VeriSign (VRSN)

Note 16. Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments

On June 19, 2008, the Company entered into a lease agreement with the purchaser of its Mountain View property. Under the terms of the lease agreement, the Company will lease the property for an initial term of 30 months, which will expire on December 31, 2010, with an option to extend the lease for five years from the date of expiration of the initial term. The Company’s lease obligations under the initial term will be approximately $3.1 million, $5.6 million and $5.4 million in 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively.

30

Table of Contents

Legal Proceedings

On September 7, 2001, NetMoneyIN, an Arizona corporation, filed a complaint alleging patent infringement against VeriSign and several other previously-named defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona asserting infringement of certain patents. The complaint alleged that VeriSign’s Payflow payment products and services directly infringe certain claims of NetMoneyIN’s three patents and requested the Court to enter judgment in favor of NetMoneyIN, a permanent injunction against the defendants’ alleged infringing activities, an order requiring defendants to provide an accounting for NetMoneyIN’s damages, to pay NetMoneyIN such damages and three times that amount for any willful infringers, and an order awarding NetMoneyIN attorney fees and costs. NetMoneyIN has withdrawn its allegations of infringement of one of the patents and the Court has dismissed with prejudice all claims of infringement of such patent. In its ruling on the claim construction issues, the Court found some of the claims asserted against VeriSign to be valid. NetMoneyIN may file an appeal after a final judgment seeking to overturn this ruling. Only one claim remains in the case. On July 13, 2007, the Court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of VeriSign based on the Court’s finding that such claim is invalid, and denying all other pending dispositive motions. On August 29, 2007, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. On September 19, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed the appeal. On October 20, 2008, the appellate court issued a decision that affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment order and remanded the case for further proceedings in the trial court. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit, it believes that the allegations are without merit.

On February 14, 2005, Southeast Texas Medical Associates, LLP filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, alleging violations of the unfair competition laws, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment relating to VeriSign’s Secure Site Pro SSL certificates. The complaint is brought on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Secure Site Pro SSL certificates from February 2001 to present. On April 17, 2006, the class was certified and class notice was issued on May 21, 2007. VeriSign disputes these claims. In March 2008, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this matter. The settlement became final on July 15, 2008.

On April 11, 2005, Prism Technologies, LLC filed a complaint against VeriSign in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that VeriSign’s “Go Secure” suite of applications and related hardware and software products and its unified authentication solution and related hardware and software products, including the VeriSign Identity Protection (“VIP”) product infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,516,416, entitled “Subscription Access System for Use With an Untrusted Network.” Prism Technologies seeks judgment in favor of Prism Technologies, a permanent injunction from infringement, damages in an amount not less than a reasonable royalty, attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 2, 2007, the Court issued a ruling from the claim construction hearing. On April 13, 2007, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Answers and Counterclaims to add an inequitable conduct defense. On April 23, 2007, on the basis of the claim construction ruling, the Court entered a stipulated Final Judgment of Non-Infringement, dismissing all claims and counterclaims in the case. On April 27, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. On February 5, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction ruling and dismissal in VeriSign’s favor.

On July 6, 2006, a stockholder derivative complaint (Parnes v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign) was filed against the Company, as a nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former directors and executive officers related to certain historical stock option grants. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of VeriSign, constructive trust and other equitable relief. Two other derivative actions were filed, one in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Port Authority v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign), and one in state court (Port Authority v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign) on August 14, 2006. The state court derivative actions are stayed pending resolution of the federal action. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in these actions. The federal actions have been consolidated and plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on November 20, 2006. Motions to dismiss the consolidated federal court complaint were heard on May 23, 2007.

31

Table of Contents

Those motions were granted on September 14, 2007. On November 16, 2007, a second amended shareholder derivative complaint was filed wherein the Company was again named as a nominal defendant. By stipulation and Court order, defendants’ obligation to respond to the second amended shareholder derivative complaint has been continued pending informal efforts by the parties to resolve the action. On May 15, 2007, a putative class action (Mykityshyn v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign) was filed in Superior Court for the State of California, Santa Clara County, naming the Company and certain current and former officers and directors, alleging false representations and disclosure failures regarding certain historical stock option grants. The plaintiff purports to represent all individuals who owned VeriSign’s common stock between April 3, 2002, and August 9, 2006. The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to the 1998 and 2006 Option Plans and the cancellation of shares added to the 1998 Option Plan. The complaint also seeks to enjoin defendants from granting any stock options and from allowing the exercise of any currently outstanding options granted under the 1998 and 2006 Option Plans. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, costs and attorneys fees. The identical case was filed in state court under a separate name (Pace. v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign) on June 19, 2007, and on October 3, 2007 (Mehdian v. Bidzos, et al.). On December 3, 2007, a consolidated complaint was filed in Superior Court for the State of California, Santa Clara County. VeriSign and the individual defendants dispute all of these claims. Defendants’ collective pleading challenges to the putative consolidated class action complaint were granted with leave to amend in August 2008.

On November 7, 2006, a judgment was entered against VeriSign by an Italian trial court in the matter of Penco v. VeriSign, Inc. for Euro 5.8 million plus fees arising from a lawsuit brought by a former consultant who claimed to be owed commissions. The Company was granted a stay on execution of the judgment and the company filed an appeal. On July 9, 2008, the appellate court rejected all of plaintiff’s claims.

On May 31, 2007, plaintiffs Karen Herbert, et al., on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of consumers (“Herbert”), filed a complaint against VeriSign, Inc., m-Qube, Inc., and other defendants alleging that defendants collectively operate an illegal lottery under the laws of multiple states by allowing viewers of the NBC television show “Deal or No Deal” to incur premium text message charges in order to participate in an interactive television promotion called “Lucky Case Game.” The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. On June 5, 2007, plaintiffs Cheryl Bentley, et al., on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of consumers (“Bentley”), filed a complaint against VeriSign, Inc., m-Qube, Inc., and other defendants alleging that defendants collectively operate an illegal lottery under the laws of multiple states by allowing viewers of the NBC television show “The Apprentice” to incur premium text message charges in order to participate in an interactive television promotion called “Get Rich With Trump.” Both Herbert and Bentley are currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit awaiting resolution of defendants’ petition for interlocutory appeal of the District Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of any of these matters, it believes that the allegations in each of them are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

On October 9, 2007, the Associated Press filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Moreover Technologies, Inc. and VeriSign, Inc. for copyright and trademark infringement and other claims arising from the Real Time Publishing business. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive and treble damages and a permanent injunction. The parties resolved this dispute and the case was dismissed on August 15, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, Prism Technologies LLC filed a complaint against VeriSign in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska alleging that VeriSign’s manufacture, sale and use of “security certificates” infringes a U.S. patent. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, it intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

VeriSign is involved in various other investigations, claims and lawsuits arising in the normal conduct of its business, none of which, in its opinion will have a material effect on its business. The Company cannot assure you that it will prevail in any litigation. Regardless of the outcome, any litigation may require the Company to incur significant litigation expense and may result in significant diversion of management attention.

32

Table of Contents

Note 16. Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments

On June 19, 2008, the Company entered into a lease agreement with the purchaser of its Mountain View property. Under the terms of the lease agreement, the Company will lease the property for an initial term of 30 months, which will expire on December 31, 2010, with an option to extend the lease for five years from the date of initial term expiration. The Company’s lease obligations under the initial term will be approximately $3.1 million, $5.6 million and $5.4 million in 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively

Legal Proceedings

On September 7, 2001, NetMoneyIN, an Arizona corporation, filed a complaint alleging patent infringement against VeriSign and several other previously-named defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona asserting infringement of certain patents. The complaint alleged that VeriSign’s Payflow payment products and services directly infringe certain claims of NetMoneyIN’s three patents and requested the Court to enter judgment in favor of NetMoneyIN, a permanent injunction against the defendants’ alleged infringing activities, an order requiring defendants to provide an accounting for NetMoneyIN’s damages, to pay NetMoneyIN such damages and three times that amount for any willful infringers, and an order awarding NetMoneyIN attorney fees and costs. NetMoneyIN has withdrawn its allegations of infringement of one of the patents and the Court has dismissed with prejudice all claims of infringement of such patent. In its ruling on the claim construction issues, the Court found some of the claims asserted against VeriSign to be valid. NetMoneyIN may file an appeal after a final judgment seeking to overturn this ruling. Only one claim remains in the case. On July 13, 2007, the Court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of VeriSign based on the Court’s finding that such claim is invalid, and denying all other pending dispositive motions. On August 29, 2007, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. On September 19, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed the appeal. Oral argument took place on July 10, 2008. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit, it believes that the allegations are without merit.

On February 14, 2005, Southeast Texas Medical Associates, LLP filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, alleging violations of the unfair competition laws, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment relating to VeriSign’s Secure Site Pro SSL certificates. The complaint is brought on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Secure Site Pro SSL certificate from February 2001 to present. On April 17, 2006, the class was certified and class notice was issued on May 21, 2007. VeriSign disputes these claims. In March 2008, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this matter. The settlement became final on July 15, 2008.

28

Table of Contents

On April 11, 2005, Prism Technologies, LLC filed a complaint against VeriSign in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that VeriSign’s “Go Secure” suite of applications and related hardware and software products and its Unified Authentication solution and related hardware and software products, including the VeriSign Identity Protection (“VIP”) product infringe United States Patent No. 6,516,416, entitled “Subscription Access System for Use With an Untrusted Network.” Prism Technologies seeks judgment in favor of Prism Technologies, a permanent injunction from infringement, damages in an amount not less than a reasonable royalty, attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 2, 2007, the Court issued a ruling from the claim construction hearing. On April 13, 2007, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Answers and Counterclaims to add an inequitable conduct defense. On April 23, 2007, on the basis of the claim construction ruling, the Court entered a stipulated Final Judgment of Non-Infringement, dismissing all claims and counterclaims in the case. On April 27, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. On February 5, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction ruling and dismissal in VeriSign’s favor.

On July 6, 2006, a stockholder derivative complaint (Parnes v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign) was filed against the Company, as a nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former directors and executive officers related to certain historical stock option grants. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of VeriSign, constructive trust and other equitable relief. Two other derivative actions were filed, one in United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Port Authority v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign), and one in state court (Port Authority v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign) on August 14, 2006. The state court derivative actions are stayed pending resolution of the federal action. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in these actions. The federal actions have been consolidated and plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on November 20, 2006. Motions to dismiss the consolidated federal court complaint were heard on May 23, 2007. Those motions were granted on September 14, 2007. On November 16, 2007, a second amended shareholder derivative complaint was filed wherein the Company was again named a nominal defendant. By stipulation and Court order, defendants’ obligation to respond to the second amended shareholder derivative complaint has been continued pending informal efforts by the parties to resolve the action. On May 15, 2007, a putative class action (Mykityshyn v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign) was filed in Superior Court for the State of California, Santa Clara County, naming the Company and certain current and former officers and directors, alleging false representations and disclosure failures regarding certain historical stock option grants. The plaintiff purports to represent all individuals who owned VeriSign’s common stock between April 3, 2002, and August 9, 2006. The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to the 1998 and 2006 Option Plans and the cancellation of shares added to the 1998 Option Plan. The complaint also seeks to enjoin defendants from granting any stock options and from allowing the exercise of any currently outstanding options granted under the 1998 and 2006 Option Plans. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, costs and attorneys fees. The identical case was filed in state court under a separate name (Pace. v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign) on June 19, 2007, and on October 3, 2007 (Mehdian v. Bidzos, et al.). On December 3, 2007, a consolidated complaint was filed in Superior Court for the State of California, Santa Clara County. VeriSign and the individual defendants dispute all of these claims. Defendants’ collective pleading challenges to the putative consolidated class action complaint are scheduled for hearing in August 2008.

On November 7, 2006, a judgment was entered against VeriSign by an Italian trial court in the matter of Penco v. VeriSign, Inc. for Euro 5.8 million plus fees arising from a lawsuit brought by a former consultant who claimed to be owed commissions. The Company was granted a stay on execution of the judgment and the company filed an appeal. On July 9, 2008, the appellate court rejected all of plaintiff’s claims.

On November 30, 2006, Freedom Wireless, Inc. filed a complaint against VeriSign and other defendants alleging that VeriSign infringes certain patents by making, using, selling or supplying products, methods or services relating to supplying prepaid wireless telephone services to telecommunications companies. VeriSign filed an answer to the complaint on January 25, 2007. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On May 16, 2008, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement. The claims against VeriSign have been dismissed.

29

Table of Contents

On May 31, 2007, plaintiffs Karen Herbert, et al., on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of consumers (“Herbert”), filed a complaint against VeriSign, Inc., m-Qube, Inc., and other defendants alleging that defendants collectively operate an illegal lottery under the laws of multiple states by allowing viewers of the NBC television show “Deal or No Deal” to incur premium text message charges in order to participate in an interactive television promotion called “Lucky Case Game.” The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. On June 5, 2007, plaintiffs Cheryl Bentley, et al., on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of consumers (“Bentley”), filed a complaint against VeriSign, Inc., m-Qube, Inc., and other defendants alleging that defendants collectively operate an illegal lottery under the laws of multiple states by allowing viewers of the NBC television show “The Apprentice” to incur premium text message charges in order to participate in an interactive television promotion called “Get Rich With Trump.” Both Herbert and Bentley are currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit awaiting resolution of defendants’ petition for interlocutory appeal of the District Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of any of these matters, it believes that the allegations in each of them are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. On June 7, 2007, plaintiffs Michael and Michele Hardin, on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of consumers, filed a complaint against VeriSign, Inc. and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging that defendants collectively operate various “gambling games” in violation of Georgia state law. Plaintiffs allege that interactive television promotions contained in various broadcasts, including NBC’s “Deal or No Deal,” wrongly permit participants to incur premium text message charges in order to participate in the promotions to win a prize. The Hardin lawsuit was dismissed on April 28, 2008 following a favorable ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court on a matter of law certified to the Supreme Court by the United States District Court.

On October 9, 2007, the Associated Press filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Moreover Technologies, Inc. and VeriSign, Inc. for copyright and trademark infringement and other claims arising from the Real Time Publishing business. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive and treble damages and a permanent injunction. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, it intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

On April 30, 2008, Prism Technologies LLC filed a complaint against VeriSign in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska alleging that VeriSign’s manufacture, sale and use of “security certificates” infringes a United States patent. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, it intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

VeriSign is involved in various other investigations, claims and lawsuits arising in the normal conduct of its business, none of which, in its opinion will have a material effect on its business. The Company cannot assure you that it will prevail in any litigation. Regardless of the outcome, any litigation may require the Company to incur significant litigation expense and may result in significant diversion of management attention.

Note 13. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal proceedings

VeriSign is engaged in complaints, lawsuits and investigations arising in the ordinary course of business. VeriSign believes that it has adequate legal defenses and that the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material effect on VeriSign’s condensed consolidated financial position and results of operations.

Indemnification

VeriSign enters into indemnification agreements with many of its customers and certain other business partners in the ordinary course of business. These agreements include provisions for indemnifying the customer against claims brought by third-parties that allege a VeriSign product infringes a patent, copyright or trademark, misappropriates a trade secret, or violates other proprietary rights of that third-party. These indemnification obligations are generally subject to limits as specified in the agreement. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount of future payments VeriSign could be required to make under these indemnification agreements. To date, VeriSign has not incurred significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to indemnification agreements. VeriSign has not recorded any liabilities for these indemnification agreements at September 30, 2006 or December 31, 2005.

At the Company’s discretion and in the ordinary course of business, VeriSign subcontracts the performance of certain services. VeriSign enters into indemnification agreements that indemnify customers against damage caused by VeriSign’s employees and subcontractors. These indemnification obligations are generally subject to limits as specified in the agreement. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount of future payments VeriSign could be required to make under these indemnification agreements. The Company maintains insurance policies that may enable VeriSign to recover a portion of any such claim. VeriSign has not incurred significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. VeriSign has not recorded any liabilities for these indemnification agreements at September 30, 2006 or December 31, 2005.

Note 13. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal proceedings

VeriSign is engaged in complaints, lawsuits and investigations arising in the ordinary course of business. VeriSign believes that it has adequate legal defenses and that the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material effect on VeriSign’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Position and Results of Operations.

Indemnification

VeriSign enters into indemnification agreements with many of its customers and certain other business partners in the ordinary course of business. These agreements include provisions for indemnifying the customer against claims brought by third-parties that allege a VeriSign product infringes a patent, copyright or trademark, misappropriates a trade secret, or violates other proprietary rights of that third-party. These indemnification obligations are generally subject to limits as specified in the agreement. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount of future payments VeriSign could be required to make under these indemnification agreements. To date, VeriSign has not incurred significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to indemnification agreements. VeriSign has not recorded any liabilities for these indemnification agreements at June 30, 2006 or December 31, 2005.

At the Company’s discretion and in the ordinary course of business, VeriSign subcontracts the performance of certain services. VeriSign enters into indemnification agreements that indemnify customers against damage caused by VeriSign’s employees and subcontractors. These indemnification obligations are generally subject to limits as specified in the agreement. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount of future payments VeriSign could be required to make under these indemnification agreements. The Company maintains insurance policies that may enable VeriSign to recover a portion of any such claim. VeriSign has not incurred significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. VeriSign has not recorded any liabilities for these indemnification agreements at June 30, 2006 or December 31, 2005.

Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal proceedings

VeriSign is engaged in complaints, lawsuits and investigations arising in the ordinary course of business. VeriSign believes that it has adequate legal defenses and that the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material effect on VeriSign’s condensed consolidated financial position and results of operations.

Indemnification

VeriSign enters into indemnification agreements with many of its customers and certain other business partners in the ordinary course of business. These agreements include provisions for indemnifying the customer against claims brought by third-parties that allege a VeriSign product infringes a patent, copyright or trademark, misappropriates a trade secret, or violates other proprietary rights of that third-party. These indemnification obligations are generally subject to limits as specified in the agreement. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount of future payments VeriSign could be required to make under these indemnification agreements. To date, VeriSign has not incurred significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to indemnification agreements. VeriSign has not recorded any liabilities for these indemnification agreements at March 31, 2006 or December 31, 2005.

At the Company’s discretion and in the ordinary course of business, VeriSign subcontracts the performance of certain services. VeriSign enters into indemnification agreements that indemnify customers against damage caused by VeriSign’s employees and subcontractors. These indemnification obligations are generally subject to limits as specified in the

21

Table of Contents

agreement. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount of future payments VeriSign could be required to make under these indemnification agreements. The Company maintains insurance policies that may enable VeriSign to recover a portion of any such claim. VeriSign has not incurred significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. VeriSign has not recorded any liabilities for these indemnification agreements at March 31, 2006 or December 31, 2005.

Note 13.    Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

VeriSign leases a portion of its facilities under operating leases that extend through 2014 and subleases a portion of its office space to third parties. The minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases and the future minimum contractual sublease income as of December 31, 2005 are as follows:

Future operating lease payments include payments related to leases on excess facilities included in VeriSign’s restructuring plans.

Net rental expense under operating leases was $20.7 million in 2005, $16.3 million in 2004, and $23.6 million in 2003. VeriSign has subleased offices to various companies under non-cancelable operating leases. VeriSign received payments of $3.6 million in 2005, $4.3 million in 2004, and $1.6 million in 2003.

Legal Proceedings

VeriSign is engaged in several complaints, lawsuits and investigations arising in the ordinary course of business. VeriSign believes that it has adequate legal defenses and that the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material effect on VeriSign’s consolidated financial position and results of operations.

Indemnification

VeriSign enters into indemnification agreements with many of its customers and certain other business partners in the ordinary course of business. These agreements include provisions for indemnifying the customer against claims brought by third-parties that allege a VeriSign product infringes a patent, copyright or trademark, misappropriates a trade secret, or violates other proprietary rights of that third-party. These indemnification obligations are generally subject to limits as specified in the agreement. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount of future payments VeriSign could be required to make under these indemnification agreements. To date, VeriSign has not incurred significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to indemnification agreements. VeriSign has not recorded any liabilities for these indemnification agreements at December 31, 2005 or 2004.

At the Company’s discretion and in the ordinary course of business, VeriSign subcontracts the performance of certain services. VeriSign enters into indemnification agreements that indemnify customers against damage caused by VeriSign’s employees and subcontractors. These indemnification obligations are generally subject to limits as specified in the agreement. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount of future

121

Table of Contents

VERISIGN, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

DECEMBER 31, 2005, 2004 AND 2003

payments VeriSign could be required to make under these indemnification agreements. The Company maintains insurance policies that may enable VeriSign to recover a portion of any such claim. VeriSign has not incurred significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. VeriSign has not recorded any liabilities for these indemnification agreements at December 31, 2005 or 2004.

Note 12. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal proceedings

VeriSign is engaged in complaints, lawsuits and investigations arising in the ordinary course of business. VeriSign believes that it has adequate legal defenses and that the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material effect on VeriSign’s condensed consolidated financial position and results of operations.

Indemnification

VeriSign enters into indemnification agreements with many of its customers and certain other business partners in the ordinary course of business. These agreements include provisions for indemnifying the customer against claims brought by third-parties that allege a VeriSign product infringes a patent, copyright or trademark, misappropriates a trade secret, or violates other proprietary rights of that third-party. These indemnification obligations are generally subject to limits as specified in the agreement. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount of future payments VeriSign could be required to make under these indemnification agreements. To date, VeriSign has not incurred significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to indemnification agreements. VeriSign has not recorded any liabilities for these indemnification agreements at September 30, 2005 or December 31, 2004.

At the Company’s discretion and in the ordinary course of business, VeriSign subcontracts the performance of certain services. VeriSign enters into indemnification agreements that indemnify customers against damage caused by VeriSign’s employees and subcontractors. These indemnification obligations are generally subject to limits as specified in the agreement. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount of future payments VeriSign could be required to make under these indemnification agreements. The Company maintains insurance policies that may enable VeriSign to recover a portion of any such claim. VeriSign has not incurred significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. VeriSign has not recorded any liabilities for these indemnification agreements at September 30, 2005 or December 31, 2004.