company to be audit-related services which are closely related to the financial audit process. Each of the services has been pre-approved by the Audit Committee and the Committee’s Chairman has been given the authority to pre-approve additional services pursuant to limited authority delegated by the Committee.

ITEM 6. EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K

(a) Exhibits

27

Table of Contents