THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Leadership and organizational structure changes within the Company have impacted how its Chief Operating Decision Maker (“CODM”) manages the Company, resulting in changes to its operating and reportable segments in the second quarter of 2017. Prior to these changes, the Company had organized its business into the following operating segments: Consumer-to-Consumer, Consumer-to-Business, and Business Solutions. As a result of these leadership and organizational structure changes, the components of the historical Consumer-to-Business operating segment have beenwere divided between two executives, with the majority of the Company's cash-based bill payments services under one executive and the majority of the Company's electronic-based bill payments services under the other executive. The CODM allocates resources and assesses performance using discrete information for these separate components, neither of which is material from either a quantitative or qualitative perspective. Accordingly, the Company no longer reports a separate Consumer-to-Business operating segment, and no new reportable segments result from the impact of these changes. The cash-based and electronic-based bill payments services are therefore included in "Other."

All businesses and other services that have not been classified in the above segments are reported as "Other," which, as noted above, primarily includes the Company's electronic-based and cash-based bill payment services which facilitate bill payments from consumers to businesses and other organizations and which were previously reported in the historical Consumer-to-Business operating segment, and the Company's money order and other services, in addition to costs for the review and closing of acquisitions. See Note 1315 for further information regarding the Company's segments.

There are legal or regulatory limitations on transferring certain assets of the Company outside of the countries where these assets are located. However, there are generally no limitations on the use of these assets within those countries. Additionally, the Company must meet minimum capital requirements in some countries in order to maintain operating licenses. As of December 31, 2016,2017, the amount of these net asset limitations totaled approximately $320 million, and there have been no material changes to these limitations subsequent to that date.$265 million.

Various aspects of the Company's services and businesses are subject to United States federal, state and local regulation, as well as regulation by foreign jurisdictions, including certain banking and other financial services regulations.

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements are unaudited and were prepared in accordance with the instructions for Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. In compliance with those instructions, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in annual consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America ("GAAP") have been condensed or omitted.

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements in this quarterly report are presented on a consolidated basis and include the accounts of the Company and its majority-owned subsidiaries. Results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the entire year. All significant intercompany transactions and accounts were eliminated as of September 30, 2017March 31, 2018 and December 31, 20162017 and for all periods presented. Beginning in the first quarter of 2017,with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the Company has reported total "Revenues"will no longer present the "Derivative gains, net" line item in its Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income for all periods presented and no longer presentsdue to the subcaptionsearly adoption of the new accounting pronouncement to improve the financial reporting of hedging relationships, as further described below. Amounts previously reported including "Transaction fees," "Foreign exchange revenues," andin prior periods in "Derivative gains, net" are now reported in "Other revenues."income, net" in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. Additionally, certain historical amounts reported in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income for the three months ended March 31, 2017 have been adjusted due to the adoption of an accounting standard related to pension costs, as further described below.

In the opinion of management, these condensed consolidated financial statements include all the normal recurring adjustments necessary to fairly present the Company's condensed consolidated results of operations, financial position and cash flows as of September 30, 2017March 31, 2018 and for all periods presented. These condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Company's consolidated financial statements within the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.2017.

Consistent with industry practice, the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets are unclassified due to the short-term nature of the Company's settlement obligations contrasted with the Company's ability to invest cash awaiting settlement in long-term investment securities.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

On January 1, 2017,2018, the Company adopted an accounting pronouncement related to share-based payments to employees. This standard requires all excess tax benefits and tax deficiencies to be recognized as income tax expense (benefit) in the income statement and that excess tax benefits be included as an operating activity for the cash flow statement. In addition, these tax benefits must be removed from the dilutive weighted-average shares outstanding calculation as these assumed proceeds will have already been recognized in the income statement. The Company will continue its current practice of estimating forfeitures when calculating compensation expense. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations, cash flows, or related disclosures.

On January 1, 2018. Management has completed2018, the Company adopted an analysis of the new disclosure requirements of the standard and is making minor enhancements to its systems and processes to comply with the new disclosure requirements.

In February 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued a new accounting pronouncement regarding the financial reporting of leasing transactions. This new standard requires a lessee to record assets and liabilities on the balance sheet for the rights and obligations arising from leases with terms of more than 12 months. The Company is required to adopt the new standard on January 1, 2019 using a modified retrospective approach. Management is currently evaluating the potential impact that the adoption of this standard will have on the Company's financial position, results of operations, and related disclosures.

In June 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued a new accounting pronouncement regarding credit losses for financial instruments. The new standard requires entities to measure expected credit losses for certain financial assets held at the reporting date using a current expected credit loss model, which is based on historical experience, adjusted for current conditions and reasonable and supportable forecasts. The Company is required to adopt the new standard on January 1, 2020. Management is currently evaluating the potential impact that the adoption of this standard will have on the Company's financial position, results of operations, and related disclosures.

The calculation of basic earnings per share is computed by dividing net income available to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding for the period. Outstanding options to purchase Western Union stock and unvested shares of restricted stock are excluded from basic shares outstanding. Diluted earnings per share reflects the potential dilution that could occur if outstanding stock options at the presented dates are exercised and shares of restricted stock have vested, using the treasury stock method. The treasury stock method assumes proceeds from the exercise price of stock options and the unamortized compensation expense of options and restricted stock are available to acquire shares at an average market price throughout the period, and therefore, reduce the dilutive effect.

For the three months ended September 30,March 31, 2018 and 2017, and 2016, there were 3.32.0 million and 2.4 million, respectively, of outstanding options to purchase shares of Western Union stock excluded from the diluted earnings per share calculation, as their effect was anti-dilutive. For the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, there were 2.9 million and 3.92.5 million, respectively, of outstanding options to purchase shares of Western Union stock excluded from the diluted earnings per share calculation, as their effect was anti-dilutive.

The following table provides the calculation of diluted weighted-average shares outstanding (in millions):

In the second quarter of 2016, the Company began incurring expenses related to a business transformation initiative, referred to as the WU Way. As of December 31, 2017, expenses associated with the WU Way initiative were effectively complete. Although the expenses related to the WU Way are specific to that initiative, the types of expenses related to the WU Way initiative are similar to expenses that the Company has previously incurred and can reasonably be expected to incur in the future. The following table summarizes the activity for the ninethree months ended September 30, 2017March 31, 2018 for the consulting service fees, severance, and other costs related to the business transformation accruals, which are included in "Accounts payable and accrued liabilities" in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2017March 31, 2018 and December 31, 20162017 (in millions):

Fair value, as defined by the relevant accounting standards, represents the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. For additional information on how the Company measures fair value, refer to the Company's consolidated financial statements within the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.

The following tables reflect assets and liabilities that were measured at fair value on a recurring basis (in millions):

No non-recurring fair value adjustments were recorded during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017March 31, 2018 and 2016.2017.

The carrying amounts for many of the Company's financial instruments, including certain cash and cash equivalents, settlement cash and cash equivalents, and settlement receivables and settlement obligations approximate fair value due to their short maturities. The Company's borrowings are classified as Level 2 of the valuation hierarchy, and the aggregate fair value of these borrowings was based on quotes from multiple banks and excluded the impact of related interest rate swaps. Fixed rate notes are carried in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at their original issuance values as adjusted over time to accrete that value to par, except for portions of notes hedged by these interest rate swaps, as disclosed in Note 9.11. As of September 30,March 31, 2018, the carrying value and fair value of the Company's borrowings were $3,143.4 million and $3,213.6 million, respectively (see Note 12). As of December 31, 2017, the carrying value and fair value of the Company's borrowings were $3,533.4$3,033.6 million and $3,641.6$3,146.5 million, respectively (see Note 10). As of December 31, 2016, the carrying value and fair value of the Company's borrowings were $2,786.1 million and $2,888.7 million, respectively.

The Company holds investments in foreign corporate debt securities that are classified as held-to-maturity securities within Level 2 of the valuation hierarchy and are recorded at amortized cost in "Other Assets" in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of September 30, 2017,March 31, 2018, the carrying value and fair value of the Company's foreign corporate debt securities were $56.7$58.9 million and $56.8$59.0 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2016,2017, both the carrying value and fair value of the Company's foreign corporate debt securities were $36.2$56.2 million.

Pursuant to the DPA, the USAOs filed a two-count criminal information in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, charging the Company with aiding and abetting wire fraud and willfully failing to implement an effective anti-money laundering ("AML") program. The USAOs agreed that if the Company fully complies with all of its obligations under the DPA, the USAOs will, at the conclusion of the DPA’s term, seek dismissal with prejudice of the criminal information filed against the Company.

Under the Joint Settlement Agreements, the Company was required to (1) pay an aggregate amount of $586 million to the DOJ to be used to reimburse consumers who were the victims of third-party fraud conducted through the Company’s money transfer services (the “Compensation Payment”), (2) pay an aggregate amount of $5 million to the State Attorneys General to reimburse investigative, enforcement, and other costs, and (3) retain an independent compliance auditor for three years to review and assess actions taken by the Company under the Consent Order to further enhance its oversight of agents and protection of consumers. The FinCEN Agreement also set forth a civil penalty of $184 million, the full amount of which was deemed satisfied by the Compensation Payment, without any additional payment or non-monetary obligations. No separate payment to the FTC was required under the Joint Settlement Agreements. The Company paid the Compensation Payment and the aggregate amount due to the State Attorneys General during the first halfand second quarters of 2017. The Company had accrued the Compensation Payment and the aggregate amount due to the State Attorneys General in "Accounts payable and accrued liabilities" in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2016. In the second quarter of 2017, pursuant to the terms of the Joint Settlement Agreements, the Company engaged an independent compliance auditor, and during the three months ended September 30,third quarter of 2017, the Company accrued an additional $8 million of expenses related to the independent compliance auditor.

The Joint Settlement Agreements also require, among other things, the Company to adopt certain new or enhanced practices with respect to its compliance program relating to consumer reimbursement, agent due diligence, agent training, monitoring, reporting, and record-keeping by the Company and its agents, consumer fraud disclosures, agent suspensions and terminations, and other items. The changes in the Company’s compliance program required by the Joint Settlement Agreements will have adverse effects on the Company’s business, including additional costs and potential loss of business. The Company has faced (as described below) and could also face additional actions from other regulators as a result of the Joint Settlement Agreements. In addition,Further, if the Company fails to comply with the Joint Settlement Agreements, it could face criminal prosecution, civil litigation, significant fines, damage awards or other regulatory consequences. Any or all of these outcomes could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Due to the stagestages of the actions described above under "Shareholder Derivative Actions," the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with these actions. The Company and the named individuals intend to vigorously defend themselves in all of these matters.

The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company, both of which are pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The original complaints asserted claims for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the funds are escheated to state governments. The Tennille complaint was served on the Company on April 27, 2009. The Smet complaint was served on the Company on April 6, 2010. On September 21, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Tennille complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille amended complaint and the Smet complaint. On November 8, 2010, the Court denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment and conversion claims. On February 4, 2011, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' consumer protection claims. On March 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its declaratory relief claim and WUFSI as a defendant. On April 25, 2011, the Company and WUFSI filed a motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims. WUFSI also moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims and to stay the action pending arbitration. On November 21, 2011, the Court denied the motion to compel arbitration and the stay request. Both companies appealed the decision. On January 24, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the companies' request to stay the District Court proceedings pending their appeal. During the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which the Court preliminarily approved on January 3, 2013. On June 25, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying the class and granting final approval to the settlement. Under the approved settlement, a substantial amount of the settlement proceeds, as well as all of the class counsel’s fees, administrative fees and other expenses, would be paid from the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds. During the final approval hearing, the Court overruled objections to the settlement that had been filed by several class members. In July 2013, two of those class members filed notices of appeal. On May 1, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision to overrule the objections filed by the two class members who appealed. On January 11, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied petitions for certiorari that were filed by the two class members who appealed. On February 1, 2016, pursuant to the settlement agreement and the Court's June 25, 2013 final approval order, Western Union deposited the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds into a class settlement fund, from which class member claims, administrative fees and class counsel’s fees, as well as other expenses are being paid. On November 6, 2013,have been paid, with the Attorney General of California notified Western Union of the California Controller’s position that Western Union’s deposit ofremainder to go to eligible jurisdictions to which the unclaimed money transfer funds into the class settlement fund pursuant to the settlement “will not satisfy Western Union’s obligations to report and remit funds” under California’s unclaimed property law, and that “Western Union will remain liable to the State of California” for the funds that would have escheated to California in the absence of a settlement. On April 3, 2018, the settlement. The StateCourt entered an order creating a fund for the remainder of Pennsylvania and Districtthe unclaimed funds, which gives eligible jurisdictions one year to execute a release to receive their proportionate share of Columbia have previously expressed similar views. Other states have also expressed concerns aboutthe fund. Some jurisdictions may opt not to participate in the settlement, and many have not yet expressed an opinion. Since some states and jurisdictions believetaking the position that the Company must escheat itsthose jurisdictions' full share of the settlement fund and that the pro rata deductions for class counsel's fees, administrative costs, and other expenses that are required under the settlement agreement are not permitted,permitted. In that event, there is a reasonable possibility a loss could result up to approximately the pro rata amount of those fees and other expenses.

On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., based on allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to class members’ wireless telephones without their consent. During the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier and the plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims, class counsel’s fees and the costs of administering the settlement. The agreement has been signed by the parties and, on November 10, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement. On January 9, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion requesting decisions on its pending motion to approve the settlement and motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive award. On January 10, 2018, the Court issued an order stating that the pending motions will be decided shortly. A status conference has been set for May 21, 2018. The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer. However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are unable to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a resolution, the Company's financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely impacted. As the parties have reached an agreement in this matter, the Company believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of amounts already accrued is remote.

On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Speedpay, Inc. ("Speedpay"), a subsidiary of the Company, asserting claims based on allegations that Speedpay imposed an unlawful surcharge on credit card transactions and that Speedpay engages in money transmission without a license. The complaint requests certification of a class and two subclasses generally comprised of consumers in Florida who made a payment through Speedpay’s bill payment services using a credit card and were charged a surcharge for such payment during the four-year and five-year periods prior to the filing of the complaint through the date of class certification. On April 6, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 23, 2015, in response to the motion to dismiss, Pincus filed an amended complaint that adds claims (1) under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, which authorizes civil remedies for certain criminal conduct; and (2) for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). On May 15, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 6, 2015, the Court entered an order denying Speedpay’s motion to dismiss. On October 20, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the amended complaint. On December 1, 2015, Pincus filed a second amended complaint that revised her factual allegations, but added no new claims. On December 18, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the second amended complaint. On May 20, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Pincus' Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and federal RICO claims. On June 7, 2016, Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay's motion for judgment on the pleadings. On June 17, 2016, Speedpay filed a reply brief in support of the motion. On October 28, 2016, Pincus filed a motion seeking class certification. The motion seeks the certification of a class consisting of “All (i) persons in Florida (ii) who paid Speedpay, Inc. a fee for using Speedpay, Inc.’s electronic payment services (iii) during the five-year period prior to the filing of the complaint in this action through the present.” Pincus also filed a motion to file her motion under seal. On November 4, 2016, the Court denied Pincus’ motion for class certification without prejudice and motion to seal and ordered her to file a new motion that redacts proprietary and private information. Later that day, Pincus filed a redacted version of the motion. On November 7, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for summary judgment on Pincus’ remaining claims. On December 15, 2016, Speedpay filed an opposition to Pincus’ class certification motion. The same day, Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay’s summary judgment motion and requested summary judgment on her individual and class claims. On January 12, 2017, Speedpay filed a reply in support of its summary judgment motion and Pincus filed a reply in support of her class certification motion. On March 28, 2017, the Court granted Speedpay’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Pincus’ Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and federal RICO claims. On June 27, 2017, the Court granted Speedpay’s summary judgment motion, entered judgment in favor of Speedpay and ordered the Court clerk to close the case. On July 5,October 19, 2017, Pincus filed a notice ofan appeal tobrief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.Circuit, seeking reversal of the summary judgment, to which the Company filed an opposition on December 4, 2017. Pincus filed her reply brief on January 17, 2018. Due to this pending appeal, the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with this action. Speedpay intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

On January 26, 2017, Martin HermanIn October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociación Civil para su Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported class action lawsuit in Argentina’s National Commercial Court No. 19 against the Company’s subsidiary Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L. (“WUFSA”). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA’s fees for money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign exchange rates. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from Argentina, plus punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a monetary value of the claim or a time period. In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally admissible as a class action. The notice of claim was served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June 2016 WUFSA filed a response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on statute of limitations and standing grounds. In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until later in the United States Districtproceedings. The Court is finalizing a notification process for potential class members. After notices are published, the Central Districtcase will move to the evidentiary stage. Due to the stage of California againstthis matter, the Company its President and Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former executive officeris unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of the Company, asserting claims under sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 against all defendants and a claim under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint alleges that, during the purported class period, February 24, 2012 through January 19, 2017, defendants made false or misleading statements or failedloss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to disclose adverse material facts known to them, including those regarding: (1) the effectiveness of the Company’s fraud prevention program and the program’s compliance with applicable law and best practices; (2) the development and enhancement of the Company’s global compliance policies and AML program; and (3) the Company’s compliance with regulatory requirements. On March 6, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to transfer venue of the case to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Court granted that motion on March 30, 2017, and transferred the case.

On February 13, 2017, the Company’s subsidiary, Western Union Payment Services Ireland Limited (“WUPSIL”), was served with a writ of accusation from the National Court of Spain. The writ charges 98 former Western Union money transfer agents or agent representatives with fraud and money laundering in connection with consumer fraud scams they allegedly perpetrated using Western Union money transfer transactions. The writ also names WUPSIL as a civil defendant, allegedly responsible under Spanish law to pay any portion of the alleged amount in victim losses that cannot be repaid by any of the criminal defendants who are convicted. TheIn accordance with Spanish law, on January 4, 2018, the Company, expects that WUPSIL will be required to guarantee or provide securitythrough its subsidiary Western Union International Limited, provided a corporate guaranty in an amount of approximately €23 million to cover the alleged victim losses plus potential interest and other costs.any liability that could theoretically attach to WUPSIL. Due to the preliminary stage of this matter, the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the amount of loss, if any, associated with this matter. 

On March 31, 2017, the Company received a request for the production of documents from the NYDFS,New York State Department of Financial Services (the "NYDFS"), following up on a meeting the Company had with the NYDFS on March 7, 2017. The requests pertain to the Company’s oversight of one current and two former Western Union agents located in New York state. The two former agents were identified in the DPA described in the United States Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and State Attorneys General Settlements section above, and were terminated as agents by the Company prior to 2013. The Company complied with all requests and produced all requested documents to the NYDFS. On July 28, 2017, the NYDFS informed the Company that the facts set forth in the DPA regarding the Company’s anti-money laundering programs over the 2004 through 2012 period givegave the NYDFS a basis to take additional enforcement action. TheOn January 4, 2018, the Company’s subsidiary, WUFSI, and the NYDFS proposedagreed to a resolution ofconsent order (the "NYDFS Consent Order"), which resolved the matter involving,NYDFS investigation into these matters. Under the NYDFS Consent Order, the Company is required, among other things, a paymentto pay to the NYDFS.NYDFS a civil monetary penalty of $60 million, which the Company paid on January 12, 2018. The NYDFS Consent Order also imposes certain non-monetary obligations, including a requirement to provide to the NYDFS a remediation plan within 90 days after the date of the NYDFS Consent Order, which the Company provided on April 4, 2018.

In addition to the principal matters described above, the Company is a party to a variety of other legal matters that arise in the normal course of the Company's business. While the results of these other legal matters cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect either individually or in the aggregate on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

On January 26, 2006, the First Data Corporation ("First Data") Board of Directors announced its intention to pursue the distribution of all of its money transfer and consumer payments business and its interest in a Western Union money transfer agent, as well as its related assets, including real estate, through a tax-free distribution to First Data shareholders (the "Spin-off"). The Spin-off resulted in the formation of the Company and these assets and businesses no longer being part of First Data. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement with First Data in connection with the Spin-off, First Data and the Company are each liable for, and agreed to perform, all liabilities with respect to their respective businesses. In addition, the separation and distribution agreement also provides for cross-indemnities principally designed to place financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of the Company's business with the Company and financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of First Data's retained businesses with First Data. The Company also entered into a tax allocation agreement ("Tax Allocation Agreement") that sets forth the rights and obligations of First Data and the Company with respect to taxes imposed on their respective businesses both prior to and after the Spin-off as well as potential tax obligations for which the Company may be liable in conjunction with the Spin-off (see Note 11)13).

Settlement assets represent funds received or to be received from agents for unsettled money transfers, money orders and consumer payments. The Company records corresponding settlement obligations relating to amounts payable under money transfers, money orders and consumer payment service arrangements. Settlement assets and obligations also include amounts receivable from, and payable to, customers for the value of their cross-currency payment transactions related to the Business Solutions segment.

Settlement assets and obligations consisted of the following (in millions):

Investment securities included in "Settlement assets" in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets consist primarily of highly-rated state and municipal debt securities, including fixed rate term notes and variable rate demand notes. Variable rate demand note securities can be put (sold at par) typically on a daily basis with settlement periods ranging from the same day to one week, but have varying maturities through 2050. These securities may be used by the Company for short-term liquidity needs and held for short periods of time. The Company is required to hold highly-rated, investment grade securities and such investments are restricted to satisfy outstanding settlement obligations in accordance with applicable state and foreign country requirements.

The substantial majority of the Company's investment securities are classified as available-for-sale and recorded at fair value. Investment securities are exposed to market risk due to changes in interest rates and credit risk. Western Union regularly monitors credit risk and attempts to mitigate its exposure by investing in highly-rated securities and through investment diversification.

The components of investment securities are as follows (in millions):

The following summarizes the contractual maturities of settlement-related debt securities as of September 30, 2017March 31, 2018 (in millions):

Actual maturities may differ from contractual maturities because issuers may have the right to call or prepay the obligations or the Company may have the right to put the obligation prior to its contractual maturity, as with variable rate demand notes. Variable rate demand notes, having a fair value of $5.6 million and $295.8$110.1 million are included in the "Due after 5 years through 10 years" and "Due after 10 years" categories, respectively,category, in the table above. The significant majority of the held-to-maturity foreign corporate debt securities are due within 2 years.

The following table summarizes the components of accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax (in millions). All amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive loss affect the line items as indicated below within the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. Additionally, as described in Note 1, in the first quarter of 2018, the Company adopted a new accounting pronouncement and reclassified tax effects included within accumulated other comprehensive income/(loss) as a result of the Tax Act to "Accumulated deficit" in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.

TheDuring the first quarter of 2018 and 2017, the Company's Board of Directors declared quarterly cash dividends of $0.19 and $0.175 per common share, in each of the first three quarters of 2017,respectively, representing $245.3$87.5 million and $83.3 million in total dividends. Of this amount, $80.5 million was paid on September 29, 2017, $81.5 million was paid on June 30, 2017 and $83.3 million wasdividends, which were paid on March 31, 2017. The Company's Board of Directors declared quarterly cash dividends of $0.16 per common share in each of the first three quarters of 2016, representing $235.1 million in total dividends. Of this amount, $77.7 million was paid on September 30, 2016, $78.1 million was paid on June 30, 20162018 and $79.3 million was paid on March 31, 2016.2017, respectively.

No shares were repurchased during the three months ended March 31, 2018 under the share repurchase program approved by the Board of Directors. During the ninethree months ended September 30,March 31, 2017, and 2016, 24.3 million and 20.911.3 million shares were repurchased for $475.0$224.9 million, and $402.2 million, respectively, excluding commissions, at an average cost of $19.54 and $19.22, respectively.$19.99. These amounts represent shares authorized by the Board of Directors for repurchase under publicly announced authorizations. As of September 30, 2017, $955.5March 31, 2018, $943.5 million remained available under the share repurchase authorization approved by the Company's Board of Directors through December 31, 2019. The amounts included in the "Common stock repurchased" line in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows represent both shares authorized by the Board of Directors for repurchase under publicly announced authorizations as well as shares withheld from employees to cover tax withholding obligations on restricted stock units that have vested.

The Company is exposed to foreign currency exchange risk resulting from fluctuations in exchange rates, primarily the euro, and to a lesser degree the British pound, Canadian dollar, Mexican Peso, Australian dollar, Swiss franc, and other currencies, related to forecasted revenues and on settlement assets and obligations as well as on certain foreign currency denominated cash and other asset and liability positions. The Company is also exposed to risk from derivative contracts, primarily from customer derivatives, arising from its cross-currency Business Solutions payments operations. Additionally, the Company is exposed to interest rate risk related to changes in market rates both prior to and subsequent to the issuance of debt. The Company uses derivatives to (a) minimize its exposures related to changes in foreign currency exchange rates and interest rates and (b) facilitate cross-currency Business Solutions payments by writing derivatives to customers.

The Company executes derivatives with established financial institutions, with the substantial majority of these financial institutions having credit ratings of "A-" or better from a major credit rating agency. The Company also writes Business Solutions derivatives mostly with small and medium size enterprises. The primary credit risk inherent in derivative agreements represents the possibility that a loss may occur from the nonperformance of a counterparty to the agreements. The Company performs a review of the credit risk of these counterparties at the inception of the contract and on an ongoing basis. The Company also monitors the concentration of its contracts with any individual counterparty. The Company anticipates that the counterparties will be able to fully satisfy their obligations under the agreements, but takes action when doubt arises about the counterparties' ability to perform. These actions may include requiring Business Solutions customers to post or increase collateral, and for all counterparties, the possible termination of the related contracts. The Company's hedged foreign currency exposures are in liquid currencies; consequently, there is minimal risk that appropriate derivatives to maintain the hedging program would not be available in the future.

The Company writes derivatives, primarily foreign currency forward contracts and option contracts, mostly with small and medium size enterprises and derives a currency spread from this activity as part of its Business Solutions operations. The Company aggregates its Business Solutions foreign currency exposures arising from customer contracts, including the derivative contracts described above, and hedges the resulting net currency risks by entering into offsetting contracts with established financial institution counterparties (economic hedge contracts). The derivatives written are part of the broader portfolio of foreign currency positions arising from the Company's cross-currency payments operations, which primarily include spot exchanges of currency in addition to forwards and options. Foreign exchange revenues from the total portfolio of positions were $88.1$85.8 million and $85.3$83.2 million for the three months ended September 30,March 31, 2018 and 2017, and 2016, respectively, and $257.2 million and $264.6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. None of the derivative contracts used in Business Solutions operations are designated as accounting hedges. The duration of these derivative contracts at inception is generally less than one year.

The Company utilizes interest rate swaps to effectively change the interest rate payments on a portion of its notes from fixed-rate payments to short-term LIBOR-based variable rate payments in order to manage its overall exposure to interest rates. The Company designates these derivatives as fair value hedges. The change in fair value of the interest rate swaps is offset by a change in the carrying value of the debt being hedged within "Borrowings" in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and "Interest expense" in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income has been adjusted to include the effects of interest accrued on the swaps.

The Company, at times, utilizes derivatives to hedge the forecasted issuance of fixed-rate debt. These derivatives are designated as cash flow hedges of the variability in the fixed-rate coupon of the debt expected to be issued. The effective portion of the change in fair value of the derivatives is recorded in "Accumulated other comprehensive loss" in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.