VeriSign (VRSN)

PART II—OTHER INFORMATION

The information set forth under “Legal Proceedings” in Note 14, “Contingencies,” of our Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in Part I, Item 1, of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q is incorporated herein by reference.

In addition to other information in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the following risk factors should be carefully considered in evaluating us and our business because these factors currently have a significant impact or may have a significant impact on our business, operating results or financial condition. Actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as a result of the risk factors discussed below and elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and in other filings we make with the SEC.

PART II—OTHER INFORMATION

The information set forth under the “Legal Proceedings in Note 16, “Commitments and Contingencies,” of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in Part I, Item 1, of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q is incorporated herein by reference.

In addition to other information in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the following risk factors should be carefully considered in evaluating us and our business because these factors currently have a significant impact or may have a significant impact on our business, operating results or financial condition. Actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as a result of the risk factors discussed below and elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10- Q and in other filings we make with the SEC.

PART II—OTHER INFORMATION

The information set forth under the “Legal Proceedings in Note 16, “Commitments and Contingencies,” of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in Part I, Item 1, of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q is incorporated herein by reference.

In addition to other information in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the following risk factors should be carefully considered in evaluating us and our business because these factors currently have a significant impact or may have a significant impact on our business, operating results or financial condition. Actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as a result of the risk factors discussed below and elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

PART II—OTHER INFORMATION

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 U.S. patent Nos. 5,822,737 and 5,963,917. NetMoneyIN amended its complaint on October 15, 2002, alleging infringement by VeriSign and several other defendants of a third U.S. patent (No. 6,381,584) in addition to the two patents previously asserted. On August 27, 2003, NetMoneyIN filed a third amended complaint alleging direct infringement of the same three patents by VeriSign and several other previously-named defendants. NetMoneyIN dropped its claim of active inducement of infringement by VeriSign. Some of the other current defendants include IBM, BA Merchant Services, Wells Fargo Bank, Cardservice International, InfoSpace, E-Commerce Exchange and Paymentech. VeriSign filed an answer denying any infringement and asserting that the three asserted patents are invalid and later filed an amended answer asserting, in addition, that the asserted patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 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 the ‘584 patent and the Court has dismissed with prejudice all claims of infringement of the ‘584 patent. In its ruling on the claim construction issues, the Court found four of the five claims asserted against VeriSign, claims 1, 13 and 14 of the ‘737 patent and claim 1 of the ‘917 patent, invalid. NetMoneyIN may file an appeal after a final judgment seeking to overturn this ruling. Thus, only claim 23 of the ‘737 patent remains in the case. The Court granted the defendants’ motion to strike certain of the Plaintiff’s assertions of infringement, including all charges of infringement under the so-called “doctrine of equivalents.” The Court recently granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment of no inducement and no contributory infringement. Fact and expert witness discovery are completed. On September 29, 2006, VeriSign filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Non-Infringement. On October 20, 2006, VeriSign filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Invalidity. On November 1, 2006, NetMoneyIN filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Infringement. On July 9, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on the pending motions for summary judgment. On July 13, 2007, the Court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of VeriSign based on the Court’s finding that claim 23 of the ‘737 patent is invalid, and denying all other pending dispositive motions. Plaintiff may appeal the Court’s invalidity finding. While we cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit, VeriSign 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 our 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. While we cannot predict the outcome of this matter, VeriSign believes that the allegations are without merit.

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 application 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. Prism Technologies has also named RSA Security, Inc., Netegrity, Inc. Computer Associates International, Inc and Johnson & Johnson as co -defendants. VeriSign responded on June 6, 2005 by filing a counterclaim for declaratory relief and an answer denying any infringement and asserting that the patent is invalid. On November 9, 2006, the Court held a Markman claim construction hearing. On February 9, 2007, Plaintiff withdrew its claim against Go Secure, leaving claims against Unified Authentication and VIP. 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 to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. While we cannot predict the outcome of this matter, VeriSign believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

On June 26, 2006, VeriSign received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California requesting documents relating to VeriSign’s stock option grants and practices. VeriSign also received an informal

36

Table of Contents

inquiry from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) requesting documents related to VeriSign’s stock option grants and practices. On February 9, 2007, VeriSign received a formal order of investigation from the SEC. VeriSign is cooperating fully with the U.S. Attorney’s investigation and the SEC investigation.

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 federal court (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. 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 state court 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 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 matter was removed to federal court on June 25, 2007. The identical case was filed in state court under a separate name (Pace. v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign) on June 19, 2007. The matter was removed to federal court on July 19, 2007. 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. VeriSign has appealed the lower court’s ruling on the merits and the hearing on the appeal is likely to be scheduled in May 2008. VeriSign believes the claims are without merit.

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 is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. While we cannot predict the outcome of this matter, VeriSign believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

On January 31, 2007, VeriSign and News Corporation finalized a joint venture giving News Corporation a controlling interest in VeriSign’s wholly owned Jamba subsidiary. Accordingly, effective January 31, 2007, VeriSign transferred to the joint venture direction and control of all litigation, described in prior reports filed with the SEC, relating to Jamba! GmbH and Jamster International Sarl. Litigation and other legal matters covered by that transfer, include, but are not limited to: In Re Jamster Marketing Litigation (multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and consisting of the Ford, Page, Herrington, Harmon and Edwards matters), relating to marketing and advertising of mobile phone “ringtones” and other content by Jamba and Jamster; Federal Trade Commission access letter, dated June 2, 2005, seeking information relating to alleged unfair or deceptive acts or practices by Jamster in its advertising, offering and billing for content services and products; Illinois Attorney General Civil Investigative Demand, dated June 30, 2005, requesting information relating to the marketing of Jamster ringtones and other downloadable content; Florida Attorney General Subpoena Duces Tecum, dated October 6, 2005, requesting information related to the marketing of Jamster ringtones and other downloadable content; and GEMA Application for Arbitration, dated February 24, 2006, relating to alleged underpaid royalties in connection with Jamba’s sale of ringtones and other downloadable content.

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. While we cannot predict the outcome of this matter, VeriSign believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

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

37

Table of Contents

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. While we cannot predict the outcome of this matter, VeriSign believes that the allegations 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 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 we cannot predict the outcome of this matter, VeriSign believes that the allegations 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 our opinion will harm its business. VeriSign cannot assure that it will prevail in any litigation. Regardless of the outcome, any litigation may require VeriSign to incur significant litigation expense and may result in significant diversion of management attention.

38

Table of Contents

In addition to other information in this Form 10-Q, the following risk factors should be carefully considered in evaluating us and our business because these factors currently have a significant impact or may have a significant impact on our business, operating results or financial condition. Actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements contained in this Form 10-Q as a result of the risk factors discussed below and elsewhere in this Form 10-Q.

PART II—OTHER INFORMATION

On September 7, 2001, NetMoneyIN, an Arizona corporation, filed a complaint styled as a First Amended 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 U.S. patent Nos. 5,822,737 and 5,963,917. NetMoneyIN filed a second amended complaint on October 15, 2002, alleging infringement by VeriSign and several other defendants of a third U. S. patent (No. 6,381,584) in addition to the two patents previously asserted. The second amended complaint dropped some of the originally-named defendants and added others. On August 27, 2003, NetMoneyIN filed a third amended complaint alleging direct infringement of the same three patents by VeriSign and several other previously-named defendants. In this complaint, NetMoneyIN dropped its claim of active inducement of infringement by VeriSign. Some of the other current defendants include IBM, BA Merchant Services, Wells Fargo Bank, Cardservice International, InfoSpace, E-Commerce Exchange and Paymentech. VeriSign filed an answer denying any infringement and asserting that the three asserted patents are invalid and later filed an amended answer asserting, in addition, that the asserted patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The complaint alleges that VeriSign’s Payflow payment products and services directly infringe certain claims of NetMoneyIN’s three patents and requests 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 recently dropped its allegations of infringement of the ‘584 patent. Also, the original lead counsel for NetMoneyIN has withdrawn from the case, and NetMoneyIN has hired new counsel. Fact discovery is now closed and the Court has held a Markman hearing and taken the patent claim construction issues under advisement. VeriSign has filed a motion seeking summary judgment of no indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. Sections 271 b and 271 c (i.e., no inducement of others to infringe and no contributory infringement). Several other defendants have filed similar motions. Briefing is not yet complete on these motions. While we cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit, VeriSign believes that the allegations are without merit.

Beginning in May of 2002, several class action complaints were filed against VeriSign and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. These actions were consolidated under the heading In re VeriSign, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-02-2270 JW(HRL), on July 26, 2002. The consolidated action seeks unspecified damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a class of persons who purchased VeriSign stock from January 25, 2001 through April 25, 2002. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on November 8, 2002. On April 14, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint. On May 5, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that is substantially identical to the amended consolidated complaint except that it purports to add a claim under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a subclass of persons who acquired shares of VeriSign pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus filed October 10, 2001 and amended October 26, 2001 for the acquisition of Illuminet Holdings, Inc. by VeriSign.

Parallel derivative actions have also been filed against certain of VeriSign’s current and former officers and directors in state courts in California and Delaware. VeriSign is named as a nominal defendant in these actions. Several of these derivative actions were filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court of California and these actions have since been consolidated under the heading In re VeriSign, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. CV 807719.

The consolidated derivative action seeks unspecified damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of the California Corporations Code. Defendants’ demurrer to these claims was granted with leave to amend on February 4, 2003. Plaintiffs have indicated their intention to file an amended complaint. Another

64

Table of Contents

derivative action was filed in the Court of Chancery New Castle County, Delaware, Case No. 19700-NC, alleging similar breaches of fiduciary duty. Defendants’ motion to dismiss these claims was granted by the Court of Chancery with prejudice on September 30, 2003.

VeriSign and the individual defendants dispute all of these claims.

On August 27, 2004, VeriSign filed a lawsuit against ICANN in the Superior Court of the State of California Los Angeles County. The lawsuit alleges that ICANN breached its .com Registry Agreement with VeriSign, including, without limitation, by overstepping its contractual authority and improperly attempting to regulate our business. The complaint seeks, among other things, specific performance of the .com Registry Agreement, an injunction prohibiting ICANN from improperly regulating VeriSign, and monetary damages. On November 12, 2004, ICANN filed an answer denying VeriSign’s claims and a cross-complaint against VeriSign for declaratory relief and breach of the .com Registry Agreement, alleging that VeriSign’s introduction of new services breached the .com Agreement. ICANN seeks a declaration from the court that it has acted in compliance with the parties’ contractual obligations with regard to the .com registry; that VeriSign has breached the parties’ agreement through VeriSign’s actions with respect to, among other things, SiteFinder; and that ICANN has the right to terminate the .com registry agreement if VeriSign offers “Registry Services” without ICANN’s approval, including among others SiteFinder. On December 28, 2004, VeriSign filed an answer denying the claims in ICANN’s cross-complaint and a cross-complaint against ICANN for breach of contract, violation of the unfair competition laws, and declaratory relief, alleging, among other things, that ICANN’s accreditation of “thread” registrars is improper and causes direct injury to VeriSign. On February 14, 2005, ICANN filed an answer to VeriSign’s cross-complaint denying VeriSign’s allegations. VeriSign cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or the affect it will have on our relationship with ICANN.

On or about November 12, 2004, ICANN filed a Request for Arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration (the “ICC”) alleging that VeriSign violated its .net Registry Agreement with ICANN when, among other things, VeriSign operated the SiteFinder service without ICANN approval. ICANN seeks a declaration from the ICC that it has acted in compliance with the parties’ contractual obligations with regard to the .net registry; that VeriSign has breached the parties’ agreement through VeriSign’s actions with respect to, among other things, SiteFinder; and that ICANN has the right to terminate the .net registry agreement if VeriSign offers “Registry Services” without ICANN’s approval, including among others SiteFinder. ICANN also seeks a declaration that, in evaluating VeriSign’s bid to become the “successor” registry operator for the .net top level domain after the term of the current agreement expires on or about June 30, 2005, ICANN is entitled to consider VeriSign’s alleged breaches of the existing .net agreement. VeriSign cannot predict the outcome of this action or the affect this lawsuit will have on our relationship with ICANN.

On January 18, 2005, VeriSign filed a request for arbitration before the ICC against ICANN regarding the process by which ICANN solicited and reviewed bids from companies, including VeriSign, to become the “successor” registry operator for the .net top level domain after the current registry agreement expires on or about June 30, 2005. VeriSign alleges that the “request for proposal” (“RFP”) process constitutes a breach of the current .net registry agreement because, among other things, the RFP process fails to constitute an open and transparent process by which ICANN can reasonably select the best qualified successor to operate the .net registry and does not constitute a valid “consensus policy” as defined in the current .net agreement. ICANN has not yet responded to our arbitration request. On June 8, 2005, ICANN announced that it had selected VeriSign as the “successor” registry operator for the .net top level domain, and ICANN and VeriSign have entered into a contract to confirm that selection. VeriSign anticipates that its selection as the .net registry operator will resolve its request for arbitration.

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 our 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. VeriSign disputes these claims. While we cannot predict the outcome of this matter, VeriSign believes that the allegations are without merit.

65

Table of Contents

On March 8, 2005, plaintiff Charles Ford filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, false advertising, and violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and unfair competition laws relating to marketing and advertising of mobile phone “ringtones” and other content by VeriSign’s subsidiaries, Jamster International Sarl and Jamba! GmbH. The complaint is brought on behalf of classes of persons who responded to advertising by sending a text message on their mobile phones or registered over the Internet to purchase ringtone or other content. On April 18, 2005, VeriSign removed the action to the federal district court for the Southern District of California. VeriSign disputes the claims in this action. While we cannot predict the outcome of this matter, VeriSign believes that the allegations are without merit.

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 application and related hardware and software products and its Unified Authentication solution and related hardware and software products” 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. Prism Technologies has also named RSA Security, Inc., Netegrity, Inc. Computer Associates International, Inc and Johnson & Johnson as co-defendants. VeriSign responded on June 6, 2005 by filing a counterclaim for declaratory relief and an answer denying any infringement and asserting that the patent is invalid. The Court has not yet scheduled an initial scheduling conference or entered a scheduling order. While we cannot predict the outcome of this matter, VeriSign believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

On June 2, 2005, the company received an access letter from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for information to determine whether VeriSign, using the trade name Jamster, was engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act in its advertising, offering and billing for mobile content services and products.

We currently are responding to inquiries in the United Kingdom by the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services and the Advertising Standards Authority, two advertising industry regulatory bodies reviewing the television and print advertising practices of Jamba! and Jamster.

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