Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 10 — Commitments and Contingencies Refer to Note 14 of the Company’s audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2017, which is included as Exhibit 13.1 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the SEC, for a discussion regarding commitments and contingencies. Legal Proceedings 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 accruals for litigation and similar matters when those matters present loss contingencies that TSYS determines to be both probable and reasonably estimable in accordance with GAAP. Legal costs are expensed as incurred. 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. TelexFree Matter ProPay, Inc. (“ProPay”), a subsidiary of the Company, has been named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to the activities of TelexFree, Inc. and its affiliates and principals. TelexFree is a former merchant customer of ProPay. With regard to TelexFree, each purported class action lawsuit generally alleges that TelexFree engaged in an improper multi-tier marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone services. The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action complaints generally allege that the various merchant processor defendants, including ProPay, aided and abetted the improper activities of TelexFree. TelexFree filed for bankruptcy protection in Nevada. The bankruptcy proceeding was subsequently transferred to the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court. Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the following purported class action complaints relating to TelexFree: (i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No. BK-S-14-12524-ABL) (Bankr. D. Nev.); (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) (Bankr. D. Mass.); (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v. Telexelectric, LLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) (E.D.N.C.); (iv) Todd Cook v. TelexElectric LLP et al. (Case No. 2:14-CV-00134) (N.D. Ga.); (v) Felicia Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No. 1:14-cv-22405-DPG) (S.D. Fla.); (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere, et al. v. TelexElectric LLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO) (D. Mass.); (vii) Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et al. v. Telexfree, Inc. et al. (Case No. 14-04080) (Bankr. D. Mass); (viii) Magalhaes v. TelexFree, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-12437 (D. Mass.); (ix) Griffith v. Merrill et al., No. 14-CV-12058 (D. Mass.); (x) Abelgadir v. Telexelectric, LLP, No. 14-09857 (S.D.N.Y.); and (xi) Rita Dos Santos, v. TelexElectric, LLP et al., 2:15-cv-01906-NVW (D. Ariz.) (together, the “Actions”). On October 21, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) transferred and consolidated the Actions filed before that date to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “Consolidated Action”). The JPML subsequently transferred the remaining Actions to the Consolidated Action. The Consolidated Action is styled In Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation (4:14-md-02566-TSH) (D. Mass.). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint on March 31, 2015 and filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”) on April 30, 2015. The Second Amended Complaint, which supersedes the complaints filed prior to consolidation of the Actions, purports to bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased certain TelexFree “memberships” and suffered a “net loss” between January 1, 2012 and April 16, 2014. With respect to ProPay, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by TelexFree, and that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of providing payment processing services to TelexFree. Several defendants, including ProPay, moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on June 2, 2015. The court held a hearing on the motions to dismiss on November 2, 2015, but has not yet issued a ruling on the vast majority of the motions. The court did, however, deny the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Katia Wanzeler, the wife of one of the principals of TelexFree, in an order dated May 7, 2018. The court has not ruled on any motions to dismiss since that time. ProPay has also received various subpoenas, a seizure warrant and other inquiries requesting information regarding TelexFree from (i) the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Securities Division, (ii) United States Securities and Exchange Commission, (iii) US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and (iv) the bankruptcy Trustee of the Chapter 11 entities of TelexFree, Inc., TelexFree, LLC and TelexFree Financial, Inc. Pursuant to the seizure warrant served by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, ProPay delivered all funds associated with TelexFree held for chargeback and other purposes by ProPay to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In addition, ProPay received a notice of potential claim from the bankruptcy Trustee as a result of the relationship of ProPay with TelexFree and its affiliates. The above proceedings and actions are preliminary in nature. While the Company and ProPay intend to vigorously defend matters arising out of the relationship of ProPay with TelexFree and believe ProPay has substantial defenses related to these purported claims, the Company currently cannot reasonably estimate losses attributable to these matters.

Note 10 — Commitments and Contingencies

Refer to Note 14 of the Company’s audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2017, which is included as Exhibit 13.1 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the SEC, for a discussion regarding commitments and contingencies.

Legal Proceedings

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 accruals for litigation and similar matters when those matters present loss contingencies that TSYS determines to be both probable and reasonably estimable in accordance with GAAP. Legal costs are expensed as incurred. 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.

TelexFree Matter

ProPay, Inc. (“ProPay”), a subsidiary of the Company, has been named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to the activities of TelexFree, Inc. and its affiliates and principals. TelexFree is a former merchant customer of ProPay. With regard to TelexFree, each purported class action lawsuit generally alleges that TelexFree engaged in an improper multi-tier marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone services. The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action complaints generally allege that the various merchant processor defendants, including ProPay, aided and abetted the improper activities of TelexFree. TelexFree filed for bankruptcy protection in Nevada. The bankruptcy proceeding was subsequently transferred to the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court.

Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the following purported class action complaints relating to TelexFree: (i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No. BK-S-14-12524-ABL) (Bankr. D. Nev.); (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) (Bankr. D. Mass.); (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v. Telexelectric, LLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) (E.D.N.C.); (iv) Todd Cook v. TelexElectric LLP et al. (Case No. 2:14-CV-00134) (N.D. Ga.); (v) Felicia Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No. 1:14-cv-22405-DPG) (S.D. Fla.); (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere, et al. v. TelexElectric LLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO) (D. Mass.); (vii) Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et al. v. Telexfree, Inc. et al. (Case No. 14-04080) (Bankr. D. Mass); (viii) Magalhaes v. TelexFree, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-12437 (D. Mass.); (ix) Griffith v. Merrill et al., No. 14-CV-12058 (D. Mass.); (x) Abelgadir v. Telexelectric, LLP, No. 14-09857 (S.D.N.Y.); and (xi) Rita Dos Santos, v. TelexElectric, LLP et al., 2:15-cv-01906-NVW (D. Ariz.) (together, the “Actions”).

On October 21, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) transferred and consolidated the Actions filed before that date to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “Consolidated Action”). The JPML subsequently transferred the remaining Actions to the Consolidated Action. The Consolidated Action is styled In Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation (4:14-md-02566-TSH) (D. Mass.).

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint on March 31, 2015 and filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”) on April 30, 2015. The Second Amended Complaint, which supersedes the complaints filed prior to consolidation of the Actions, purports to bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased certain TelexFree “memberships” and suffered a “net loss” between January 1, 2012 and April 16, 2014. With respect to ProPay, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by TelexFree, and that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of providing payment processing services to TelexFree. Several defendants, including ProPay, moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on June 2, 2015. The court held a hearing on the motions to dismiss on November 2, 2015, but has not yet issued a ruling on the vast majority of the motions. The court did, however, deny the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Katia Wanzeler, the wife of one of the principals of TelexFree, in an order dated May 7, 2018. The court has not ruled on any motions to dismiss since that time.

ProPay has also received various subpoenas, a seizure warrant and other inquiries requesting information regarding TelexFree from (i) the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Securities Division, (ii) United States Securities and Exchange Commission, (iii) US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and (iv) the bankruptcy Trustee of the Chapter 11 entities of TelexFree, Inc., TelexFree, LLC and TelexFree Financial, Inc. Pursuant to the seizure warrant served by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, ProPay delivered all funds associated with TelexFree held for chargeback and other purposes by ProPay to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In addition, ProPay received a notice of potential claim from the bankruptcy Trustee as a result of the relationship of ProPay with TelexFree and its affiliates.

The above proceedings and actions are preliminary in nature. While the Company and ProPay intend to vigorously defend matters arising out of the relationship of ProPay with TelexFree and believe ProPay has substantial defenses related to these purported claims, the Company currently cannot reasonably estimate losses attributable to these matters.