Note 7. Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

The future minimum payments under non-cancelable leases for office buildings and equipment, sponsorships, licensing and other agreements at March 31, 2006 are as follows:

The table above excludes obligations from performance based agreements with our customers and merchants due to their contingent nature. Included in the table above are capital leases with imputed interest expense of $13,269 and a net present value of minimum lease payments of $41,224. At March 31, 2006, $50,007 of the future minimum payments in the table above for leases, sponsorship, licensing and other agreements was included in accounts payable or accrued expenses. Consolidated rental expense for the Company’s office space was approximately $7,966 and $7,805 for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Consolidated lease expense for automobiles, computer equipment and office equipment was $3,118 and $1,987 for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. In addition, the table above includes approximately $180,000 relating to a sponsorship agreement which the Company has sought to enforce through legal proceedings. Should the Company not succeed it would not be obligated to make payment.

MasterCard licenses certain software to its customers. The license agreements contain guarantees under which the Company indemnifies licensees from any adverse judgments arising from claims of intellectual property infringement by third parties. The terms of the guarantees are equal to the terms of the license to which they relate. The amount of the guarantees are limited to damages, losses, costs, expenses or other liabilities incurred by the licensee as a result of any intellectual property rights claims. The Company does not generate significant revenues from software licensing. The fair value of the guarantees is estimated to be negligible.

Note 8. U.S. Merchant Lawsuit and Other Legal Settlements

In 2003, MasterCard settled the U.S. merchant lawsuit described under the caption “U.S. Merchant Opt Out and Consumer Litigations” in Note 9 herein and contract disputes with certain customers. On June 4, 2003, MasterCard International and plaintiffs in the U.S. merchant lawsuit signed a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) which required the Company to pay $125,000 in 2003 and $100,000 annually each December from 2004 through 2012. In addition, in 2003, several other lawsuits were initiated by merchants who opted not to participate in the plaintiff class in the U.S. merchant lawsuit. The “opt-out” merchant lawsuits were not covered by the terms of the Settlement Agreement, however, all have been individually settled. As more fully described in Note 9 herein, MasterCard is also a party to a number of currency conversion litigations. Based upon litigation developments and settlement negotiations in these currency conversion cases and pursuant to Statement of Financial Standards No. 5, “Accounting for Contingencies”, MasterCard may need to revise its reserve of $89,270 based on future developments. During the three months ended March 31, 2006, total liabilities for the U.S. merchant lawsuit and other legal settlements changed as follows:

10

Table of Contents

MASTERCARD INCORPORATED

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) - continued

(In thousands, except per share and percent data)

Note 9. Legal and Regulatory Proceedings

MasterCard is a party to legal and regulatory proceedings with respect to a variety of matters in the ordinary course of business. Some of these proceedings involve complex claims that are subject to substantial uncertainties and unspecified damages, therefore, the probability of loss and an estimation of damages is not possible to ascertain at present. Accordingly, MasterCard has not established reserves for any of these proceedings other than for the currency conversion litigations. Except for those matters described below, MasterCard does not believe that any legal or regulatory proceedings to which it is a party would have a material impact on its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. Although MasterCard believes that it has strong defenses for the litigations and regulatory proceedings described below, it could in the future incur judgments or fines or enter into settlements of claims that could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Notwithstanding MasterCard’s belief, in the event it may be found liable in a large class-action lawsuit or on the basis of a claim entitling the plaintiff to treble damages or under which it was jointly and severally liable, charges it may be required to record could be significant and could materially and adversely affect its results of operations, cash flow and financial condition, or, in certain circumstances, even cause MasterCard to become insolvent. Moreover, an adverse outcome in a regulatory proceeding could lead to the filing of civil damage claims and possibly result in damage awards in amounts that could be significant and could materially and adversely affect its results of operations, cash flow and financial condition.

Department of Justice Antitrust Litigation and Related Private Litigation

In October 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed suit against MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc. and Visa International Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that both MasterCard’s and Visa’s governance structure and policies violated U.S. federal antitrust laws. First, the DOJ claimed that “dual governance”—the situation where a financial institution has a representative on the board of directors of MasterCard or Visa while a portion of its card portfolio is issued under the brand of the other association—was anti-competitive and acted to limit innovation within the payment card industry. Second, the DOJ challenged MasterCard’s Competitive Programs Policy (“CPP”) and a Visa bylaw provision that prohibited financial institutions participating in the respective associations from issuing competing proprietary payment cards (such as American Express or Discover). The DOJ alleged that MasterCard’s CPP and Visa’s bylaw provision acted to restrain competition.

On October 9, 2001, the District Court judge issued an opinion upholding the legality and pro-competitive nature of dual governance. However, the judge also held that MasterCard’s CPP and the Visa bylaw constituted unlawful restraints of trade under the federal antitrust laws.

On November 26, 2001, the judge issued a final judgment that ordered MasterCard to repeal the CPP insofar as it applies to issuers and enjoined MasterCard from enacting or enforcing any bylaw, rule, policy or practice that prohibits its issuers from issuing general purpose credit or debit cards in the United States on any other general purpose card network. The final judgment also provides that from the effective date of the final judgment (October 15, 2004) until October 15, 2006, MasterCard is required to permit any issuer with which it entered into such an agreement prior to the effective date of the final judgment to terminate that agreement without penalty, provided that the reason for the termination is to permit the issuer to enter into an agreement with American Express or Discover. The final judgment imposes parallel requirements on Visa.

MasterCard appealed the judge’s ruling with respect to the CPP. On September 17, 2003, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit issued its decision upholding the District Court’s decision. On October 4, 2004, the Supreme Court denied MasterCard’s petition for certiorari, thereby exhausting all avenues for further appeal in this case. Thereafter, the parties agreed that October 15, 2004 would serve as the effective date of the final judgment.

In addition, on September 18, 2003, MasterCard filed a motion before the District Court judge in this case seeking to enjoin Visa, pending completion of the appellate process, from enforcing a newly-enacted bylaw requiring Visa’s 100 largest issuers of debit cards in the United States to pay a so-called “settlement service” fee if

11

Table of Contents

MASTERCARD INCORPORATED

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) - continued

(In thousands, except per share and percent data)

they reduce their Visa debit volume by more than 10%. This bylaw was later modified to clarify that the settlement service fee would only be imposed if an issuer shifted its portfolio of debit cards to MasterCard. Visa implemented this bylaw provision following the settlement of the U.S. merchant lawsuit described under the heading “U.S. Merchant Opt Out and Consumer Litigations” below. MasterCard believes that this bylaw is punitive and violates the final judgment in the DOJ litigation, which enjoins Visa and MasterCard from enacting, maintaining, or enforcing any bylaw or policy that prohibits issuers from issuing general purpose cards or debit cards in the United States on any other general purpose card network. On December 8, 2003, the District Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction while the appellate process in the DOJ litigation was pending. In light of the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari on October 4, 2004, jurisdiction was again vested with the District Court. On January 10, 2005, MasterCard renewed its challenge to the bylaw in the District Court, seeking to enjoin Visa from maintaining or enforcing the bylaw and requiring Visa to offer its top 100 offline issuers a right to rescind any debit card agreements entered into with Visa while the settlement service fee was in effect. The motion was fully briefed on June 3, 2005. On August 18, 2005, the Court issued an order appointing a special master to conduct an evidentiary hearing and then issue a report and recommendation as to whether the settlement service fee violates the Court’s final judgment. The hearing on MasterCard’s motion was completed on December 9, 2005 and post-hearing briefing by the parties was completed on February 10, 2006. Having heard oral arguments, the special master is currently preparing his report and recommendations to the Court. If MasterCard is unsuccessful and Visa is permitted to impose this settlement service fee on issuers of debit cards according to this bylaw, it could inhibit the growth of our debit business. At this time it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of this matter.

On October 4, 2004, Discover Financial Services, Inc. filed a complaint against MasterCard, Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Services Association. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and was designated as a related case to the DOJ litigation, and was assigned to the same judge who issued the DOJ decision described above. The complaint alleges that the implementation and enforcement of MasterCard’s CPP and Visa’s bylaw provision as well as MasterCard’s “Honor All Cards” rule (and a similar Visa rule), which require merchants who accept MasterCard cards to accept for payment every validly presented MasterCard card, violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act as well as California’s Unfair Competition Act in an alleged market for general purpose card network services and an alleged market for debit card network services. The complaint also challenged MasterCard’s “no surcharge rule” (and a similar Visa rule) under the same statutes. On December 10, 2004, MasterCard moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim. In lieu of filing its opposition papers to MasterCard’s motion, Discover filed an amended complaint on January 7, 2005. In the amended complaint, Discover dropped some of its claims, including its challenge against the no surcharge rule and its claims under California’s Unfair Competition Act, but continued to allege that the implementation and enforcement of MasterCard’s CPP, Visa’s bylaw provision and the Honor All Cards rule violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, Discover claimed that MasterCard’s CPP unreasonably restrained trade by prohibiting financial institutions who were members of MasterCard from issuing payment cards on the Discover network. Discover requested that the District Court apply collateral estoppel with respect to its final judgment in the DOJ litigation and enter an order that the CPP and Visa’s bylaw provision have injured competition and caused injury to Discover. Discover seeks treble damages in an amount to be proved at trial along with attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 7, 2005, MasterCard moved to dismiss Discover’s amended complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim. On April 14, 2005, the District Court denied, at this stage in the litigation, Discover’s request to give collateral estoppel effect to the findings in the DOJ litigation. However, the District Court indicated that Discover may refile a motion for collateral estoppel after discovery. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a court has the discretion to preclude one or more issues from being relitigated in a subsequent action but only if (1) those issues are identical to issues actually litigated and determined in the prior action, (2) proof of those issues were necessary to reach the prior judgment, and (3) the party to be estopped had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues in the prior action. Accordingly, if the District Court were to give effect to collateral estoppel on one or more issues in the future, then significant elements of plaintiff’s claims would be established, thereby making it more likely that we would be found liable and making the possibility of an award of damages that much more likely. In the event all issues are subsequently decided against MasterCard in dispositive motions during the course of the litigation then there is the possibility that the sole issue remaining will be whether a damage award is appropriate and, if so, what the amount of damages should be. In addition, that same day and in subsequent rulings, with respect to the market for general purpose card network services, the District Court denied MasterCard’s motion to dismiss Discover’s Section 1 conspiracy to restrain trade and Section 2 conspiracy to monopolize or maintain a monopoly claims that were based upon the conduct described above. On October 24, 2005, the District Court granted MasterCard’s motion to dismiss Discover’s Section 2 monopolization and attempted monopolization claims against MasterCard. On November 9, 2005, the Court denied MasterCard’s motion to dismiss Discover’s claims based

12

Table of Contents

MASTERCARD INCORPORATED

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) - continued

(In thousands, except per share and percent data)

upon effects in an alleged debit market. On November 30, 2005, MasterCard filed an answer to the amended complaint. On February 1, 2006, the District Court issued a case management order establishing a discovery schedule for this action, which ordered that fact discovery shall be completed by February 1, 2007, and scheduled a status conference for January 4, 2007 to discuss any remaining discovery issues, including expert discovery, as well as the timing of collateral estoppel motions. At this time it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, the Discover litigation. No provision for losses has been provided in connection with this matter.

On November 15, 2004, American Express filed a complaint against MasterCard, Visa and eight member banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Capital One Financial Corp., U.S. Bancorp, Household International Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., Providian Financial Corp. and USAA Federal Savings Bank. Subsequently, USAA Federal Savings Bank, Bank of America Corp. and Household International Inc. announced settlements with American Express and have been dismissed from the case. The complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, was designated as a related case to the DOJ litigation and was assigned to the same judge. The complaint alleges that the implementation and enforcement of MasterCard’s CPP and Visa’s bylaw provision violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act in an alleged market for general purpose card network services and a market for debit card network services. Specifically, American Express claimed that MasterCard’s CPP unreasonably restrained trade by prohibiting financial institutions who were members of MasterCard from issuing payment cards on the American Express network. American Express seeks treble damages in an amount to be proved at trial, along with attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 14, 2005, MasterCard filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. American Express also requested that the Court apply collateral estoppel with respect to its final judgment in the DOJ litigation. On April 14, 2005, the District Court denied, at this stage in the litigation, American Express’ request to give collateral estoppel effect to the findings in the DOJ litigation. However, the Court indicated that American Express may refile a motion for collateral estoppel after discovery. As with the lawsuit brought by Discover that is described in the preceding paragraph, if the Court were to give effect to collateral estoppel on one or more issues in the future, then significant elements of plaintiff’s claims would be established, thereby making it more likely that we would be found liable and making the possibility of an award of damages that much more likely. In the event all issues are subsequently decided against MasterCard in dispositive motions during the course of the litigation then there is the possibility that the sole issue remaining will be whether a damage award is appropriate and, if so, what the amount of damages should be. In addition, that same day and in subsequent rulings, the Court denied MasterCard’s motion to dismiss American Express’ Section 1 conspiracy to restrain trade claims and Section 2 conspiracy to monopolize claims that were based upon the conduct described above. On November 9, 2005, the Court denied MasterCard’s motion to dismiss American Express’ conspiracy to restrain trade claims in the alleged market for debit card network services. On November 30, 2005, MasterCard filed an answer to the complaint. On February 1, 2006, the Court issued a case management order establishing a discovery schedule for this action, which ordered that fact discovery shall be completed by February 1, 2007, and scheduled a status conference for January 4, 2007 to discuss any remaining discovery issues, including expert discovery, as well as the timing of collateral estoppel motions. At this time it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, this matter. No provision for losses has been provided in connection with the American Express litigation.

Currency Conversion Litigations

MasterCard International, together with Visa U.S.A., Inc. and Visa International Corp., are defendants in a state court lawsuit in California. The lawsuit alleges that MasterCard and Visa wrongfully imposed an asserted one percent currency conversion “fee” on every credit card transaction by U.S. MasterCard and Visa cardholders involving the purchase of goods or services in a foreign country, and that such alleged “fee” is unlawful. This action, titled Schwartz v. Visa Int’l Corp., et al ., was brought in the Superior Court of California in February 2000, purportedly on behalf of the general public. Trial of the Schwartz matter commenced on May 20, 2002 and concluded on November 27, 2002. The Schwartz action claims that the alleged “fee” grossly exceeds any costs the defendants might incur in connection with currency conversions relating to credit card purchase transactions made in foreign countries and is not properly disclosed to cardholders. MasterCard denies these allegations.

On April 8, 2003, the trial court judge issued a final decision in the Schwartz matter. In his decision, the trial judge found that MasterCard’s currency conversion process does not violate the Truth in Lending Act or regulations, nor is it unconscionably priced under California law. However, the judge found that the practice is deceptive under

13

Table of Contents

MASTERCARD INCORPORATED

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) - continued

(In thousands, except per share and percent data)

California law, and ordered that MasterCard mandate that members disclose the currency conversion process to cardholders in cardholder agreements, applications, solicitations and monthly billing statements. As to MasterCard, the judge also ordered restitution to California cardholders. The judge issued a decision on restitution on September 19, 2003, which requires a traditional notice and claims process in which consumers have approximately six months to submit their claims. The court issued its final judgment on October 31, 2003. On December 29, 2003, MasterCard appealed the judgment. The final judgment and restitution process have been stayed pending MasterCard’s appeal. On August 6, 2004 the court awarded plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in the amount of $28,224 to be paid equally by MasterCard and Visa. Accordingly, during the three months ended September 30, 2004, MasterCard accrued amounts totaling $14,112 which are included in U.S. Merchant Lawsuit and Other Legal Settlements in the Consolidated Statements of Operations (see Note 8). MasterCard subsequently filed a notice of appeal on the attorneys’ fee award on October 1, 2004. With respect to restitution, MasterCard believes that it is likely to prevail on appeal. In February 2005, MasterCard filed an appeal regarding the applicability of Proposition 64, which amended sections 17203 and 17204 of the California Business and Professions Code, to this action. On September 28, 2005, the appellate court reversed the trial court, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the action in light of Proposition 64. Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court on November 7, 2005, which was granted on December 14, 2005. The California Supreme Court has deferred from taking further action pending consideration and disposition of related issues with the court.

In addition, MasterCard has been served with complaints in state courts in New York, Arizona, Texas, Florida, Arkansas, Illinois, Tennessee, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota and Missouri seeking to, in effect, extend the judge’s decision in the Schwartz matter to MasterCard cardholders outside of California. Some of these cases have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and combined with the federal complaints in MDL No. 1409 discussed below. In other state court cases, MasterCard has moved to dismiss the claims. On February 1, 2005 a Michigan action was dismissed with prejudice and on April 12, 2005, the plaintiff agreed to withdraw his appeal of that decision. On June 24, 2005, a Minnesota action was dismissed with prejudice; however, plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 15, 2005. On August 31, 2005, an Illinois action was dismissed with prejudice; plaintiff filed an appeal on February 6, 2006. Briefing is not complete and no date for oral argument has been set. On September 7, 2005, a Texas state court granted MasterCard’s motion to arbitrate, and plaintiff subsequently filed notice that he was withdrawing his lawsuit against MasterCard for all claims. MasterCard has also been served with complaints in state courts in California, Texas and New York alleging it wrongfully imposed an asserted one percent currency conversion “fee” in every debit card transaction by U.S. MasterCard cardholders involving the purchase of goods or services or withdrawal of cash in a foreign country and that such alleged “fee” is unlawful. Visa USA Inc. and Visa International Corp. have been named as co-defendants in the California cases. One such Texas case was dismissed voluntarily by plaintiffs. Stipulated temporary stay orders have been entered in actions in the following state courts: Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Tennessee.

MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corp., several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A. (USA), MBNA, and Citicorp Diners Club Inc. are also defendants in a number of federal putative class actions that allege, among other things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the asserted one percent currency conversion “fee.” Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the federal complaints have been consolidated in MDL No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint (“MDL Complaint”) adding MBNA Corporation and MBNA America Bank, N.A. as defendants. This pleading asserts two theories of antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act: (i) an alleged “inter-association” conspiracy among MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency conversion “fees” allegedly charged to cardholders of “no less than 1% of the transaction amount and frequently more;” and (ii) two alleged “intra-association” conspiracies, whereby each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to have conspired with its members to fix currency conversion “fees” allegedly charged to cardholders of “no less than 1% of the transaction amount” and “to facilitate and encourage institution—and collection—of second tier currency conversion surcharges.” The MDL Complaint also asserts that the alleged currency conversion “fees” have not been disclosed as required by the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the MDL Complaint. On July 3, 2003, Judge Pauley issued a decision granting MasterCard’s motion to dismiss in part. Judge Pauley dismissed the Truth in Lending claims in their

14

Table of Contents

MASTERCARD INCORPORATED

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) - continued

(In thousands, except per share and percent data)

entirety as against MasterCard, Visa and several of the member bank defendants. Judge Pauley did not dismiss the antitrust claims. Fact and expert discovery in this matter have closed. On November 12, 2003 plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was granted on October 15, 2004. On March 9, 2005, Judge Pauley issued a decision on defendants’ motion to reconsider the class certification decision. The Judge ruled that the arbitration provisions in the cardholder agreements of member bank defendants, Bank One, MBNA, Providian, Household and Bank of America are valid as to those respective banks and MasterCard and, consequently, cardholders of those banks can no longer participate in the class action certified in his earlier decision and must pursue any claims through arbitration. Plaintiffs moved for further reconsideration, which was denied by Judge Pauley on June 16, 2005. In addition, Judge Pauley declined to give effect to the arbitration clauses in the Citibank and Chase cardholder agreements; both banks have appealed that decision. Briefing on the appeal is complete but no date has been set for oral argument. The trial date has been set for May 15, 2006. On March 29, 2006, Judge Pauley entered an order suspending all briefing obligations until May 15, 2006 or until further consent order.

Based upon litigation developments, certain of which were favorable to MasterCard and progress in ongoing settlement discussions in these currency conversion cases that occurred during the third and fourth quarters of 2005 and the first quarter of 2006, and pursuant to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5, “Accounting for Contingencies,” MasterCard recorded an additional $75,158 of legal reserves in 2005. As a result of this additional provision, MasterCard has now established total legal reserves of $89,270 in connection with these currency conversion cases. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolutions of these matters.

Merchant Chargeback-Related Litigations

On May 12, 2003, a complaint alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, breach of contract, fraud and other theories was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles) against MasterCard by a merchant aggregator whose customers include businesses selling adult entertainment content over the Internet. The complaint’s allegations focus on MasterCard’s past and potential future assessments on the plaintiff’s merchant bank (acquirer) for exceeding excessive chargeback standards in connection with the plaintiff’s transaction activity as well as the effect of MasterCard’s chargeback rules and other practices on “card-not-present” merchants. Chargebacks refer to a situation where a transaction is returned, or charged back, to an acquirer by an issuer at the request of cardholders or for other reasons. Prior to MasterCard filing any motion or responsive pleading, the plaintiff filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice on December 5, 2003. On the same date, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York making similar allegations to those made in its initial California complaint. MasterCard moved to dismiss all of the claims in the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. On March 30, 2005 the judge granted MasterCard’s motion and dismissed all of the claims in the complaint. On April 11, 2005, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s order. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on November 22, 2005. The parties are awaiting a decision.

In addition, on June 6, 2003, an action titled California Law Institute v. Visa U.S.A., et al . was initiated against MasterCard and Visa U.S.A., Inc. in the Superior Court of California, purportedly on behalf of the general public. Plaintiff seeks disgorgement, restitution and injunctive relief for unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of California Unfair Trade Practices Act Section 17200, et. seq. Plaintiff purportedly alleges that MasterCard’s (and Visa’s) chargeback fees are unfair and punitive in nature. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief preventing MasterCard from continuing to engage in its chargeback practices and requiring MasterCard to provide restitution and/or disgorgement for monies improperly obtained by virtue of them. On June 10, 2005, MasterCard filed a motion requesting that the court bifurcate and decide certain dispositive issues to be tried separately. On December 8, 2005, the court indicated that it would stay the motion and all proceedings indefinitely, pending an opinion from the California Supreme Court in an unrelated case regarding standing requirements under Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code that may be dispositive in the instant action.

On September 20, 2004, MasterCard was served with a complaint titled PSW Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc ., MasterCard International Incorporated, et. al., No. 04-347, in the District Court of Rhode Island. The plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint, provided credit card billing services primarily for adult content web sites. The plaintiff alleges defendants’ excessive chargeback standards, exclusionary rules, merchant registration programs, cross-border acquiring rules and interchange pricing to internet merchants violate federal and state antitrust laws as well as state contract and tort law. The plaintiff seeks $60,000 in compensatory damages as well as $180,000 in punitive

15

Table of Contents

MASTERCARD INCORPORATED

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) - continued

(In thousands, except per share and percent data)

damages. On November 24, 2004, MasterCard moved to dismiss the complaint. Prior to the court ruling on MasterCard’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 6, 2005. This complaint generally mirrors the original complaint but includes additional causes of action based on the purported deprivation of plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. On May 20, 2005, MasterCard moved to dismiss all of PSW’s claims in the complaint for failure to state a claim and argument on the motion before a magistrate judge was held on November 2, 2005. On February 3, 2006, the magistrate issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended the dismissal of plaintiffs’ antitrust claims, First Amendment claim, and state law claims for conversion, embezzlement, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. However, the magistrate’s report also recommended that MasterCard’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations be denied. On February 28, 2006, the District Court adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation. On March 22, 2006, MasterCard filed an answer to the complaint. The District Court has scheduled discovery to conclude on September 15, 2006.

At this time it is not possible to determine the outcome of, or, except as indicated above in the PSW litigation, estimate the liability related to, the merchant chargeback-related litigations. No provision for losses has been provided in connection with these litigations.

U.S. Merchant Opt Out and Consumer Litigations

Commencing in October 1996, several class action suits were brought by a number of U.S. merchants against MasterCard International and Visa U.S.A., Inc. challenging certain aspects of the payment card industry under U.S. federal antitrust law. Those suits were later consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs claimed that MasterCard’s “Honor All Cards” rule (and a similar Visa rule), which required merchants who accept MasterCard cards to accept for payment every validly presented MasterCard card, constituted an illegal tying arrangement in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs claimed that MasterCard and Visa unlawfully tied acceptance of debit cards to acceptance of credit cards. The plaintiffs also claimed that MasterCard and Visa conspired to monopolize what they characterized as the point-of-sale debit card market, thereby suppressing the growth of regional networks such as ATM payment systems. On June 4, 2003, MasterCard International signed a settlement agreement to settle the claims brought by the plaintiffs in this matter, which the Court approved on December 19, 2003. For a description of the settlement agreement, see Note 8. A number of class members have appealed the District Court’s approval of the settlement. These appeals largely focused on the court’s attorneys’ fees award as well on the court’s ruling on the scope of the release set forth in the settlement agreement. On January 4, 2005, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order affirming the District Court’s approval of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the settlement is now final.

Several lawsuits were commenced by merchants who opted not to participate in the plaintiff class in the U.S. merchant lawsuit, including Best Buy Stores, CVS, Giant Eagle, Home Depot, Toys “R” Us and Darden Restaurants (collectively, the “Opt Out Plaintiffs”). The majority of these cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. MasterCard has entered into separate settlement agreements with each of the Opt Out Plaintiffs resolving their claims against MasterCard. The District Court has entered orders dismissing with prejudice each of the Opt Out Plaintiff’s complaints against MasterCard.

In addition, individual or multiple complaints have been brought in 19 different states and the District of Columbia alleging state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against MasterCard International (and Visa) on behalf of putative classes of consumers. The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the U.S. merchant lawsuit and assert that merchants, faced with excessive merchant discount fees, have passed these overcharges to consumers in the form of higher prices on goods and services sold. MasterCard has been successful in the majority of these cases as courts have granted MasterCard’s motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim or plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their complaints. Specifically, courts in Arizona, Iowa, New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Maine, North Dakota, Kansas, North Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin, Florida, Nevada and the District of Columbia have granted MasterCard’s motions and dismissed the complaints with prejudice. Plaintiffs have outstanding appeals of these dismissals in Nebraska and Iowa. In addition, there are outstanding cases in the District of Columbia, New Mexico, Tennessee, California and West Virginia. The parties are awaiting decisions on MasterCard’s motion to dismiss in New Mexico and the District of Columbia. The courts in Tennessee and California have granted MasterCard’s motion to dismiss the

16

Table of Contents

MASTERCARD INCORPORATED

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) - continued

(In thousands, except per share and percent data)

respective state unfair competition claims but have denied MasterCard’s motions with respect to unjust enrichment claims in Tennessee and Section 17200 claims for unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices in California. Both parties have appealed the Tennessee decisions. On March 27, 2006, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the state unfair competition claims. In addition, it reversed the lower court’s denial of MasterCard’s motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims and remanded the case to the lower court for the dismissal of the entire case. The West Virginia Circuit Court denied MasterCard’s motion for summary judgment. On February 14, 2006, MasterCard answered the West Virginia complaint. The parties in West Virginia are currently negotiating a protective order before moving forward with discovery.

On March 14, 2005, MasterCard was served with a complaint that was filed in Ohio state court on behalf of a putative class of consumers under Ohio state unfair competition law. The claims in this action mirror those in the consumer actions described above but also name as co-defendants a purported class of merchants who were class members in the U.S. merchant lawsuit. Plaintiffs allege that Visa, MasterCard and the class members of the U.S. merchant lawsuit conspired to attempt to monopolize the debit card market by tying debit card acceptance to credit card acceptance. On October 7, 2005, plaintiffs filed a voluntary notice of dismissal of their complaint.

On April 29, 2005, a complaint was filed in California state court on behalf of a putative class of consumers under California unfair competition law (Section 17200) and the Cartwright Act. The claims in this action seek to piggyback on the portion of the DOJ antitrust litigation in which the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that MasterCard’s CPP and Visa’s bylaw constitute unlawful restraints of trade under the federal antitrust laws. See “— Department of Justice Antitrust Litigation and Related Private Litigation.” On July 15, 2005, MasterCard and Visa jointly moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim. On November 2, 2005, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On December 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On January 24, 2006, MasterCard and Visa jointly moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim. On March 10, 2006, plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants’ motion. On April 19, 2006, the court heard oral argument and dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ Cartwright Act claims. However, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Section 17200 unfair competition claims. MasterCard’s time in which to file an answer to the complaint is currently running. The court has scheduled a case management conference for June 21, 2006.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the outcome of, or estimate the liability related to, these consumer cases and no provision for losses has been provided in connection with them. The consumer class actions are not covered by the terms of the settlement agreement in the U.S. merchant lawsuit.

Privasys Litigation

An action was filed against MasterCard International in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 12, 2005 by Privasys, Inc. alleging misappropriation of purported trade secrets relating to aspects of the technology used for MasterCard’s PayPass contactless cards. Privasys sought to add a Privasys employee as a co-inventor of a MasterCard patent and injunctive relief against MasterCard’s alleged misappropriation of trade secrets.

On October 3, 2005, MasterCard filed suit against Privasys in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a declaration that (1) there was no need to correct the inventorship of the MasterCard patent, (2) MasterCard has not misappropriated any trade secrets of Privasys, to the extent that any exist, (3) a non-disclosure agreement between Privasys and MasterCard is void and unenforceable and that MasterCard had not breached the non-disclosure agreement or the terms of an exclusive marketing agreement between the parties. MasterCard also alleged breach of the marketing agreement by Privasys.

On October 14, 2005, MasterCard filed a motion to dismiss or transfer the California action on the grounds that the marketing agreement contained a forum selection clause specifying the New York courts as the exclusive venue for all disputes between the parties and that the marketing agreement superseded the non-disclosure agreement. On December 2, 2005, the U.S. District Court granted MasterCard’s motion and dismissed the California action.

On November 14, 2005, Privasys filed counterclaims against MasterCard in the New York action alleging breach of the marketing agreement, fraud and deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, unjust enrichment and monopolization and attempted monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. In its

17

Table of Contents

MASTERCARD INCORPORATED

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) - continued

(In thousands, except per share and percent data)

counterclaims, Privasys included the subject matter of additional patent applications filed by MasterCard allegedly relating to PayPass, and added allegations that MasterCard had fraudulently induced Privasys to enter into the marketing agreement and subsequently frustrated Privasys’ performance under the marketing agreement.

On December 21, 2005, MasterCard filed a motion to dismiss Privasys’ antitrust, fraud and related counterclaims. On January 18, 2006, Privasys amended its counterclaims, omitting the antitrust claim and certain duplicative claims, but retaining other claims against MasterCard, including causes of action for fraud and deceit, MasterCard has replied, denying any wrongdoing. The District Court has scheduled a status conference for May 12, 2006.

The parties are in the early stages of discovery in the Privasys litigation and at this time it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, this matter. No provision for losses has been provided in connection with the Privasys litigation.

Global Interchange Proceedings

Interchange fees represent a sharing of payment system costs among the financial institutions participating in a four-party payment card system such as MasterCard’s. Typically, interchange fees are paid by the merchant bank (the “acquirer”) to the cardholder bank (the “issuer”) in connection with transactions initiated with the payment system’s cards. These fees reimburse the issuer for a portion of the costs incurred by it in providing services which are of benefit to all participants in the system, including acquirers and merchants. MasterCard or its members establish a default interchange fee (“MIF”) in certain circumstances that applies when there is no other interchange fee arrangement between the issuer and the acquirer. MasterCard establishes a variety of MIF rates depending on such considerations as the location and the type of transaction, and collects the MIF on behalf of the institutions entitled to receive it and remits the MIF to eligible institutions. As described more fully below, MasterCard or its members’ MIFs are subject to regulatory or legal review and/or challenges in a number of jurisdictions. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, any of the interchange proceedings described below. No provision for losses has been provided in connection with them.

United States.  In July 2002, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a group of merchants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corp. and several member banks in California alleging, among other things, that MasterCard’s and Visa’s interchange fees contravene the Sherman Act. The suit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. On March 4, 2004, the court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice in reliance upon the approval of the settlement agreement in the U.S. merchant lawsuit by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which held that the settlement and release in that case extinguished the claims brought by the merchant group in the present case. The plaintiffs have appealed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York’s approval of the U.S. merchant lawsuit settlement and release to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and have also appealed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s dismissal of the present lawsuit to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 4, 2005, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order affirming the District Court’s approval of the U.S. merchant lawsuit settlement agreement, including the District Court’s finding that the settlement and release extinguished such claims. Plaintiffs did not seek certiorari of the Second Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 27, 2006 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s dismissal of the case. Plaintiffs’ time in which to seek certiorari from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision is currently running.

On October 8, 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a group of merchants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corp. and several member banks in California alleging, among other things, that MasterCard’s and Visa’s interchange fees contravene the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The complaint contains similar allegations to those brought in the interchange case described in the preceding paragraph, and plaintiffs have designated it as a related case. The plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction against MasterCard (and Visa) setting interchange and engaging in “joint marketing activities,” which plaintiffs allege include the purported negotiation of merchant discount rates with certain merchants. On November 19, 2004, MasterCard filed an answer to the complaint. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 25, 2005. MasterCard moved to dismiss the claims in the complaint for failure to state a claim and, in the alternative, also moved for summary judgment with respect to certain of the claims. On July 25, 2005, the court issued an order granting MasterCard’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the

18

Table of Contents

MASTERCARD INCORPORATED

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) - continued

(In thousands, except per share and percent data)

complaint with prejudice. On August 10, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs’ opening appeal brief was filed on November 28, 2005. MasterCard filed its opposition brief to plaintiffs’ appeal on December 26, 2005.

On June 22, 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a group of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut against MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Services Association and a number of member banks alleging, among other things, that MasterCard’s and Visa’s purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition, the complaint alleges MasterCard’s and Visa’s purported tying and bundling of transaction fees also constitutes a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. Since the filing of this complaint, there have been approximately forty similar complaints (the majority styled as class actions although six complaints are on behalf of individual plaintiffs) filed on behalf of merchants against MasterCard and Visa (and in some cases, certain member banks) in federal courts in California, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut. On October 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for coordination of pre-trial proceedings. On April 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. Taken together, the claims in the First Amended Class Action Complaint and in the six complaints brought on behalf of individual merchants are generally brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, the complaints contain some or all of the following claims: (i) that MasterCard’s and Visa’s setting of interchange fees (for both credit and offline debit transactions) violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (ii) that MasterCard and Visa have enacted and enforced various rules, including the no surcharge rule and purported anti-steering rules, in violation of Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act; (iii) that MasterCard’s and Visa’s purported bundling of the acceptance of premium credit cards to standard credit cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement; and (iv) that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and bundled transaction fees. In addition to the claims brought under federal antitrust law, some of these complaints contain certain state unfair competition law claims based upon the same conduct described above. These interchange-related litigations also seek treble damages in an unspecified amount (although several of the complaints allege that the plaintiffs expect that damages will range in the tens of billions of dollars), as well as attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. MasterCard’s responses to the First Amended Class Action Complaint and the individual merchant complaints are currently due on June 6, 2006. The Court has ordered that new fact discovery may proceed, and such fact discovery is scheduled to be completed by November 30, 2007 with expert discovery scheduled to be completed by July 18, 2008. Summary judgment and other pretrial motions are scheduled to be completed by November 24, 2008.

European Union . In September 2000, the European Commission issued a “Statement of Objections” challenging Visa International’s cross-border MIF under European Community competition rules. On July 24, 2002, the European Commission announced its decision to exempt the Visa MIF from these rules based on certain changes proposed by Visa to its MIF. Among other things, in connection with the exemption order, Visa agreed to adopt a cost-based methodology for calculating its MIF similar to the methodology employed by MasterCard, which considers the costs of certain specified services provided by issuers, and to reduce its MIF rates for debit and credit transactions to amounts at or below certain specified levels.

On September 25, 2003, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections challenging MasterCard Europe’s cross-border MIF. MasterCard Europe filed its response to this Statement of Objections on January 5, 2004. The European Commission has informed MasterCard Europe that it intends to issue a supplemental Statement of Objections in the near future. Following this, the European Commission could issue a prohibition decision ordering MasterCard to change the manner in which it calculates its cross-border MIF. MasterCard Europe could appeal such a decision to the European Court of Justice. Because the cross-border MIF constitutes an essential element of MasterCard Europe’s operations, changes to it could significantly impact MasterCard International’s European members and MasterCard Europe’s business. In addition, a negative decision by the European Commission could lead to the filing of private actions against MasterCard Europe by merchants seeking substantial damages.

On June 13, 2005 the European Commission announced a “sector inquiry” into the financial services industry, which includes an investigation of interchange fees. On April 12, 2006, the European Commission released its interim report on its sector inquiry into the payments card industry. In the report, the European Commission

19

Table of Contents

MASTERCARD INCORPORATED

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) - continued

(In thousands, except per share and percent data)

criticizes or expresses concern about a large number of industry practices, including interchange fees, of a multiplicity of industry participants, and warns of possible regulatory or legislative action. However, the report does not indicate against whom any such regulatory action might be taken or what legislative changes might be sought. The European Commission provided for a ten-week comment period on the report’s findings, and indicated that its final report would be issued by the end of the year.

United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading . On September 25, 2001, the Office of Fair Trading of the United Kingdom (“OFT”) issued a Rule 14 Notice under the U.K. Competition Act 1998 challenging the MasterCard MIF, the fee paid by acquirers to issuers in connection with point of sale transactions, and multilateral service fee (“MSF”), the fee paid by issuers to acquirers when a customer uses a MasterCard-branded card in the United Kingdom either at an ATM or over the counter to obtain a cash advance. Until November 2004, the MIF and MSF were established by MasterCard U.K. Members Forum Limited (“MMF”) (formerly MasterCard Europay U.K. Ltd. (“MEPUK”)) for domestic credit card transactions in the United Kingdom. The notice contained preliminary conclusions to the effect that the MasterCard U.K. MIF and MSF may infringe U.K. competition law and do not qualify for an exemption in their present forms. On February 11, 2003, the OFT issued a supplemental Rule 14 Notice, which also contained preliminary conclusions challenging MasterCard’s U.K. MIF under the Competition Act. On November 10, 2004, the OFT issued a third notice (now called a Statement of Objections) claiming that the MIF infringes U.K. and European Union competition law.

On November 18, 2004, MasterCard’s board of directors adopted a resolution withdrawing the authority of the U.K. members to set domestic MasterCard MIFs and MSFs and conferring such authority exclusively on MasterCard’s President and Chief Executive Officer.

On September 6, 2005, the OFT issued its decision, concluding that MasterCard’s U.K. MIFs that were established by MMF prior to November 18, 2004 contravene U.K. and European Union competition law. The OFT decided not to impose penalties on MasterCard or MMF. On November 2 and 4, 2005, respectively, MMF and MasterCard appealed the OFT’s decision to the U.K. Competition Appeals Tribunal. It is possible that a hearing on the appeals could take place as early as September 2006 and a decision could be issued by the end of the year. Because the MIF constitutes an essential element of MasterCard’s U.K. operations, the OFT’s decision, if it is upheld on appeal, could have a significant adverse impact on MasterCard’s U.K. members and on MasterCard’s competitive position and overall business in the United Kingdom. In addition, the OFT’s decision could lead to the filing of private actions against MasterCard by merchants and/or consumers which, if its appeal of the OFT’s decision fails, could result in an award or awards of substantial damages.

In addition, referencing the November 18, 2004 change described above, the OFT commenced a new investigation of MasterCard’s current U.K. MIFs and, if it determines that they contravene U.K. and European Union competition law, it will issue a new decision and possibly levy fines accruing from the date of its first decision. MasterCard would likely appeal a negative decision by the OFT in any future proceeding to the Competition Appeals Tribunal. Such an OFT decision could lead to the filing of private actions against MasterCard by merchants and/or consumers which, if MasterCard’s appeal of the OFT’s decision were to fail, could result in an award or awards of substantial damages.

Germany. On January 19, 2006, a German retailers association filed a complaint with the Federal Cartel Office in Germany concerning MasterCard’s and Visa’s domestic MIFs. The complaint alleges that MasterCard’s and Visa’s MIFs are not transparent to cardholders and include extraneous costs. MasterCard understands that the Federal Cartel Office is reviewing the complaint.

Other Jurisdictions. In Spain, the Competition Tribunal issued a decision in April 2005 denying the interchange fee exemption applications of two of the three domestic credit and debit card processing systems and beginning the process to revoke the exemption it had previously granted to the third such system. The interchange fees set by these three processors apply to MasterCard transactions in Spain and consequently, MasterCard has appealed this decision. In addition, the Tribunal expressed views as to the appropriate manner for setting domestic interchange fees which, if implemented, would result in substantial reductions in credit and debit card interchange fees in Spain. In December 2005, the processors agreed to change the manner in which they set interchange fees, and the new fees are currently being assessed by the Spanish competition authorities to determine if they qualify for an exemption. This could have a material impact on MasterCard’s business in Spain. MasterCard is aware that regulatory authorities and/or central banks in certain other jurisdictions, including Poland, Portugal, Norway,

20

Table of Contents

MASTERCARD INCORPORATED

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) - continued

(In thousands, except per share and percent data)

Sweden, New Zealand, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil and Hungary are reviewing MasterCard’s and/or its members’ interchange fees and/or related practices and may seek to regulate the establishment of such fees and/or such practices.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the outcome of, or estimate the liability related to, these interchange-related litigations and proceedings. No provision for losses have been provided in connection with these litigations and proceedings.

Plaintiff Communication

One of the plaintiffs in MasterCard’s antitrust litigations has asserted in a written communication that the damages it believes it is likely to recover in its lawsuit will exceed MasterCard’s capital and ability to pay, and that MasterCard has failed to adequately disclose to public investors in the proposed initial public offering described in Note 2 the possibility of substantial damages judgments against MasterCard in such lawsuit and the other pending litigations against MasterCard, which the plaintiff has asserted are likely to be in the billions of dollars before trebling. The plaintiff has also requested that MasterCard not relinquish its right to assess its member banks, which the plaintiff alleged would shift the liability to public investors, and increase MasterCard’s litigation reserves to an appropriate (but unspecified) amount. MasterCard has responded to this plaintiff indicating that it disagrees with the plaintiff’s characterization of both its lawsuit and MasterCard’s financial position following the closing of the proposed initial public offering. Contrary to the plaintiff’s claims, MasterCard also believes that its litigation disclosure is materially accurate and complete and in accord with all applicable laws and regulations.

Note 10. Settlement and Travelers Cheque Risk Management

Settlement risk is the legal exposure due to the difference in timing between the payment transaction date and subsequent settlement. Settlement risk is estimated using the average daily card charges during the quarter multiplied by the estimated number of days to settle. The Company has global risk management policies and procedures, which include risk standards to provide a framework for managing the Company’s settlement exposure. MasterCard International’s rules generally guarantee the payment of certain MasterCard, Cirrus and Maestro transactions between principal members. The term and amount of the guarantee are unlimited. Member-reported transaction data and the transaction clearing data underlying the settlement risk exposure calculation may be revised in subsequent reporting periods.

In the event that MasterCard International effects a payment on behalf of a failed member, MasterCard International may seek an assignment of the underlying receivables. Subject to approval by the Board of Directors, members may be charged for the amount of any settlement loss incurred during the ordinary activities of the Company. MasterCard International’s right to impose special assessments arising out of extraordinary events on its members will be eliminated once the new ownership structure and governance changes are completed, as described in Note 2.

MasterCard requires certain members that are not in compliance with the Company’s risk standards in effect at the time of review to post collateral, typically in the form of letters of credit and bank guarantees. This requirement is based on management review of the individual risk circumstances for each member that is out of compliance. In addition to these amounts, MasterCard holds collateral to cover variability and future growth in member programs; the possibility that it may choose to pay merchants to protect brand integrity in the event of merchant bank/acquirer failure, although it is not contractually obligated to do so; and Cirrus and Maestro related risk. MasterCard monitors its credit risk portfolio on a regular basis to estimate potential concentration risks and the adequacy of collateral on hand. Additionally, from time to time, the Company reviews its risk management methodology and standards. As such, the amounts of estimated settlement exposure are revised as necessary.

Estimated settlement exposure, and the portion of the Company’s uncollateralized settlement exposure for MasterCard-branded transactions that relates to members that are deemed not to be in compliance with, or that are under review in connection with, the Company’s risk management standards were as follows:

21

Table of Contents

MASTERCARD INCORPORATED

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) - continued

(In thousands, except per share and percent data)

Although MasterCard holds collateral at the member level, the Cirrus and Maestro estimated settlement exposures are calculated at the regional level. Therefore, these settlement exposures are reported on a gross basis, rather than net of collateral.

Of the total estimated settlement exposure under the MasterCard brand, net of collateral, the U.S. accounted for approximately 49% at March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005. The second largest country that accounted for this exposure was the United Kingdom at approximately 9% and 10% at March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, respectively. Of the total uncollateralized settlement exposure attributable to non-compliant members, five members represented approximately 75% at March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005.

MasterCard guarantees the payment of MasterCard-branded travelers cheques in the event of issuer default. The guarantee estimate is based on all outstanding MasterCard-branded travelers cheques, reduced by an actuarial determination of cheques that are not anticipated to be presented for payment. The term and amount of the guarantee are unlimited. MasterCard calculated its MasterCard-branded travelers cheques exposure under this guarantee as $818,915 and $934,124 at March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, respectively.

A significant portion of the Company’s credit risk is concentrated in one MasterCard travelers cheque issuer. MasterCard has obtained an unlimited guarantee estimated at $662,126 and $762,579 at March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, respectively, from a financial institution that is a member, to cover all of the exposure of outstanding travelers cheques with respect to that issuer. In addition, MasterCard has obtained guarantees estimated at $24,305 and $26,457 at March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, respectively, from financial institutions that are members in order to cover the exposure of outstanding travelers cheques with respect to another issuer. These guarantee amounts have also been reduced by an actuarial determination of cheques that are not anticipated to be presented for payment.

Based on the Company’s ability to charge its members for settlement and travelers cheque losses, the effectiveness of the Company’s global risk management policies and procedures, and the historically low level of losses that the Company has experienced, management believes the probability of future payments for settlement and travelers cheque losses in excess of existing reserves is negligible. As a result of the proposed change in ownership structure and governance, which is described in Note 2, the Company reassessed whether it would be necessary to record an obligation for the fair value of some or all of its settlement and travelers cheque guarantees and has determined that an obligation should not be established.

Note 11. Foreign Exchange Risk Management

The Company enters into foreign currency forward contracts to minimize risk associated with anticipated receipts and disbursements denominated in foreign currencies and the possible changes in value due to foreign exchange fluctuations of assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies. MasterCard’s forward contracts are classified by functional currency as summarized below:

22

Table of Contents

MASTERCARD INCORPORATED

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) - continued

(In thousands, except per share and percent data)

The currencies underlying the foreign currency forward contracts consist primarily of euro, U.K. pounds sterling, Brazilian real, Australian dollars and Japanese yen. The fair value of the foreign currency forward contracts generally reflects the estimated amounts that the Company would receive or (pay), on a pre-tax basis, to terminate the contracts at the reporting date based on broker quotes for the same or similar instruments. The terms of the foreign currency forward contracts are generally less than 18 months. The Company has deferred $1,716 of net losses and $739 of net gains, after tax, in accumulated other comprehensive income as of March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, respectively, all of which is expected to be reclassified to earnings within the next nine months to provide an economic offset to the earnings impact of the anticipated cash flows hedged.

The Company’s derivative financial instruments are subject to both credit and market risk. Credit risk is the risk of loss due to failure of the counterparty to perform its obligations in accordance with contractual terms. Market risk is the potential change in an investment’s value caused by fluctuations in interest and currency exchange rates, credit spreads or other variables. Credit and market risk related to derivative instruments were not material at March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005.

Generally, the Company does not obtain collateral related to forward contracts because of the high credit ratings of the counterparties that are members. The amount of accounting loss the Company would incur if the counterparties failed to perform according to the terms of the contracts is not considered material.