Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 9 — Commitments and Contingencies Refer to Note 19 of the Company’s audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2012, which are included as Exhibit 13.1 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the SEC, for a discussion regarding commitments and contingencies. Legal Proceedings General The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims and is also subject to information requests, inquiries and investigations arising out of the ordinary conduct of its business. The Company establishes reserves for litigation and similar matters when those matters present loss contingencies that TSYS determines to be both probable and reasonably estimable in accordance with ASC 450, “Contingencies.” In the opinion of management, based on current knowledge and in part upon the advice of legal counsel, all matters not specifically discussed below are believed to be adequately covered by insurance, or, if not covered, the possibility of losses from such matters are believed to be remote or such matters are of such kind or involve such amounts that would not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company if disposed of unfavorably. Preliminary Settlement of Certain Litigation As previously disclosed, a putative class action entitled Koehler v. NetSpend Holdings, Inc. et. al. (the “Koehler action”) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on March 1, 2013 and a putative class action entitled Bushansky v. NetSpend Holdings, Inc. et al. (together with the Koehler action, the “Actions”) was filed in the District Court of Travis County, Texas on February 25, 2013, each in connection with TSYS’ proposed merger with NetSpend pursuant to the Merger Agreement. On May 21, 2013, the Delaware Chancery Court issued a memorandum opinion in the Koehler action denying the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which sought to enjoin a shareholder vote on the proposed merger. While TSYS and the other defendants believe that each of the Actions is without merit, in an effort to minimize the cost and expense of any litigation relating to such Actions, on May 29, 2013, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs regarding settlement of the Actions. In connection with the settlement contemplated by that agreement in principle, as set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), dated as of May 29, 2013, the Actions and all claims asserted therein will be dismissed. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, TSYS and/or NetSpend, where applicable, agreed (a) to make certain amendments to the Merger Agreement; (b) that, consistent with the terms of the Merger Agreement, prior to the receipt of approval of the NetSpend stockholders, NetSpend could furnish information to, and engage in discussions and negotiations with, third parties who make unsolicited bona fide acquisition proposals if certain conditions were met; (c) that the special meeting of NetSpend stockholders that was scheduled to be held on May 31, 2013 would be adjourned to June 18, 2013; (d) that NetSpend would not take certain positions with respect to any appraisal proceeding perfected under Delaware law; (e) that certain information would be provided to counsel for the plaintiffs in the Actions in connection with any perfected appraisal proceeding; and (e) without admitting that any of the claims in the Actions have merit or that any supplemental disclosure was required under any applicable statute, rule, regulation or law, that they would acknowledge that the filing and prosecution of the Actions were the cause, in whole or in part, of certain supplemental disclosures made in connection with the proposed merger. The parties to the MOU further agreed that their agreement in principle would be described in greater detail in a stipulation of settlement, which will be submitted to the Court of Chancery at the appropriate time. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by the agreement in principle.

Note 9 — Commitments and Contingencies

Refer to Note 19 of the Company’s audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2012, which are included as Exhibit 13.1 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the SEC, for a discussion regarding commitments and contingencies.

Legal Proceedings

General

The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims and is also subject to information requests, inquiries and investigations arising out of the ordinary conduct of its business. The Company establishes reserves for litigation and similar matters when those matters present loss contingencies that TSYS determines to be both probable and reasonably estimable in accordance with ASC 450, “Contingencies.” In the opinion of management, based on current knowledge and in part upon the advice of legal counsel, all matters not specifically discussed below are believed to be adequately covered by insurance, or, if not covered, the possibility of losses from such matters are believed to be remote or such matters are of such kind or involve such amounts that would not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company if disposed of unfavorably.

Preliminary Settlement of Certain Litigation

As previously disclosed, a putative class action entitled Koehler v. NetSpend Holdings, Inc. et. al. (the “Koehler action”) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on March 1, 2013 and a putative class action entitled Bushansky v. NetSpend Holdings, Inc. et al. (together with the Koehler action, the “Actions”) was filed in the District Court of Travis County, Texas on February 25, 2013, each in connection with TSYS’ proposed merger with NetSpend pursuant to the Merger Agreement. On May 21, 2013, the Delaware Chancery Court issued a memorandum opinion in the Koehler action denying the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which sought to enjoin a shareholder vote on the proposed merger.

While TSYS and the other defendants believe that each of the Actions is without merit, in an effort to minimize the cost and expense of any litigation relating to such Actions, on May 29, 2013, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs regarding settlement of the Actions. In connection with the settlement contemplated by that agreement in principle, as set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), dated as of May 29, 2013, the Actions and all claims asserted therein will be dismissed. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, TSYS and/or NetSpend, where applicable, agreed (a) to make certain amendments to the Merger Agreement; (b) that, consistent with the terms of the Merger Agreement, prior to the receipt of approval of the NetSpend stockholders, NetSpend could furnish information to, and engage in discussions and negotiations with, third parties who make unsolicited bona fide acquisition proposals if certain conditions were met; (c) that the special meeting of NetSpend stockholders that was scheduled to be held on May 31, 2013 would be adjourned to June 18, 2013; (d) that NetSpend would not take certain positions with respect to any appraisal proceeding perfected under Delaware law; (e) that certain information would be provided to counsel for the plaintiffs in the Actions in connection with any perfected appraisal proceeding; and (e) without admitting that any of the claims in the Actions have merit or that any supplemental disclosure was required under any applicable statute, rule, regulation or law, that they would acknowledge that the filing and prosecution of the Actions were the cause, in whole or in part, of certain supplemental disclosures made in connection with the proposed merger. The parties to the MOU further agreed that their agreement in principle would be described in greater detail in a stipulation of settlement, which will be submitted to the Court of Chancery at the appropriate time. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by the agreement in principle.