Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 6 — Commitments and Contingencies Refer to Note 15 of the Company’s audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2018, which is included as Exhibit 13.1 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, 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 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. On January 29, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part ProPay’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claim that ProPay was unjustly enriched by the alleged TelexFree fraud, but denied ProPay’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim that ProPay allegedly aided and abetted TelexFree’s purported scheme. The court’s ruling does not reflect any determination of the merits of the plaintiffs’ aiding and abetting claim against ProPay, but instead is merely a ruling that the plaintiffs have alleged facts that could potentially entitle them to relief from ProPay if those facts were true. ProPay denies that it had any knowledge of TelexFree’s alleged fraud or that it aided and abetted that fraud in any way. After deciding the motions to dismiss filed by ProPay and some of the other defendants in the litigation, the court lifted the stay on discovery that had been in place since the outset of the Consolidated Action. Approximately 50 defendants remain in the litigation. The Court held a scheduling conference on March 20, 2019, but has not yet entered an order setting the case schedule. 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. While the Company and ProPay intend to vigorously defend the Consolidated Action and other 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. TSYS and Global Payments Merger Litigation As of the date of this report, three putative class action lawsuits challenging the Merger have been filed. Two of these lawsuits, captioned Peters v. Total System Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00114) and Wolf v. Total System Services, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00115), were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on July 18, 2019. The third lawsuit, captioned Drulias v. Global Payments Inc., et. al (Case No. 60774/2019) was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester on July 19, 2019. In addition, a lawsuit challenging the Merger on behalf of an individual plaintiff captioned Hickey v. Total System Services, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-03337-LMM) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on July 23, 2019. The Peters lawsuit names as defendants TSYS, the current members of the TSYS board of directors and certain former members of the TSYS board of directors. The Wolf lawsuit names as defendants TSYS, members of the TSYS board of directors and Global Payments. The Drulias lawsuit names as defendants Global Payments and members of its board. The Hickey lawsuit names as defendants TSYS and the members of the TSYS board of directors. The complaints filed in the lawsuits assert, among other things, claims for filing a materially incomplete registration statement with the SEC. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits seek, among other things, an injunction barring the Merger, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages, and an award of damages and attorney’s fees. TSYS believes that the claims asserted in the lawsuits are without merit.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

Note 6 — Commitments and Contingencies

Refer to Note 15 of the Company’s audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2018, which is included as Exhibit 13.1 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, 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 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.

On January 29, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part ProPay’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claim that ProPay was unjustly enriched by the alleged TelexFree fraud, but denied ProPay’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim that ProPay allegedly aided and abetted TelexFree’s purported scheme. The court’s ruling does not reflect any determination of the merits of the plaintiffs’ aiding and abetting claim against ProPay, but instead is merely a ruling that the plaintiffs have alleged facts that could potentially entitle them to relief from ProPay if those facts were true. ProPay denies that it had any knowledge of TelexFree’s alleged fraud or that it aided and abetted that fraud in any way.

After deciding the motions to dismiss filed by ProPay and some of the other defendants in the litigation, the court lifted the stay on discovery that had been in place since the outset of the Consolidated Action. Approximately 50 defendants remain in the litigation. The Court held a scheduling conference on March 20, 2019, but has not yet entered an order setting the case schedule.

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.

While the Company and ProPay intend to vigorously defend the Consolidated Action and other 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.

TSYS and Global Payments Merger Litigation

As of the date of this report, three putative class action lawsuits challenging the Merger have been filed. Two of these lawsuits, captioned Peters v. Total System Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00114) and Wolf v. Total System Services, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00115), were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on July 18, 2019. The third lawsuit, captioned Drulias v. Global Payments Inc., et. al (Case No. 60774/2019) was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester on July 19, 2019.

In addition, a lawsuit challenging the Merger on behalf of an individual plaintiff captioned Hickey v. Total System Services, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-03337-LMM) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on July 23, 2019.

The Peters lawsuit names as defendants TSYS, the current members of the TSYS board of directors and certain former members of the TSYS board of directors. The Wolf lawsuit names as defendants TSYS, members of the TSYS board of directors and Global Payments. The Drulias lawsuit names as defendants Global Payments and members of its board. The Hickey lawsuit names as defendants TSYS and the members of the TSYS board of directors. The complaints filed in the lawsuits assert, among other things, claims for filing a materially incomplete registration statement with the SEC. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits seek, among other things, an injunction barring the Merger, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages, and an award of damages and attorney’s fees. TSYS believes that the claims asserted in the lawsuits are without merit.