VeriSign (VRSN)

Note 14. Contingencies

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 NetMoneyIN has withdrawn its allegations of infringement of one of the patents and the Court has dismissed with prejudice all claims of infringement of such patent.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 July 6, 2006, a stockholder derivative complaint (Parnes v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign) was filed against VeriSign in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 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 the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Port Authority v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign), and one in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County (Port Authority v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign) on August 14, 2006. The state court derivative action is stayed pending resolution of the federal actions. The current directors and officers named in this state action are D. James Bidzos, William L. Chenevich, Roger H. Moore and Louis A. Simpson. 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. The current directors and officers named in this consolidated federal action are D. James Bidzos, William L. Chenevich, Roger H. Moore, Louis A. Simpson and Timothy Tomlinson. 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 in the federal action 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 the Company’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 the Company 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 the Superior Court for the State of California, Santa Clara County under a separate name (Pace. v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign) on June 19, 2007,

26

Table of Contents

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. The current directors and officers named in this consolidated class action are D. James Bidzos, William L. Chenevich, Roger H. Moore, Louis A. Simpson and Timothy Tomlinson. 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. By stipulation and Court order, plaintiff’s obligation to file an amended consolidated class action complaint has been continued pending informal efforts by the parties to resolve the action.

On November 7, 2006, a judgment was entered against us by a trial court in Terni, Italy, in the matter of Penco v. VeriSign, Inc. in the amount of 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 or about April 2, 2009, plaintiff filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of Cassation, Rome, Italy.

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, 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, 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.” The Bentley matter is currently stayed. A motion to dismiss ruling in Herbert is on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 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 September 12, 2008, Leon Stambler filed a declaratory judgment complaint against VeriSign in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint seeks an order permitting Stambler to proceed with patent infringement actions against VeriSign SSL certificate customers in actions in which VeriSign is not a party in view of Stambler’s prior unsuccessful action in 2003 against VeriSign on the same patents in which a verdict was returned against Stambler and a judgment was entered thereon. VeriSign has received requests to indemnify certain SSL certificate customers in the patent infringement actions brought by Stambler. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings, it believes the allegations against it are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

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 16. Contingencies

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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed the appeal. 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 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 Court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

26

Table of Contents

VERISIGN, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

(Unaudited)

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 Markman 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 Markman 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 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. VeriSign 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. Motions to stay the state court action are pending. 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.

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. VeriSign was granted a stay on execution of the judgment. The Company has appealed the lower court’s ruling on the merits and the hearing on the appeal is scheduled in May 2008. The Company believes the claims are without merit.

On November 30, 2006, Freedom Wireless, Inc. filed a complaint against VeriSign and other defendants alleging that the Company infringed 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 is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, it believes that the allegations are without merit.

27

Table of Contents

VERISIGN, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

(Unaudited)

On May 31, 2007, plaintiffs Karen Herbert, et al., on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of consumers, 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, 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.” The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. 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 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 lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Gainesville Division. 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 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.

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 the Company’s 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.