Back to GetFilings.com

Use these links to rapidly review the document
Index
INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

Commission file number 0-24201

CARREKER CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (972) 458-1981

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT:
None

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT:

Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share
(Title of class)

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ý    No o

        Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). Yes ý    No o

        The aggregate market value on July 31, 2003 of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $90,814,473.

        Number of shares of registrant's Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, outstanding as of March 31, 2004: 24,371,572

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

        Selected portions of the registrant's definitive Proxy Statement for the 2004 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III hereof.

CARREKER CORPORATION

Index

2

PART I

Item 1. Business.

        Unless the context otherwise requires, the term "we," "us," "our," "Company," "Carreker," or "Carreker Corporation" when used in this Form 10-K ("Report") and in the Annual Report to the Stockholders refers to Carreker Corporation, a Delaware corporation organized in 1998, and its consolidated subsidiaries and predecessors. Our Internet Website address is www.Carreker.com. Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to such reports are available, free of charge, on our Internet Website under "Investor Relations (IR)—SEC Filings" as soon as reasonably practicable after we file electronically such material with, or furnish it to, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. Information on our Internet Website does not constitute a part of this Report. This Report contains some forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. When used in this Report, the words "expects," "plans," "believes," "anticipating," "estimates," and similar expressions are intended to identify forward looking statements. Actual results and the timing of some events could differ materially from those projected in or contemplated by the forward looking statements due to a number of factors, including without limitation those set forth under "Forward Looking Statements and Risk Factors" below.

Our Business Focus

        For the last 25 years Carreker Corporation has designed, developed, sold and delivered payments-related software and consulting solutions to financial institutions and financial service providers. Our products and services traverse a broad spectrum of payment activities and are designed to help our customers set winning strategies in their payments businesses; improve operational efficiency in how payments are processed; enhance revenue and profitability from payments-oriented products and services; reduce losses associated with fraudulent payment transactions; and/or improve the alignment of product offerings with our customer needs, hence maximizing their customer income streams.

        We believe the breadth of our product and service offerings, our proven expertise in the business of payments for financial institutions and our relationship approach to client management combine to provide us with a competitive advantage. We have proven expertise in critical core competences of the payments businesses, including business strategy, competitive analysis, operations, financial analysis, software development, project/program management, risk management and control, which are critical to defining and delivering current and next-generation solutions.

        We are organized into three primary operating divisions: Global Payments Technologies ("GPT"), Revenue Enhancement ("RevE") and Global Payments Consulting ("GPC"). These operating divisions are structured to provide discreet, yet synergistic avenues through which we can bring value to our customers. These three divisions bring together the capabilities essential to providing the innovation and delivery engines for our products and services.

        Global Payments Technologies.    This division is responsible for design, development, sales, and support of our technology solutions. This division is comprised of more than 125 software products and solutions, which encompass the following lines of business:

•

Capture, Exchange and Archive Solutions



•

Risk Solutions



•

Cash and Cash Logistics Solutions

        The strategic emphasis for GPT is to help financial institutions achieve total electronification of the check workflow and clearing process; to deliver enhanced fraud mitigation capabilities; and to increasingly support processing of non-check payment types through Carreker software solutions. Revenue is derived from license fees, implementation fees and maintenance fees.

3

        Revenue Enhancement.    This highly specialized practice group provides consulting and software solutions focused on increasing clients' revenue streams. Areas of expertise include fee income, market segmentation, management of customer price structures, account retention, acquisition and profitability. A majority of the revenue generated by this division is through benefit-sharing agreements with client banks. The Revenue Enhancement Product Portfolio includes tactical consulting solutions, a licensable software product and sales management methodology.

        Global Payments Consulting.    The objective of this professional services division is to provide our clients with "applied thought leadership" related to the business of payments. In fiscal 2001/2002, coming off of the bubble of Y2K consulting efforts and the completion of the last wave of financial institution integrations consummated in the late 90's, we commenced an effort to transition our consulting business from a Y2K and staff supplement focus to a "thought leadership in payments" focus. This transition continued in fiscal 2003. The objectives of GPC are three fold:

•

Provide the industry and our company a solid understanding of payments and financial institution trends and implications... thereby improving our vision of the future and that of our customers



•

Conduct profitable, high-value advisory work for our customers in payments, thereby positioning us as a trusted partner that our customers look to for advice, not just software solutions



•

Provide access to and relationships with the highest executive level positions in our customers, thereby fostering our overall business relationships with our customers

        Our services for GPC are designed around the needs of our clients to set strategies, develop operating plans and execute these strategies and plans in the business of payments. These services range from strategy to implementation support.

        Revenue in the GPC division is primarily derived through the delivery of consulting services offered on a time and materials basis to our clients, along with the license fees, maintenance fees and services fees associated with our Float practice.

Our Market

        The market for our solutions are the largest financial institutions in the US, Canada, Australia, Latin America, South Africa, Europe, and the United Kingdom. Today we serve all of the top 20 and 75 of the next largest 100 commercial banks in the United States. While the majority of our business continues to come from U.S. Banks maintaining assets in excess of $5.0 billion, we consider other geographic regions and customer segments to be important elements of our market opportunity. We also serve the 6 largest financial institutions in Canada, the 4 largest financial institutions in the UK, the 2 largest financial institutions in Ireland, the 5 largest financial institutions in Australia and 3 of the 4 largest financial institutions in South Africa.

        With a presence in Toronto, London, Johannesburg and Sydney, we have been able to leverage additional revenues from our existing product and service offerings as well as launch new offerings. We are pursuing new international markets by working to define and deliver additional technology and service offerings that will be more directly targeted to the large financial institutions in these countries.

        Additionally, our market includes key non-bank payment processing companies serving financial institutions. Non-bank payment service providers comprise a substantial market opportunity for our business, as well. We now have volume-sensitive licensing agreements for various Carreker solutions in place with providers in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada through which we seek to participate in the business success of those providers. We have specifically assigned sales resources to engage and support such providers.

4

        We focus on the business of payments for financial institutions and third party processors. The payments line of business is critical to the success of our clients. The global payments industry, while defined and measured differently by various analysts, represents a substantial market space. Boston Consulting Group (BCG) estimates that in 2002 payments revenues were $176 billion for banks in the U.S. and $254 billion worldwide. It forecasts that the worldwide market will experience approximately a 30% increase to $332 billion by the year 2010. Payments-related revenue for non-bank, third party processors in 2002 was an estimated $119 billion in the United States. Carreker estimates that for a typical top-50 U.S. bank, payments revenues—as defined by BCG—comprised 35-40% of their total operating revenue in 2002.

        Our customers invest significantly in the payments space. Tower Group estimates that global technology expenditures on payments infrastructure in 2002 were approximately $12 billion, and they expect this number to grow for the next three years at a rate of 5.3% annually.

        One component of the payments market is fraud solutions. Our fraud solutions target an area of direct financial losses to banks, which we estimate to be more than $1 billion (total deposit account fraud losses) in the United States in 2002. There is an increasing payment fraud and money laundering regulatory focus in the U.S and internationally, in which we estimate the 2002 worldwide expenditures of $240 million for transaction monitoring and anti-money laundering software solutions will grow at a rate of 15% annually through 2005.

        Significant new regulatory, competitive, technological, human capital and behavioral forces are acting on the payments industry now in ways that seem likely to impact virtually all participants in this market space, and are as follows:

        Regulatory Change.    There are a number of legislative and regulatory changes impacting the form, structure, process and controls around paper, electronic and currency-based financial payments. We believe financial institutions around the world will need to invest in the understanding, planning and implementation activities related to these changes. Three of the more important areas of legislative/regulatory changes to note are as follows:

•

Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, more commonly referred to as Check 21- This piece of U.S. legislation was signed into law October 28, 2003 and will go into effect in October of 2004. This legislation will provide an important new impetus to the practice of exchanging check "images,' in lieu of actual checks, between financial institutions. We believe the effect of this legislation will be potentially to increase market demand for our check imaging, electronic check presentment, and image back office products and we are actively positioning those products accordingly.



•

USA Patriot Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 or USAPA)—This U.S. legislation was signed into law in late October 2001 following the terrorist acts of 9/11. The USAPA made significant amendments to over 15 important statutes. Regulations under USAPA were issued in 2003 and are now in effect at all U.S. financial institutions. The law imposes new regulatory duties upon financial institutions to help prohibit and detect the financing of terrorism through money laundering by requiring the adoption of enhanced procedures by financial institutions. These procedures require the gathering and retention of information to establish and verify the true identity of financial institution customers. We are working now to incorporate enhanced anti-money laundering detection and compliance technologies into our fraud mitigation suite of software products.



•

New Basel Capital Accord (also known as Basel II)—The pending revisions to the Basel Accord are anticipated to go into effect in member countries by the end of 2006. The goal of these revisions is to put a new capital adequacy framework in place for banks around the globe along

5

two important dimensions. First, by developing capital regulations that encompass minimum capital requirements, supervisory review and market discipline. Second, by increasing substantially the risk sensitivity of the minimum capital requirements and by modifying the definition of risk-weighted assets to change the treatment of credit risk and to introduce explicit treatment of operational risk. These changes will stipulate significant new capital and operational risk management requirements for banks. Whether in terms of new redundancy requirements for payments infrastructure or new business continuity practices for banks, we believe additional opportunities to leverage our technology and our operations consulting expertise may result from banks' efforts to achieve compliance.

        Disintermediation of the financial institution.    We believe the market share of financial institutions in the payments business has been declining over the last 20 years as new non-bank providers offer a competitive alternative to banks as financial intermediaries. We believe financial institutions are intimately aware of this trend and its implications on the positioning of their client relationship, their value proposition, their revenues and their profits. We believe these financial institutions are and will be developing and executing strategies to protect and expand their market share of the payments business by investing in new value propositions, new products and new services in various payment arenas.

        Convergence of payment vehicles.    We believe that the front-end and the back-end of the presentment, processing and settlement aspects of the paper and electronic payment types will converge driven by customer demand and delivery efficiency. Although we believe the total number of payment transactions will increase for the foreseeable future, we believe paper-based payments will decline in number with the increase in electronic payments more than offsetting this decline. We believe over time the systems and operations infrastructure for payments, which is in silos today by payment type, will tend to converge and result in next generation payment technologies that will need to be developed.

        Mergers and Consolidation.    Mergers and consolidations of financial institutions have been on the rise in the US recently. We believe these mergers will result in significant investments in business, system and operations integration for long-term shareholder value. We believe consulting and software solutions supporting the integration activities of the surviving financial institutions will be important offerings in the future.

        Electronification.    Technologies for electronification of check workflows continue to be refined and to gain further industry adoption. Many of our key customers are defining strategies now for the electronification of checks at the earliest point of receipt and for exchanging images between banks as a basis for financial settlement. Such practices would significantly reduce check-related operating expenses for banks and position banks to deliver more robust payment services to their customers. We believe we are positioned, through our broad suite of check imaging products, to benefit from the continued adoption of check imaging.

        At the same time, practices are emerging for conversion of checks at the point of sale or at lockbox processing locations to alternative electronic payment types, such as ACH or debit transactions. In these cases, transactions are less likely to be processed through Carreker's current suite of technology solutions. We are developing enhancements to selected products that will address these electronic payment types.

        As a third point, integration between banks and the point of sale will increasingly lead to more real time verification and guarantee of transactions at the point of sale. We are engaged now with key customers and partners in trying to define next-generation fraud mitigation solutions, and see this as an area of opportunity for technology growth.

6

        Importance of Fraud/Risk Mitigation.    We believe transaction fraud losses have continued to increase for financial institutions and their customers as electronic payment vehicles have grown in availability and adoption. Further, we believe compliance costs and penalties for non-compliance with new regulations designed to mitigate global risks through controls on electronic and currency-based financial transactions will continue to increase. We believe significant investments in processes, procedures and technologies will continue to be made to detect and prevent fraud losses and improve compliance, while minimizing the intrusion of controls on customer activities.

        Behavioral Change.    While industry experts debate the extent and rate of decline in check usage, it is generally believed that check volumes flattened and began a gradual decline in the mid-1990s. It is anticipated that consumer use of internet bill payment, debit cards, stored value cards, ACH payments, and other electronic technologies will continue to grow, generating some commensurate decline in paper check volumes over the coming years. With overall U.S. payment transaction volumes continuing to grow, it is expected that electronic volumes will surpass check volumes for the first time in a 2005 or 2006 timeframe.

        Globalization of Payments Work.    As the important work of processing payments becomes more electronic, the opportunities for financial institutions to leverage workforces around the world to achieve cost and quality advantages will proliferate. We believe financial institutions will gradually at first, and more rapidly later, source and process components of their payments work in secure, low cost countries around the globe.

The Carreker Solution

        The products and services offered by our divisions are designed to address our clients' needs to adapt to an ever-changing landscape in the payments businesses for financial institutions. These solutions combine consulting and professional services with software applications to enable financial institutions to identify and implement payment solutions, increase revenues, reduce costs and enhance delivery of customer services. The key characteristics of our solutions include:

        Integrated and Consultative Approach.    We combine our consulting expertise and software applications to serve as a single-source provider of fully-integrated payments solutions. This approach sets us apart from providers of partial solutions that require financial institutions to seek multiple solution providers and costly additional expertise or implementation services to attain a complete solution. By offering this integration, we can streamline the buying decisions, simplify the implementation efforts and accelerate results when compared to a multiple supplier approach.

        Comprehensive Delivery Model.    Our delivery approach emphasizes reliable, high-quality, lower risk and on-time results our clients can count on. Further, we are able to deliver our software and consulting solutions in a variety of delivery models to meet our clients' specific needs. These delivery methods include traditional software licensing and associated consulting, third party web-hosting and licensing software for use by multiple banks in a shared operating environment. Our ability to deliver products and services in a variety of methods allows us to provide solutions to a wider range of clients.

        Advanced Technology.    In our portfolio of over 125 software products, we leverage the latest industry, open standard, technologies, including object oriented programming languages like Java and C++, proven open source project components, J2EE and .NET enterprise architectures, as well as XML and SOAP protocols. Our framework-based development methodology employs shared business objects and application services to produce software applications that can be effectively integrated with a bank's current and/or legacy systems. In addition, our current and legacy participation in inter-bank organizations, such as the Electronic Check Clearinghouse Organization, FSTC, ANSI, and the ABA, enables us to stay at the forefront of critical business drivers in the industry.

7

        Compelling Business Proposition for Clients.    Our solutions reduce investment risk for our clients by increasing revenues or reducing costs in a concrete and measurable way and in a relatively short period of time. In addition, in appropriate circumstances, we value-price certain of our solutions, whereby we receive a percentage of the amount of additional revenues or reduced costs achieved by the customer. These arrangements allow banks to fund their investments in our solutions with the benefits derived from their implementation.

        Broad Array of Services and Technology.    We believe that our offerings provide the broadest footprint of solutions from a single supplier of payments solutions in the banking industry. This array of products enables us to provide a financial institution with a very targeted solution for a narrow area of its operations or to address a broad range of its operational requirements. We believe that offering this wide variety of solutions, from revenue enhancement to cost reduction to improved delivery of customer services, enhances the value we offer to our customers.

Products and Services

        Global Payments Technologies Solutions.    Carreker's technology solutions help financial institutions address the needs of some critical payment services and delivery functions that impact overall operating costs and risk management. These functions include presentment of checks in paper and electronic form, identification and mitigation of fraudulent payments, handling irregular items such as checks returned unpaid (exceptions), maintaining a record of past transactions (archiving), responding to related customer inquiries (research), and correcting any errors that are discovered (adjustments). The Global Payments Technologies ("GPT") solutions suite addresses these key functions in the context of improving operational efficiency and a gradual transition from paper to electronic-based payment systems. In addition, we offer technology solutions that optimize the inventory management of a bank's cash stock levels, including managing how much is needed, when it is needed and where it is needed. Our solutions reduce the amount of cash banks need to hold in reserve accounts and as cash-on-hand, while ensuring a high level of customer service through timely replenishment of ATM cash supplies.

8

        Specific solutions in the GPT group include:

9

        Revenue Enhancement Solutions.    The Revenue Enhancement division includes two business units: RevE and EnAct. RevE is a highly specialized division that provides consulting services focused on tactical methods of increasing banks' fee income. The scope and depth of this practice has expanded

10

throughout its 13 year history and now includes retail, small business, and commercial deposits, treasury management, consumer and commercial lending, credit card lending and trust and investment services. Our solutions involve developing strategies that enable our clients to take advantage of electronification trends, often gaining first mover advantages for our clients. In addition to developing strategies, our business model ensures that we continue to translate those strategies into tactical implementations with measurable revenue streams. Our client base has continued to expand with very high penetration rates in the markets in which we operate. Thus, we have experienced a trend of becoming longer term strategic partners with our clients.

        Another component of our Revenue Enhancement Division is our business providing EnAct software and proprietary sales management methodology. Our EnAct solutions assist financial institutions in leveraging central intelligence with local insight. This enables our clients to recognize those customers and prospects representing the greatest value or potential. Our approach is unique and complimentary to many CRM investments that banks have made in recent years and is designed to focus their activities such that they can actually attain increased returns on these CRM investments.

        Global Payments Consulting.    Carreker helps financial institutions pro-actively plan, prepare and optimize for the regulatory, competitive and technological impacts affecting the financial payments environment.

        Our Global Payments Consulting (GPC) division provides strategic planning and implementation advisory services for financial institutions. These planning and implementation services include:

•

Payment research services



•

Predictive financial and operational modeling of the implications of payment trends and strategies



•

Image-enabled payment infrastructure planning



•

Transportation, float and funds availability optimization



•

Organizational design



•

Consolidation and merger/integration planning



•

Check 21 readiness

        Each service's objective is to assist our financial institution clients in preparing and positioning their organization for the rapidly changing payment landscape.

        The GPC division also contains the consulting license, maintenance and service revenue of our Float Management Group. Float Management provides solutions that manage a bank's float through float analysis, pricing and a comprehensive consulting practice to improve profitability, reporting, workflow and check clearing operations. These products also provide critical activity summaries, aid in creating multiple availability and pricing schedules, and pinpoint the cost/profitability of transactions or relationships. The products offered consist of Float Analysis System and Float Pricing System.

        Outsourcing.    Carretek is a jointly owned company with Majesco Software Inc., the US subsidiary of Mastek Limited, a leading Indian outsourcing company with global operations. Carretek was formed in fiscal 2003. As this business is still in the developmental phase, and has not derived any revenue, its operations are contained in the Corporate-Unallocated business segment. Carretek's goal is to enable financial institutions and their processors to realize the benefits of offshore-centric outsourcing (offshoring) of their business processes and IT services needs. These benefits could include reduction in operating costs, improvements in productivity, and enhancement of quality.

        Initially, Carretek is focused on offshoring payments-related business processes and IT services such as custom software development and application maintenance services. Within this area of

11

expertise, the Carretek offering includes a flexible array of offshore outsourcing services to financial institutions, which include: global sourcing strategy development (consulting, methodology, and tools) to help banks understand their offshoring opportunities and optimize their decisions in this regard; outsourcing of selected payment processes to India through a range of business models suited to each bank's needs; and application development, maintenance and support.

        Carretek draws on Carreker's expertise in payments systems and associated business processes to help banks rationalize the business case for transitioning some of these processes to cost-efficient offshore locations and improving banks' return on investments in payments technologies. Carreker's image-related technologies, already in place at many large U.S. banks, enable such transitioning and leverage the banks' previous investment in these systems.

Customers

        A majority of our revenues are generated from contracts with banks maintaining assets in excess of $5.0 billion. We currently provide services or products to each of the 20 largest banks in the United States, as measured by total assets by Sheshunoff Information Services. Our five largest customers accounted for approximately 28%, 34% and 34% of total revenues during the fiscal years ended January 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. No single customer accounted for more than 10% of total revenues during the year ended January 31, 2004, U.S. Bank, N.A. accounted for approximately 10% of total revenues during the year ended January 31, 2003, and Wells Fargo & Company accounted for approximately 11% of total revenues during the year ended January 31, 2002. Please see Note 12 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for information about our non-U.S. customers.

Solutions Development

        Our solutions development activities focus on identifying specific bank needs, prototyping and developing promising applications, test marketing new products, developing sales strategies and coordinating distribution and on-going maintenance for each of our solutions. In certain instances, we have contracted with third party software development companies to develop our solutions.

        We frequently receive customer requests for new services and/or software. We strive to develop solutions in response to these requests and historically have been able to partner with our customers and share some or all of the development costs. In addition to customer-funded solutions development, we have invested significant amounts in solutions development, including expenditures of $7.2 million, $11.3 million, and $10.8 million for research and development in the years ended January 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Further, some of our key product introductions have resulted from the adaptation of products developed for customers to address a wider market. In exchange for either a one-time payment and/or on-going royalties, we are often able to obtain the right to develop, enhance and market these modified products.

Technology

        Our software products incorporate open systems architecture and protocols to provide scalability and functionality to interface with a bank's current and legacy systems. Our core proprietary technologies, for both our client/server and mainframe software products, are primarily directed at using a standard set of components, drivers, and application interfaces, and leveraging the quality and productivity benefits of reusable component development.

        Many of our newer products operate on Windows or Unix platforms, support industry-standard Web browsers such as Microsoft Internet Explorer and AOL Netscape, and databases such as Oracle, DB2, or SQL, and can be delivered as an ASP or standard packaged product.

        We continue to enhance our second-generation computer systems, which are primarily IBM mainframe-based or client server applications, and use common computer tools to integrate the data from these computer programs into our new products.

12

Sales and Marketing

        We have developed strong relationships with many senior bank executives as a result of our delivery of solutions to many of the largest banks in the United States for over 25 years. As of January 31, 2004, we had 21 Account Relationship Managers, who are responsible for managing our day-to-day relationships with our customers. Twelve are responsible for North American bank relationships, and nine are responsible for the International bank relationships. Our Account Relationship Managers' responsibilities include identifying customers' needs and assisting our business unit teams in presenting their solutions and concluding sales. Our Account Relationship Managers work closely with our executive officers, some of whom serve as Executive Relationship Managers to our customers. We also employ applicable business segment sales and technical sales support staff, who are familiar with our technology and who participate in opportunities to sell technology-based solutions.

        We derive a significant portion of our business through customer referrals. In addition, we market our services through a variety of media, including:

•

our web site;



•

direct mail;



•

user conferences conducted exclusively for our customers and qualified prospects;



•

participation in industry conferences and trade shows;



•

publication of "white papers" related to specific aspects of our services;



•

customer newsletters; and



•

informational listings in trade journals.

        As of January 31, 2004, we employed a marketing staff of 9 individuals, including graphics designers, writers, administrative coordinators and a Web master.

Competition

        We operate in a highly competitive and rapidly changing global marketplace and compete with a variety of organizations that offer products and services competitive with those we offer. In our consulting and revenue enhancement businesses our clients retain us on a non-exclusive basis. In addition, a client may choose to use its own resources rather than engage us for these consulting services. Our competitors in the consulting business space include strategic consulting firms and full-service consulting services, as well as niche consulting providers. Increasingly, the global information technology service firms are offering a full range of consulting services. Further, the niche financial institution processing companies are increasingly creating and offering consulting services as an additional value-added service to their IT processing offerings. In the Revenue Enhancement business our competitors are almost exclusively niche providers; small and medium-sized private organizations.

        In our global payments technology business segment, our competitors are generally the global information technology service firms and the smaller niche application providers. In each of our major software product suites a range of competitors exist. The global IT services firms compete in a majority of our software product suites. At the same time, differing groups of application and niche application competitors focus on one or more of our other product suites.

        Some of these competitors have significantly greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources than we do. On the other hand, some of the niche providers lack the scale, global scope, product/knowledge breadth and competencies that we enjoy.

13

        We believe that our market position with respect to these competitors is enhanced by virtue of our unique ability to deliver fully integrated software solutions and consulting services focused on enabling financial institutions to identify and implement payments solutions, increase their revenues, reduce their costs and enhance their delivery of customer services. We believe that we compete based on a number of factors, including:

•

quality of solutions;



•

scope of solutions provided;



•

industry expertise;



•

application architecture, reliability and scalability;



•

access to decision makers within banks;



•

global scale and scope;



•

ease and speed of solutions implementation; and



•

price.

        In addition to competing with a variety of third parties, we experience competition from our customers and potential customers when they develop, implement and maintain their own services and applications. In addition, customers or potential customers could enter into strategic relationships with one or more of our competitors to develop, market and sell competing services or products.

Government Regulation

        Our primary customers are banks. Although the services we currently offer have not been subject to any material industry-specific government regulation, the banking industry is heavily regulated. Our products and services must allow our banking customers to comply with all applicable regulations, and as a result, we must understand the intricacies and application of many government regulations. The regulations most applicable to our provision of solutions to banks include requirements establishing minimum reserve requirements, governing funds availability and the collection and return of checks, and establishing rights, liabilities and responsibilities of parties in electronic funds transfers. For example, some of our consulting services assist banks with minimizing their reserves while complying with Federal Reserve requirements. In addition, the expedited availability and check return requirements imposed by funds availability regulations have increased fraud opportunities dramatically, and our Global Payments Technologies products and services address this concern while complying with such regulations.

        While we are not directly subject to federal or state regulations specifically applicable to financial institutions, such as banks, thrifts and credit unions, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and various state regulatory authorities typically assert the right to observe the operations of companies to which certain functions of financial institutions (such as data processing) are outsourced. These regulators may from time to time also claim the right to observe the operations of companies like us that provide software to financial institutions. In addition, financial institutions with whom we do business may from time to time require, by contract or otherwise, that evaluations of our internal controls be performed by independent auditors or by the financial institutions themselves.

Proprietary Rights

        We rely upon a combination of patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret laws, including the use of confidentiality agreements with employees, independent contractors and third parties and physical security devices to protect our proprietary technology and information. We have a number of

14

issued patents and registered trademarks and have filed applications for additional patents and trademarks in the United States. We defend our proprietary rights.

        We enter into invention assignment and confidentiality agreements with our employees and independent contractors and confidentiality agreements with certain customers. We also limit access to the source codes for our software and other proprietary information. We believe that due to the rapid pace of innovation within the software industry, factors such as the technological and creative expertise of our personnel, the quality of our solutions, the quality of our technical support and training services and the frequency of release of technology enhancements are important to establishing and maintaining a technology leadership in addition to the various legal protections available for our technology.

        We are not aware that we are infringing on any proprietary rights of third parties. We rely upon certain software that we license from third parties, including software that is integrated with our internally developed software and used in our solutions to perform key functions. We are not aware that any third-party software being re-sold by us is infringing upon proprietary rights of other third-parties.

Employees

        As of January 31, 2004, we had 582 employees. Of these employees, 94 provided consulting services, 297 provided technology and implementation functions, 82 performed sales and marketing, product management, customer relations and business development functions and 109 persons performed corporate, finance and administrative functions. We have no unionized employees, and we believe that our employee relations are good.

Executive Officers of the Company

        The following table sets forth information regarding the Company's current executive officers.

        John D. Carreker, Jr. has served as Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer since the Company's formation in 1978. John D. Carreker, Jr. and James D. Carreker, a director of the company, are brothers. John D. Carreker III is the son of John D. Carreker, Jr.

        Michael D. Hansen has served as President and Chief Operating Officer since December 2001. From October 2000 to December 2001 Mr. Hansen served as Executive Vice President and Managing Director. From 1998 to September 2000, Mr. Hansen served as the Head of Commercial Services and Executive Vice President and the Managing Director of Commercial Banking of Bank One

15

Corporation. From 1995 to 1998, Mr. Hansen served as the President of Operations Services of Bank One Corporation.

        Lisa Peterson has served as Executive Vice President, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary since October 2003. From August 1999 to February 2003, Ms. Peterson served as Chief Financial and Administrative Officer for Monarch Dental Corporation, a dental group practice management company. From May 1997 to July 1999, Ms. Peterson served as Chief Financial Officer for Viacom Retail Stores, Inc., a start-up division of Viacom, Inc. For the six years prior to that time, Ms. Peterson worked for Pearle Vision, Inc. in various capacities culminating in the position of Vice President and Controller.

        John D. Carreker III has served as Executive Vice President and Managing Director since June 2002 and as President, Global Payments Technologies since November 2002. Since June 1991, Mr. Carreker has served in various management positions with the Company. John D. Carreker III is the son of John D. Carreker, Jr. and the nephew of James D. Carreker.

        Robert M. Olson, Jr. has served as Executive Vice President since July 1998 and as Vice Chairman, Relationship Management & Alliances since November 2002. From July 1994 until July 1998, Mr. Olson served as Executive Vice President, Operations & Technology for Magna Group, Inc., a financial services institution.

        Blake A. Williams has served as Executive Vice President and Managing Director of Revenue Enhancement since July 2001 and as President, Revenue Enhancement since November 2002. For two years prior to that time, Mr. Williams was the SVP and Managing Director of Revenue Enhancement. Mr. Williams has been with the Company for twelve years in various management and consulting roles.

        Tod V. Mongan has served as Senior Vice President and Secretary since December 2001 and as General Counsel to the Company since February 2001. For the five years prior to that time Mr. Mongan served as Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer for BancTec, Inc., a worldwide systems integration, manufacturing and services company.

16

Forward Looking Statements and Risk Factors

Forward Looking Statements

        Statements in this Report and the Annual Report to the Stockholders that are not purely historical facts including statements about our expected future financial position, results of operations or cash flows, as well as other statements including words such as "anticipate," "believe," "plan," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "should," "could," "goal," "target," "designated," "on track," "comfortable with," "optimistic" and other similar expressions, constitute forward looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Actual results of the timing of some events could differ materially from those projected in or contemplated by the forward looking statements due to a number of factors, including, without limitation, those set forth below and elsewhere in this Report. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward looking statements, for no assurances can be given with respect to any forward looking statements. In addition to the other information in this Report, the following factors, which may affect our current position and future prospects, should be considered carefully in evaluating us and an investment in our common stock.

Risk Factors

Our performance depends on the banking industry, and any change in the banking industry's demand for our solutions could reduce our revenues and have a material adverse effect on our business.

        We derive substantially all of our revenues from solutions provided to banks and other participants in the banking industry. Accordingly, our future success significantly depends upon this industry's continued demand for our solutions. We believe that an important factor in our growth has been substantial changes in the banking industry in recent years, as manifested by continuing consolidation, regulatory change, technological innovation, the emergence of the Internet and other trends. If this environment of change were to slow, we could experience reduced demand for our solutions. In addition, the banking industry is sensitive to changes in economic conditions and is highly susceptible to unforeseen events, such as domestic or foreign political instability, recession, inflation or other adverse occurrences that may result in a significant decline in the utilization of bank services. Furthermore, due to concerns regarding data security and other factors, banks have been and may in the future be hesitant to adopt electronic solutions, which can adversely affect the demand for our solutions. Any event that results in decreased consumer or corporate use of bank services, or increased pressures on banks towards the in-house development and implementation of revenue enhancement or cost reduction measures, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our inability to respond to a decline in check volumes could reduce our revenues and have a material adverse effect on our business.

        We have in the past derived a significant portion of our revenues from check related products and services. A decline in check volumes could have a material adverse effect on our business. If banks and merchants decide to use pricing incentives to further stimulate a decline in check usage, this decline in usage could accelerate. Our future success depends on our ability to leverage existing competencies to support emerging payments types, and to define and develop new solutions addressing those payment types. If we are unable to capitalize on these competencies to generate new revenues to offset any loss of revenues arising as a result of a decline in check usage, then our business could be adversely affected.

17

Many factors, some beyond our control, could cause fluctuations in our operating results, which could result in a lower market price for our common stock.

        We have experienced in the past, and expect to experience in the future, significant fluctuations in quarterly operating results. Such fluctuations may be caused by many factors, including but not limited to:

•

timing of contract execution and revenue recognition;



•

increases in costs beyond anticipated levels, especially in the context of costs incurred under value-pricing contracts or fluctuations in software royalty expense due to a change in future product mix;



•

the timing and degree of customer acceptance of new solutions;



•

fluctuations or delays in schedules for implementation of software licensed to customers;



•

the introduction of new or enhanced solutions by us or our competitors;



•

our mix of revenues derived from consulting and management service fees on the one hand, and software-related fees on the other;



•

war, terrorist acts and civil unrest; and



•

timing of consolidation decisions by customers.

        Risks over which we have little or no control, including customer budget cycles and priorities, can also significantly affect operating results. As a result of these factors, our quarterly revenues and operating results are difficult to forecast. It is possible that our future quarterly results of operations from time to time will not meet the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which could have a material adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

We do not typically enter into long-term agreements with our customers, which makes it more difficult to plan and efficiently allocate our resources, and any deferral, modification or cancellation of a customer project can adversely affect our operating results.

        We typically provide services to customers on a project-by-project basis without long-term agreements. When a customer defers, modifies or cancels a project, we must be able to rapidly re-deploy our personnel to other projects in order to minimize the under-utilization of our personnel and the resulting adverse impact on operating results. In addition, our operating expenses are relatively fixed and cannot be reduced on short notice to compensate for unanticipated variations in the number or size of projects in progress. As a result, any delay, modification or cancellation of a customer project, or any disruption of our business relationships with any of our significant customers or with a number of smaller customers could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our future success significantly depends on the experience of our key personnel, and the loss of any one of them could impair our ability to do business.

        Our future success depends, in significant part, upon the continued services of John D. Carreker, Jr., our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, as well as other executive officers and key personnel. The loss of services of Mr. Carreker or one or more of our other executive officers or key employees could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to retain our executive officers or key personnel. We do not maintain key-man life insurance covering any of our executive officers or other key personnel.

18

Our software and solutions may contain defects or errors, which could adversely affect our business and subject us to liability claims.

        Our solutions at times in the past have been, and in the future may be, incompatible with the operating environments of our customers or inappropriate to address their needs, resulting in additional costs being incurred by us in rendering services to our customers. Further, like other software products, our software occasionally has contained undetected errors, or "bugs," which become apparent through use of the software. Because our new or enhanced software initially is installed at a limited number of sites and operated by a limited number of users, such errors and/or incompatibilities may not be detected for a number of months after delivery of the software. The foregoing errors in the past have resulted in the deployment of our personnel and funds to cure errors, occasionally resulting in cost overruns and delays in solutions development and enhancement. Moreover, solutions with substantial errors could be rejected by or result in damages to customers, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. There can be no assurance that errors or defects will not be discovered in the future, potentially causing delays in solution implementation or requiring design modifications that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. It is also possible that errors or defects in our solutions could give rise to liability claims against us.

Our future success depends on our ability to develop new technologies and services to meet the changing needs of our current and future customers, and our inability to introduce new solutions could negatively impact our ability to do business and maintain our financial condition.

        We regularly undertake new projects and initiatives in order to meet the changing needs of our customers. In so doing, we invest substantial resources with no assurance of their ultimate success. We believe our future success will depend, in part, upon our ability to:

•

enhance our existing solutions;



•

design and introduce new solutions that address the increasingly sophisticated and varied needs of our current and prospective customers;



•

develop leading technology; and



•

respond to technological advances and emerging industry standards on a timely and cost-effective basis.

        In fiscal 2003, we undertook several large development projects to develop software for sending and receiving check images along with purchasing an anti-money laundering software solution. We capitalized $1.0 million of internal development expense in fiscal 2003 and purchased the anti-money laundering software for $1.5 million. We expect internal capitalization to increase in fiscal 2004.

        There can be no assurance that future advances in technology will be beneficial to, or compatible with, our business or that we will be able to incorporate such advances into our business. In addition, keeping abreast of technological advances in our business may require substantial expenditures and lead-time. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in using new technologies, adapting our solutions to emerging industry standards or developing, introducing and marketing solution enhancements or new solutions, or that we will not experience difficulties that could delay or prevent the successful development, introduction or marketing of these solutions. If we incur increased costs or are unable, for technical or other reasons, to develop and introduce new solutions or enhancements of existing solutions in a timely manner in response to changing market conditions or customer requirements, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

19

Our focus on providing business process outsourcing, or BPO, with a significant offshore component subjects us to risks associated with new markets, new competition, cross border and geopolitical risks and a dependence on third-party providers.

        Our BPO business model gives rise to numerous risks, particularly risks related to our dependence on third party providers operating in distant geographic regions and those associated with entering a new market with competitors who may have significantly more resources than we do. The success of our BPO model partially depends on the performance of the offshore third party service provider with whom we have contracted to provide BPO services to our clients. In addition, we have to compete on the basis of a number of factors including the attractiveness and breadth of the business strategy and services that we offer, pricing, technological innovation, quality of service, ability to invest in or acquire assets of potential customers, and our scale in certain industries or geographic regions. Because some of these factors are outside of our control and because many of our competitors may have greater financial resources, larger customer bases, and larger technical, sales and marketing resources, we cannot be sure that we will compete successfully against them in the future. If we fail to compete successfully against our competitors with respect to these or other factors, our BPO business, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

There is competition in our industry for qualified banking professionals and technical and managerial personnel, and our failure to attract and retain these people could affect our ability to respond to banking and technological change and to increase our revenues.

        Our future success depends upon our continuing ability to attract and retain highly qualified banking, technical and managerial personnel. Competition for such personnel has at times caused difficulties in attracting the desired number of such individuals. Further, our employees have left us to work in-house with our customers and with our competitors. There can be no assurance that we will be able to attract or retain a sufficient number of highly qualified employees or independent contractors in the future. If we are unable to attract personnel in key positions, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

A small number of customers account for a substantial portion of our business, so the loss of any one of them could have an adverse impact on our business and financial condition.

        Our five largest customers accounted for approximately 28%, 34% and 34% of total revenues during the fiscal years ended January 31, 2004, 2003, 2002, respectively. Our significant customers have changed from period to period. However, a significant portion of our current revenues is derived from customers who were major customers in prior years, and we are therefore dependent to a significant degree on our ability to maintain our existing relationships with these customers. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in maintaining our existing customer relationships or in securing additional customers, and there can be no assurance that we can retain or increase the volume of business that we do with such customers. In particular, continuing consolidation within the banking industry may result in the loss of one or more significant customers. Any failure by us to retain one or more of our large customers, maintain or increase the volume of business done for such customers or establish profitable relationships with additional customers could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We face increased competition that could result in price reductions, fewer customer orders and loss of market share, any of which could materially and adversely affect our business.

        We compete with third-party providers of services and software products to the banking industry that include consulting firms and software companies. Some of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources than we do. Our competitors may be able to respond more quickly to new or emerging technologies and changes in customer requirements or to devote greater resources to the development, promotion and sale of their products than we can. Also,

20

some of our current and potential competitors have greater name recognition and larger customer bases that such competitors could leverage to increase market share at our expense. We expect to face increased competition as other established and emerging companies enter the banking services market. Increased competition could result in price reductions, fewer customer orders and loss of market share, any of which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. There can be no assurance that we will be able to compete successfully against current or future competitors, and the failure to do so would have a material adverse effect upon our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        In addition to competing with a variety of third parties, we experience competition from our customers and potential customers. From time to time, these potential customers develop, implement and maintain their own services and applications for revenue enhancements, cost reductions and/or enhanced customer services, rather than purchasing services and related products from third parties. There can be no assurance that these customers or other potential customers will perceive sufficient value in our solutions to justify investing in them. In addition, customers or potential customers could enter into strategic relationships with one or more of our competitors to develop, market and sell competing services or products.

We may be unable to fully benefit from our strategic alliances and acquisitions, which could negatively affect our business and hinder our ability to realize expected benefits.

        We regularly evaluate opportunities and may enter into strategic alliances, or make acquisitions of other businesses, products or technologies. Risks inherent in alliances may include, among others:

•

substantial investment of our resources in the alliance;



•

inability to realize the intended benefits of an alliance;



•

increased reliance on third parties;



•

increased payment of third-party licensing fees or royalties for the incorporation of third-party technology into our solutions; and



•

inadvertent transfer of our proprietary technology to strategic "partners."

        Acquisitions involve numerous risks, including:

•

difficulties in identifying suitable acquisition candidates;



•

competition for acquisitions with other companies, many of which have substantially greater resources than we do;



•

failure to close after expending time and resources;



•

inability to obtain sufficient financing on acceptable terms to fund acquisitions;



•

requirement that the acquisition may be funded through additional debt obligations which therefore would increase interest expense;



•

volatility of stock price due to one-time charges to earnings;



•

difficulties in assimilating acquired operations and products into our business;



•

maintaining uniform standards, controls, procedures and policies;



•

potential loss of customers and strategic partners of acquired companies;



•

potential loss of key employees of acquired companies;



•

diversion of management's attention from other business concerns;

21

•

amortization of acquired intangible assets; and



•

failure of acquired businesses, products or technologies to perform as expected or to achieve expected levels of revenues, profitability or productivity.

        There can be no assurance that we will be successful in identifying and entering into strategic alliances or making acquisitions, if at all, and any inability to do so could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        We expect that future acquisitions, if any, could provide for consideration to be paid in cash, shares of our common stock, or a combination of cash and our common stock. If the consideration for an acquisition transaction is paid in common stock, this could further dilute existing stockholders. Any impairment of a significant amount of goodwill or other assets resulting from an acquisition transaction could materially impact our operating results and financial condition.

Our inability to protect adequately our proprietary technology or to prevent its unauthorized use could divert our financial resources and cause significant expenditures, which could materially harm our business.

        Our success significantly depends upon our proprietary technology and information. We rely upon a combination of patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret laws and confidentiality procedures to protect our proprietary technology and information. We have a number of issued patents and registered trademarks. There can be no assurance that the steps we have taken to protect our services and products are adequate to prevent misappropriation of our technology or that our competitors independently will not develop technologies that are substantially equivalent or superior to our technology. Furthermore, it is very difficult to police unauthorized use of our software due to the nature of software. Any such misappropriation of our proprietary technology or information or the development of competitive technologies could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        In addition, the laws of some countries in which our software is distributed do not protect our intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, the laws of a number of foreign jurisdictions in which we license our software protect trademarks solely on the basis of the first to register. We currently do not possess any trademark registrations in foreign jurisdictions, although we do have copyright protection of our software under the provisions of various international conventions. Accordingly, intellectual property protection of our services and products may be ineffective in many foreign countries. In summary, there can be no assurance that the protection provided by the laws of the United States or such foreign jurisdictions will be sufficient to protect our proprietary technology or information.

Infringement claims by third parties can subject us to substantial liability and expenses and can impair our ability to sell our solutions.

        We may need to litigate claims against third parties to enforce our intellectual property rights, protect our trade secrets, determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others or defend against claims of infringement or invalidity. We may be required to incur significant costs in reaching a resolution to the asserted claims, or any other claims that may be asserted against us. These types of claims commonly increase as technology providers develop new product offerings. There can be no assurance that the resolution of a claim would not require us to pay damages or obtain a license to the third party's intellectual property rights in order to continue licensing our software as currently offered or, if such a third-party license is required, that it would be available on terms acceptable to us. The resolution of claims may also divert our management resources. If we cannot adequately protect our proprietary rights, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.

22

We depend on third parties for some of our technology licenses, and if we cannot obtain satisfactory licenses our business could suffer.

        Some technology used in our current software and software in development includes technology licensed from third parties. These licenses generally require us to pay royalties and to fulfill confidentiality obligations. The termination of any such licenses, or the failure of the third party licensors to adequately maintain or update their products, could result in delays in our ability to implement solutions or in delays in the introduction of our new or enhanced solutions while we search for similar technology from alternative sources, if any, which could prove costly. Any need to implement alternative technology could prove to be very expensive for us, and any delay in solution implementation could result in a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition and results of our operations. It may also be necessary or desirable in the future to obtain additional licenses for use of third-party products in our solutions, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to do so on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.

We may face liability claims related to the use of our solutions and the defense of these claims could have a negative effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

        As a result of our provision of solutions that address critical functions of bank operations, we are exposed to possible liability claims from banks and their customers. Although we have not experienced any material liability claims to date, there can be no assurance that we will not become subject to such claims in the future. A liability claim against us could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        Our ASP software hosting model requires the storage and transmission of sensitive business information of our customers electronically over the Internet. The difficulty of securely storing confidential information electronically has been a significant issue in conducting electronic commerce and in carrying out banking operations over the Internet. Our ASP software hosting model requires us to spend significant capital and other resources to protect against the threat of security breaches or computer viruses, or to alleviate problems caused by breaches or viruses. To the extent that our activities or the activities of our customers require the storage and transmission of confidential information, such as banking records or credit information, security breaches and viruses could expose us to claims, litigation or other possible liabilities. Our inability to prevent security breaches or computer viruses could also cause our customers to lose confidence in our solutions and terminate their relationships with us.

The ultimate resolution of some ongoing lawsuits may have a material adverse effect on our business.

        We are unable to predict or determine the final outcome of the lawsuits described under "Item 3. Legal Proceedings," and the effect of these proceedings on our financial results, our business or our management. The potential outcomes or resolutions of the lawsuits could include judgments against us or settlements that could require substantial payments by us. In addition, the timing of the final resolution of these matters is uncertain. We believe that a material adverse outcome or outcomes with respect to the lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on our financial results, our business or our management, including but not limited to, significantly impacting our liquidity in a negative manner as well as causing covenant violations under our revolving credit agreement, possibly resulting in a default thereunder. In the event of material adverse outcome with respect to any of the lawsuits, it is likely that the market price of our common stock would be negatively impacted.

Our stock price has fluctuated significantly, sometimes for reasons unrelated to our performance.

        There has been significant volatility in the market price of our common stock. Factors which may have a significant impact on the market price of our common stock are difficult to predict, such as:

•

quarterly variations in our results of operations or results of operations of our competitors;

23

•

changes in earnings estimates or recommendations by securities analysts;



•

developments in our industry and in the banking industry, including industry adoption rates for new technologies;



•

the outcome of litigation (see "Item 3. Legal Proceedings");



•

general market and economic conditions; and



•

other factors, including factors unrelated to our operating performance or that of our competitors.

        We believe that factors such as quarterly fluctuations in financial results or announcements by us, our competitors, banks and other bank industry participants could cause the market price of our common stock to fluctuate substantially. In addition, the stock market may experience extreme price and volume fluctuations that often are unrelated to the operating performance of specific companies. Market fluctuations or perceptions regarding the banking industry and general economic or political conditions may adversely affect the market price of the common stock.

We face risks in connection with the expansion of our international operations, which could have a negative impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        We provide solutions to banks outside the United States, and a key component of our growth strategy is to broaden our international operations. In addition, our provision of business process outsourcing involves a significant offshore component. Our international operations are subject to risks inherent in the conduct of international business, including:

•

unexpected changes in regulatory requirements;



•

fluctuations in exchange rates and devaluations of foreign currencies;



•

export license requirements;



•

tariffs and other economic barriers to free trade;



•

restrictions on the export of critical technology;



•

difficulties in staffing international projects;



•

political and economic instability;



•

limited intellectual property protection;



•

longer accounts receivable cycles and difficulties in collecting payments; and



•

potentially adverse tax and labor consequences.

        Some of our international sales are denominated in local currencies, and the impact of future exchange rate fluctuations on our financial condition and results of operations cannot be accurately predicted. There can be no assurance that fluctuations in currency exchange rates in the future will not have a material adverse effect on revenue from international sales and thus our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our use of independent contractors exposes us to legal and tax risks which, if determined against us, could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

        We often provide solutions through independent contractors. As we do not treat these individuals as our employees, we do not pay federal or state employment taxes or withhold federal or state employment or income taxes from compensation paid to such persons. We also do not consider these persons eligible for coverage or benefits provided under our employee benefit plans or include these persons when evaluating the compliance of our employee benefit plans with the requirements of the

24

Internal Revenue Code. Additionally, we do not treat such persons as employees for purposes of worker's compensation, labor and employment, or other legal purposes. From time to time, we may face legal challenges to the appropriateness of the characterization of these individuals as independent contractors from governmental agencies, the independent contractors themselves or some other person or entity. The determination of such a legal challenge generally will be determined on a case-by-case basis in view of the particular facts of each case. The fact specific nature of this determination raises the risk that from time to time an individual that we have characterized as an independent contractor will be reclassified as an employee for these or other legal purposes.

        In the event persons engaged by us as independent contractors are determined to be employees by the Internal Revenue Service or any applicable taxing authority, we would be required to pay applicable federal and state employment taxes and withhold income taxes with respect to these individuals and could become liable for amounts required to be paid or withheld in prior periods and for costs, penalties and interest thereon. In addition, we could be required to include these individuals in our employee benefit plans on a retroactive, as well as a current, basis. Furthermore, depending on the party that makes the legal challenge and the remedy sought, we could be subject to other liabilities sought by governmental authorities or private persons. During the fiscal year 2003 we used approximately 10 independent contractors. Any challenge by the IRS, state authorities or private litigants resulting in a determination that these individuals are employees could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        From time to time new legislation may be proposed to establish more stringent requirements for the engagement of independent contractors. We are unable to assess the likelihood that any such legislation will be enacted. Further, our ability to retain independent contractors could in the future deteriorate, due in part to the lower commitment level that these contractors have to us.

Government regulation and legal uncertainties could force us to change our operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to maintain our current business.

        Our primary customers are banks. Although the solutions that we currently offer have not been subject to any material, specific government regulation, the banking industry is regulated heavily, and we expect that such regulation will affect the relative demand for our solutions. While we are not directly subject to federal or state regulations specifically applicable to financial institutions, such as banks, thrifts and credit unions, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and various state regulatory authorities typically assert the right to observe the operations of companies to which certain functions of financial institutions (such as data processing) are outsourced. These regulators may from time to time also claim the right to observe the operations of companies like us that provide software to financial institutions. In addition, financial institutions with whom we do business may from time to time require, by contract or otherwise, that evaluations of our internal controls be performed by independent auditors or by the financial institutions themselves. There can be no assurance that federal, state or foreign governmental authorities will not adopt new regulations, and any adoption of new regulations could require us to modify our current or future solutions. The adoption of laws or regulations affecting us or our customers' businesses could reduce our growth rate or could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law could prevent or delay potential acquisition bids, including bids which may be beneficial to our stockholders.

        Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain provisions that may have the effect of delaying, deterring or preventing a potential takeover that our stockholders may consider to be in their best interests. The certificate and bylaws provide for a classified board of directors serving staggered terms of three years, prevent stockholders from calling a special meeting of stockholders and prohibit

25

stockholder action by written consent. The certificate also authorizes only the board of directors to fill vacancies, including newly-created directorships, and states that our directors may be removed only for cause and only by the affirmative vote of holders of at least two-thirds of the outstanding shares of the voting stock, voting together as a single class. In addition, our board of directors may issue up to 2,000,000 shares of preferred stock in one or more series and can fix the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions thereof without any further vote or action by our stockholders. The issuance of shares of preferred stock may prevent or delay a change of control transaction.

        In addition, Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which is applicable to us, restricts certain business combinations with interested stockholders even if such a combination would be beneficial to stockholders. These provisions may inhibit a non-negotiated merger or other business combination. The anti-takeover provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law prevent us from engaging in a "business combination" with any "interested stockholder" for three years following the date that the stockholder became an interested stockholder. For purposes of Delaware law, a "business combination" includes a merger or consolidation involving us and the interested stockholder and the sale of more than 10% of our assets. In general, Delaware law defines an "interested stockholder" as any entity or person beneficially owning more than 15% of the outstanding voting stock of a corporation and any entity or person affiliated with or controlling or controlled by such entity or person. Under Delaware law, a Delaware corporation may opt out of the anti-takeover provisions. We do not intend to opt out of these anti-takeover provisions.

        The foregoing provisions could discourage potential acquisition proposals and could delay or prevent a change in control transaction. They could also discourage others from making tender offers for our shares. As a result, these provisions may prevent the market price of our common stock from reflecting the effects of actual or rumored takeover attempts. These provisions may also prevent significant changes in our board of directors and management.

The adoption of the Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets as of February 1, 2002 could adversely affect our future results of operations and financial position.

        In June 2001, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets ("SFAS 142"), effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2001. Under SFAS 142, goodwill and intangible assets deemed to have indefinite lives will no longer be amortized but will be subject to annual impairment tests in accordance with the Statement. There can be no assurance that such tests will not result in a determination that these assets have been impaired. If at any time it is determined that an impairment has occurred, we will be required to reflect the impaired value as a charge resulting in a reduction in earnings in the quarter such impairment is identified and a corresponding reduction in the net asset value of the Company. The Company recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $46.0 million in the quarterly period ended January 31, 2003 due to the decline in the Company's market valuation. Goodwill that remains recorded at January 31, 2004 was $21.2 million. Further declines in market conditions, increases in interest rates and changes in projections with respect to the Global Payments Technologies reporting unit in which goodwill is allocated could result in additional impairment charges in the future.

We cannot predict every event and circumstance which may impact our business and, therefore, the risks and uncertainties discussed above may not be the only ones you should consider.

        The risks and uncertainties discussed above are in addition to those that apply to most businesses generally. In addition, as we continue to grow our business, we may encounter other risks of which we are not aware at this time. These additional risks may cause serious damage to our business in the future, the impact of which we cannot estimate at this time.

26

Item 2. Properties.

        Our principal executive office is a leased facility with approximately 72,433 square feet of space in Dallas, Texas. The lease agreement for this space expires on May 31, 2010. We also lease approximately 45,757 square feet in Memphis, Tennessee pursuant to a lease agreement which expires August 31, 2005 and approximately 40,307 square feet in Charlotte, North Carolina pursuant to a lease agreement which expires December 31, 2008. We believe that our facilities are well maintained and in good operating condition and are adequate for our present and anticipated levels of operations.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

        On February 12, 2004, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County (Civil Action No. 251-N), Barbara I. Smith brought a shareholders' derivative action for the benefit of Nominal Defendant Carreker Corporation against John D. Carreker, Jr., James D. Carreker, Richard R. Lee, Jr., James L. Fischer, Donald L. House, David K. Sias, Terry L. Gage, James R. Erwin, Ronald G. Steinhart and Ernst & Young, seeking to remedy their individual breaches of fiduciary duty and to remedy Ernst & Young's accounting malpractice/negligence in connection with its annual audits of the Company. The plaintiff seeks redress (the form of, among others, unspecified amounts of compensatory damages, interest and costs, including legal fees) for injuries to the Company and its shareholders caused by Defendants' misfeasance and/or malfeasance during the period from May 20, 1998 through December 10, 2002.

        On June 2, 2003, in the District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Walter Evans brought a shareholders' derivative action, for the benefit of Nominal Defendant Carreker Corporation against James D. Carreker, John D. Carreker, Jr., James R. Erwin, James L. Fischer, Michael D. Hansen, Donald L. House, Richard R. Lee, Jr., David K. Sias, Ronald J. Steinhart, and Ernst & Young, LLP and Carreker Corporation, Nominal Defendant (Cause No. 0305505). The complaint alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the company. In addition the complaint makes certain allegations against the company's independent auditors Ernst & Young, LLP. The complaint seeks unspecified amounts of compensatory damages, as well as interest and costs, including legal fees from the director defendants.

        On May 29, 2003, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Barbara I. Smith brought a shareholders' derivative action pursuant to Rule 23.1, Fed.R.Civ.P, for the benefit of Nominal Defendant Carreker Corporation against certain of its current officers and directors, i.e., John D. Carreker, Jr., James D. Carreker, Richard R. Lee, Jr., James L. Fischer, Donald L. House, David K. Sias and Terry L. Gage (Civil Action No. 303CV1211-D), seeking to remedy their individual breaches of fiduciary duty, including their knowing violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"), knowing violations of federal and state securities laws, acts of bad faith and other breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff seeks redress (in the form of, among others, unspecified amounts of compensatory damages, interests and costs, including legal fees) for injuries to the Company and its shareholders caused by Defendants' misfeasance and/or malfeasance during the period from May 20, 1998 through December 10, 2002. On November 20, 2003 the parties to this action filed a joint motion with the Court requesting that the Court dismiss the action without prejudice. This is a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff and there is no compensation being given by or on behalf of the Company or the individual defendants. The Court has ordered the plaintiffs to publish, no later than December 22, 2003, a notice of the parties' intent to voluntarily dismiss this action. On January 15, 2004, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice.

        On April 16, 2003 the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, issued an order consolidating a number of purported class action lawsuits against the Company, John D. Carreker Jr. and Terry L. Gage into a Consolidated Action styled In re Carreker Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 303CV0250-M. Also, on March 3, 2003, Claude

27

Alton Coulter filed a purported class action lawsuit (Civil Action No. 503-CV-5-Q) against the Company, John D. Carreker Jr. and Terry L. Gage in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division. These complaints, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 20, 1998 and December 10, 2002, inclusive, allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. These complaints also allege, among other things, that defendants artificially inflated the value of the Company's stock by knowingly or recklessly misrepresenting the Company's financial results during the purported class period. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory damages, interests and costs, including legal fees.

        Earnings Performance Group ("EPG") filed a complaint on or about September 16, 1998 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County seeking to enjoin and restrain the Company from using any EPG confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets and from employing any former EPG employee in such a manner that disclosure or use of an EPG confidential or proprietary information or trade secret would be likely. EPG also seeks (a) an accounting of any profits realized from or attributable to the use of any EPG confidential or proprietary information or trade secret, (b) compensatory and exemplary damages, plus interest and (c) attorneys' fees and costs of suit. On October 14, 1998, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company answered the complaint on November 4, 1998, essentially denying the allegations and setting forth various affirmative defenses. On November 20, 1998, the Company filed an Amended Answer, Separate Defenses and Counterclaim. In the Counterclaim the Company asserts claims for (a) restraint of trade, (b) tortuous interference with contractual relationships, (c) unfair competition and (d) interference with prospective economic advantage. Trial has been set for May 4, 2004.

        The Company and individual defendants deny the allegations in these complaints and intend to defend themselves vigorously. It is not possible at this time to predict whether the Company will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, or the range of damages, if any, that the Company might incur in connection with these lawsuits. See Business—Forward Looking Statements and Risk Factors—The ultimate resolution on some ongoing lawsuits may have a material adverse effect on our business.

        The Company is periodically involved in various other legal actions and claims which arise in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, the final disposition of these matters are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to A Vote of Security Holders.

        No matter was submitted to a vote of our stockholders during the quarterly period ended January 31, 2004.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters.

        Our Common Stock has traded on the NASDAQ National Market under the symbol "CANI" since May 20, 1998, the date of our initial public offering. At March 31, 2004, there were approximately 185 record holders of our Common Stock, although we believe that the number of beneficial owners of our

28

Common Stock is substantially greater. The table below sets forth for the fiscal quarters indicated the high and low sale prices for the Common Stock, as reported by the NASDAQ National Market.

(1)

On March 31, 2004 the sales price for the Common Stock was $7.92 per share.

        We have not paid a cash dividend on shares of our common stock since our incorporation. We currently intend to retain our earnings in the future to support operations and finance our growth and, therefore, do not intend to pay cash dividends on the common stock in the foreseeable future. Any payment of cash dividends in the future will be at the discretion of the board of directors and subject to some limitations under the Delaware General Corporation Law. However, our revolving credit agreement, which is described in Note 5 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, currently prohibits the payment of any cash dividends.

        Please see "Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters" for information about our equity compensation plans.

29

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA

        The following consolidated statements of operations data for each of the three years in the period ended January 31, 2004 and the consolidated balance sheet data as of January 31, 2004 and 2003 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements which are included elsewhere in this Report. The consolidated balance sheet data as of January 31, 2002, 2001, and 2000, and the consolidated statement of operations data for the years ended January 31, 2001 and 2000, have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements not included in this Report. Additionally, a description of events relating to the restatement of our consolidated financial statements for the years ended January 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000 (and for the first two quarters of the year ended January 31, 2003), is contained in Note 3 to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2003. The selected financial data set forth below should also be read in conjunction with "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this Report.

30

(1)

On June 6, 2001, we completed the acquisition of Check Solutions Company, a New York general partnership ("Check Solutions"). The operating results of Check Solutions are included in our results of operations from the date of acquisition. See Note 3 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for information concerning our acquisition of Check Solutions.

(2)

See Notes 13 and 14 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for information concerning the Merger, Restructuring and Other Charges and Write-off of Capitalized Software Costs and Prepaid Software Royalties for the years ended January 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002.

(3)

See Note 6 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for information concerning the provision (benefit) for income taxes for the years ended January 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002.

(4)

See Notes 2 and 10 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for information concerning the calculation of basic and diluted earnings per share.

(5)

Effective February 1, 2002, we adopted SFAS No. 142 "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets," (SFAS 142). Under SFAS 142 we no longer amortize goodwill and intangible assets with indefinite lives. These assets are subject to annual impairment tests. See Note 4 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for information concerning amortization.

(6)

See Note 4 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for information concerning goodwill impairment.

31

Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

        The following discussion contains forward looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in the forward looking statements as a result of various factors, including those set forth under "Business—Forward Looking Statements and Risk Factors," elsewhere in this Report or in the information incorporated by reference in this Report. You should read the following discussion and analysis in conjunction with "Selected Financial Data" included in this Report, as well as our consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this Report.

        Our fiscal year ends on January 31. References contained in this Report to a given fiscal year refer to the twelve-month period ended January 31 of the succeeding year. For example, our fiscal year ended January 31, 2004 is referred to in this Report as "fiscal 2003."

Overview

        We provide payments-related software and consulting solutions to financial institutions and financial service providers. We serve all of the top 20 and 75 of the next largest 100 commercial banks in the United States. We also consider other geographic regions to be important elements of our market opportunity. Our products and services traverse a broad spectrum of payment activities and are designed to improve operational efficiency in how payments are processed; enhance revenue and profitability from payments-oriented products and services; reduce losses associated with fraudulent payment transactions; and/or improve the alignment of product offerings with our customer needs, hence maximizing their customer income streams.

        We are organized into three primary operating divisions: Global Payments Technologies ("GPT"), Revenue Enhancement ("RevE") and Global Payments Consulting ("GPC"). These three divisions bring together the capabilities essential to providing the innovation and delivery engines for our products and services.

        Global Payments Technologies.    This division is responsible for design, development, sales, and support of our technology solutions. Revenue is primarily derived from license fees, implementation fees and maintenance fees.

        Revenue Enhancement.    This highly specialized practice group provides consulting and software solutions focused on increasing clients' revenue streams. Areas of expertise include fee income, market segmentation, management of customer price structures, account retention, acquisitions and profitability. A majority of the revenue generated by this division is through benefit-sharing agreements with our customers, recorded as consulting revenue along with license fees, maintenance fees and implementation fees from our EnAct software offering.

        Global Payments Consulting.    The objective of this professional services division is to provide our clients with "applied thought leadership" related to the business of payments. In fiscal 2001/2002, coming off of the bubble of Y2K consulting efforts and the completion of the last wave of financial institution integrations consummated in the late 90's, we commenced an effort to transition our consulting business from a Y2K and staff supplement focus to a "thought leadership in payments" focus. This transition continued in fiscal 2003. Our services for GPC are designed around the needs of our clients to set strategies, develop operating plans and execute these strategies and plans in the business of payments. These services range from strategy to implementation support. Revenue in the GPC division is primarily derived through the delivery of consulting services offered primarily on a time and materials basis to our clients, along with the license fees, maintenance fees and services fees associated with our Float Pricing System software offering.

        Cost of Revenues and Gross Margins.    We strive to control our cost of revenues and thereby maintain or improve our gross margins. The major items impacting cost of consulting, cost of software

32

maintenance and cost of software implementation are driven by personnel overhead and related expenses. The major items impacting cost of software licenses are amortization of both capitalized and acquired software and also software royalties for software from third parties. While the amortization expense is relatively fixed, the third party royalty expense can vary significantly based on the relative product mix.

        Operating Expenses.    Operating expenses, including selling, general and administrative and research and development, are substantially driven by personnel and overhead expenses. Other significant operating expenses that we monitor include professional fees, use of contractors, travel, insurance and office services expenses.

        Liquidity and Cash Flows.    Cash and cash equivalents at January 31, 2004 and 2003 totaled $28.6 million and $27.0 million, respectively. During fiscal 2003, we generated $20.5 million in cash from operating activities, used $3.7 million of cash for investing activities and used $15.2 million for financing activities. Our primary utilization of cash in fiscal 2003 was to reduce our debt under our revolving credit agreement.

Previous Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements

        The Selected Consolidated Financial Data and Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations ("MD&A") reflects the restatement of our consolidated financial statements for the years ended January 31, 2002, 2001, 2000 and 1999, and for each of the quarters in the year ended January 31, 2002 and the first two quarters of the year ended January 31, 2003. The restatement gives effect to the following:

•

In December 2002, a Special Committee of our Board of Directors initiated a review of our financial statements, principally focused on the timing of recognition of revenue in prior periods. During this investigation we became aware that, in certain instances, revenue had been recorded on contracts in one accounting period where customer signature and delivery of software had been completed, but where the contract may not have been fully executed by us in that accounting period. We determined that revisions to certain prior financial statements were necessary to ensure that all agreements for which revenue was recognized in an accounting period were executed by both parties no later than the end of the accounting period in which the revenue was being recognized.



•

We had originally concluded that under the criteria of SOP 97-2 services were not essential to the functionality of the software, requiring recognition of software license revenue at the time of delivery of the software. However as a result of a review conducted by the Special Committee of our Board of Directors, we decided that when implementation fees are received for specific types of transactions in which we are licensing software and performing certain implementation services, these services are more properly considered essential to the functionality of the other elements of the arrangement. Therefore, the related license revenue and implementation revenue should have been recognized as the services were performed using the percentage of completion method rather than upon delivery of the software. The impact of these revisions on total revenue was to defer the timing of revenue recognition for transactions that combine both a software license and implementation services.



•

As a result of the impact of changes in the timing of revenue recognition, we have also revised the related royalty expense, commission expense and federal income tax provision (benefit), and recorded a cumulative effect adjustment to retained earnings as of January 31, 2000 of $3.8 million.



•

During the review, we also determined that deferred maintenance revenue recorded at the time of the acquisition of Check Solutions on June 6, 2001 was not correct and resulted in recording

33

maintenance revenue in periods subsequent to the acquisition in excess of the appropriate amounts. As a result, goodwill and deferred revenue were overstated in the purchase price allocation by $3.2 million.

•

We also determined that revenue was understated on two contracts, resulting in additional license fee revenue of $1.2 million during the quarterly period ended April 2002 and implementation fee revenue of $288,000 over the period July 2001 through July 2002.

        In the aggregate for the year ended January 31, 2002, the restatement adjustments had the following effects on total revenue and net loss (in thousands):

Results of Operations

Comparison of Year Ended January 31, 2004 (Fiscal 2003) to Year Ended January 31, 2003 (Fiscal 2002) and Year Ended January 31, 2002 (Fiscal 2001)

Revenues ($ in millions):

        The increase in revenue within the Revenue Enhancement ("RevE") segment in fiscal 2003, as compared to fiscal 2002, was the result of increased demand for our EnAct software offering. This demand is being driven by the trend among our customers to expend investments in branch locations, resulting in pressure to show greater returns on these branch investments through profitable sales growth, which EnAct helps generate. The increase in revenue in fiscal 2002, as compared to fiscal 2001, was the result of an $8.0 million increase in our traditional Revenue Enhancement consulting revenue as we were successful in generating revenue from our existing customer base along with increasing our focus on smaller financial institutions with the introduction of specifically designed offerings for these institutions. Additionally, during the latter half of fiscal 2001, the events of September 11, 2001 negatively affected customer purchasing decisions for our Revenue Enhancement consulting services.

        The decline in revenue within the Global Payments Technologies ("GPT") segment in fiscal 2003, as compared to fiscal 2002, is primarily the result of four factors: (i) Fiscal 2002 had a number of transactions for software included in the results for the year that did not involve implementation services and hence revenue was recognized immediately increasing software license revenue in fiscal 2002; (ii) Decisions on technology investments and services projects were delayed out of fiscal 2003 by several of our customers due to the announcement of several mergers involving our customers; (iii) Customer decisions on technology investments were delayed generally out of fiscal 2003 as the industry, our customers, other key constituencies (e.g. Federal Reserve and key processors) and our competitors focused on Check 21 readiness and opportunities; and (iv) Losses of a few deals to competitors as these competitors dramatically improved their software offerings and services and offered aggressive pricing proposals. The increase in revenue in fiscal 2002, as compared to fiscal 2001,

34

is primarily the result of the inclusion of a full year of operations of Check Solutions in fiscal 2002, as compared to only seven months in fiscal 2001 following the acquisition in June 2001.

        The decline in revenues within our Global Payments Consulting ("GPC") segment in both fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2002 is the result of three primary factors. In fiscal 2001, the majority of the consulting work performed by GPC was the result of bank consolidation and staff augmentation assignments. The demand for both of these types of work declined significantly. Late in fiscal 2002, we began to reposition this segment to address enterprise-wide payment strategies and image enablement planning and integration. Additionally, new leadership in this business has been required. The timeframe to accomplish these objectives has been longer than anticipated.

        Overall, as we look across our three business segments, we believe that we are well positioned, and have a competitive advantage, to capitalize on the significant changes brought about by the Check 21 legislation through our subject matter expertise in the impacted areas. Based on this outlook, we anticipate modest revenue growth in fiscal 2004, with more attractive growth rates in fiscal 2005 as our customers invest in the technology solutions associated with the Check 21 legislation and our other new Risk Solutions products.

Consulting Fees ($ in millions):

        Consulting revenues derived from our RevE segment increased 1% to $32.2 million in fiscal 2003 from $31.9 million in fiscal 2002, and increased 33.5% in fiscal 2002 from $23.9 million in fiscal 2001. Within Revenue Enhancement, we are increasingly focused on maximizing the value to our existing customer base. In fiscal 2003, 15 of the 22 revenue producing engagements were with customers in which revenue was derived in fiscal 2002. In fiscal 2002, 9 of the 28 engagements were with customers in which revenue was derived in fiscal 2001. Additionally, Revenue Enhancement consulting revenue derived from international customers increased to $8.1 million in fiscal 2003 from $7.1 million in fiscal 2002 and decreased from $10.1 in fiscal 2001. The increase in Revenue Enhancement consulting revenues in fiscal 2002 was partially due to the success of marketing specifically designed offerings to smaller financial institutions. Additionally, during the latter half of fiscal 2001, the negative events of September 11, 2001 negatively affected customer purchasing decisions of these consulting services. We anticipate that Revenue Enhancement consulting revenues in fiscal 2004 will be slightly higher than fiscal 2003 levels.

        Consulting revenues derived from our GPC segment declined 76.9% to $1.6 million in fiscal 2003 from $6.9 million in fiscal 2002, and decreased 59.5% in fiscal 2002 from $17.0 million in fiscal 2001. In fiscal 2001 and prior years the majority of the consulting work performed by GPC related to banks consolidating and reducing redundant operations, and staff augmentation assignments. In the first half of fiscal 2002, demand for this type of work declined significantly. By the end of fiscal 2002, we redefined our GPC segment to be synergistic with the payment vision established in our GPT business segment, and developed three primary Consulting practices: Payment Operations, Payment Strategy and Float Management Solutions. While we have gained some momentum in these areas, we continue to be cautiously optimistic about the future prospects of the GPC segment.

Software License Fees ($ in millions):

35

        Most of our software licenses fees are derived from our GPT business segment, which includes the operations of Check Solutions following our acquisition of that company in June 2001. In fiscal 2002, our operations included Check Solutions for the entire fiscal year. Legacy Carreker software license fees decreased 10% to $12.8 million in fiscal 2002 from $14.3 million in fiscal 2001. Increased revenues during fiscal 2002 are principally attributed to two major factors: (1) the settlement of the Pegasystems, Inc. litigation in the quarter ended October 31, 2001, which cleared the way for us to begin to license and market our Back Office Processing Solutions and (2) the acceptance of our image processing software, namely Check Image Capture and Check Image Archive management products within the marketplace. License revenue peaked during the first two quarters of fiscal 2002 due to sales of $7.5 million of software expansion licenses and licenses requiring no implementation services, which normally spread revenues over multiple quarters. In the latter half of fiscal 2002 the number and dollar amount of our software license arrangements decreased as compared to the first half of fiscal 2002. This slowdown negatively impacted fiscal 2003, as the substantial majority of our software arrangements have essential services that require recognition using the percent-complete revenue recognition model.

        This decline was in part due to the uncertainty of our special review and ultimate restatement. Additionally, our customers were delaying purchasing decisions due to economic and legislative changes within the industry, namely Check 21. During the latter half of fiscal 2003, several new product initiatives were started to address these changes. ExchgLink is the product name for our image exchange technology. This product is being installed at our functional partner site along with an additional beta site; however, all license revenue has been deferred since the product is not generally available. We anticipate market clarity emerging in the industry, with our customers and competitive offerings surrounding Check 21 which gives us confidence in customer buying decisions during fiscal 2004. We are also actively building and delivering new or improved products during fiscal 2004 in nearly all of our software solutions to respond to Check 21 and other opportunities. Combining these factors, we are cautiously optimistic about deriving software license fees revenue growth for fiscal 2004 over fiscal 2003 levels.

Software Maintenance Fees ($ in millions):

        As with software license fees, the majority of our maintenance fees are derived from our GPT business segment, which includes the operations of Check Solutions following our acquisition of that company in June 2001. In fiscal 2002, our operations included Check Solutions for the entire fiscal year. Software maintenance fees are paid pursuant to annually renewable product and telephone support agreements with our software customers. The annual maintenance fee is generally paid by the customer at the beginning of the maintenance period and we recognize this maintenance revenue ratably over the term of the related contract. If the annual maintenance fee is not paid at the beginning of the maintenance period, we defer revenue recognition until the time that the maintenance fee is paid by the customer. When the payment is received, maintenance revenue is recognized for the period that maintenance revenue was previously deferred. The overall increases in maintenance fees, in both fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2002 are due primarily to the expanded product installation base of the acquired Check Solutions products. The legacy Carreker software maintenance fees have increased as a result of increased revenue from both our Fraud Mitigation and Cash software solutions. Also, maintenance contracts usually carry annual maintenance fee escalation clauses typically based on an index, such as the consumer price index. These increases will be offset by a customer that recently gave notice of their intent to not renew their maintenance contract for fiscal 2004. Given this cancellation and the decline in new software license fees discussed above, maintenance fees are projected to decline in fiscal 2004.

36

Software Implementation Fees ($ in millions):

        The majority of our software implementation fees are derived from our GPT business segment, which includes the operations of Check Solutions following our acquisition of that company in June 2001. In fiscal 2002, our operations included Check Solutions for the entire fiscal year. In the majority of our customer arrangements, installation services are provided to the customer. However, in fiscal 2002 several large software licenses, including approximately $7.5 million of image processing software, were licensed without our implementation services, which partially offset our overall increase in software implementation fees. In fiscal 2003, the decline in software implementation fees paralled the decline in software license fees. We estimate growth in fiscal 2004 as the new product offerings, discussed under software license fees above, are developed and released.

Out-of-Pocket Expense Reimbursements ($ in millions):

        The decrease in these reimbursements in both periods is primarily due to the decline in our GPC business segment. The majority of these GPC engagements required our employees to be at the customer location for extended periods of time, which gives rise to out-of-pocket expense reimbursements.

Cost of Revenues ($ in millions):

        The decrease in total cost of revenues in absolute dollars of $7.6 million and the increase in total cost of revenue as a percentage of total revenue of 49.3% in fiscal 2003 from 47.6% in fiscal 2002 was primarily the result of lower personnel and outside independent contractor and consulting costs within the GPC business segment. However, these cost reduction efforts of 49.2% were less than the 65.8% reduction in total revenue within this business segment. The decrease in total cost of revenues in absolute dollars of $19.2 million and the decrease in total cost of revenue as a percentage of total revenue of 47.6% in fiscal 2002 from 73.1% in fiscal 2001 was primarily the result of cost reduction efforts within the GPC business segment in response to declining demand for our bank consolidation and staff augmentation consulting services. Additionally, in fiscal 2001, our Revenue Enhancement business segment recorded a charge of $12.1 million for the impairment of the value of the guaranteed royalty payments with Exchange Application, Inc., which is more fully described below. Finally, within the GPT business segment, fiscal 2002 does contain a fully year of costs for Check Solutions which was

37

purchased in June 2001. This increase in costs in fiscal 2002 was balanced by a $2.9 million impairment charge for the Vault software product recorded in fiscal 2001. This charge is also more fully described below.

Cost of Consulting ($ in millions):

        The cost of consulting consists primarily of personnel costs related to our consulting engagements within both our Revenue Enhancement and GPC business segments. The decline in absolute dollars of $4.6 million along with the decline in consulting costs as a percentage of consulting revenue in fiscal 2003 as compared to fiscal 2002 is the result of a $4.7 million or 48.1% decline in the consulting costs within the GPC business segment. These cost reduction efforts were primarily lower personnel and independent contractor costs in response to less demand for our bank consolidation and staff augmentation services. The decline in absolute dollars of $9.2 million in fiscal 2002 over fiscal 2001 along with the sharp decline in consulting costs as a percentage of consulting revenue, also reflected the decline of consulting costs within GPC. Revenue Enhancement cost of consulting has remained relatively flat for the period fiscal 2001 through fiscal 2003. However, in fiscal 2001, the Revenue Enhancement consulting revenues were $8.0 million lower than fiscal 2002, primarily due to weak demand as the result of the events of September 11, 2001, which also contributed to the improvement in the percentage of the cost of consulting as a percentage of consulting revenue in fiscal 2002.

Cost of Software Licenses ($ in millions):

        The cost of software licenses consist principally of amortization of capitalized and acquired software costs along with royalties payable to third parties. The increase in absolute dollars of $300,000 in fiscal 2003, as compared to fiscal 2002, is primarily due to the result of increased royalty expense. The increase in the cost of software licenses, as a percentage of software license revenue, is primarily the result of a 27.9% decline in software license revenue experienced in fiscal 2003. The increase in absolute dollars of $1.2 million in fiscal 2002, as compared to fiscal 2001, is the result of increased royalty expense and the fact that fiscal 2002 contains a full year of costs from the acquisition of Check Solutions in June 2001.

        In connection with software license and maintenance agreements entered into with certain banks and purchase agreements with vendors under which we acquired software technology used in products sold to our customers, we are required to pay royalties on sales of certain software products. Under these arrangements, we accrue royalty expense when the associated revenue is recognized. The royalty percentages generally range from 20% to 30% of the associated revenue. Approximately $2.6 million, $2.4 million and $1.7 million of royalty expense was recorded under these agreements in the fiscal years ended January 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Depending on our future product mix, our margins from software license fees may be negatively impacted by increased software royalty expense.

        Write-off of Capitalized Software Costs and Prepaid Software Royalties:    During the quarterly period ended July 31, 2001, in connection with our periodic impairment review of our portfolio of software products, the Vault software acquired in the X-Port business combination in May 2000 was deemed to

38

be impaired. Based on our calculation of the expected cash flows of the product, a $2.9 million non-cash charge was recorded. The charge resulted from the loss of two key transactions and the projected changes in the approach to selling and delivering the software and related services under a time or usage model.

        Effective March 31, 2001, we entered into an alliance with Exchange Applications, Inc. ("Xchange"). As part of this alliance we became the exclusive provider of the EnAct customer relationship software and methodology to the banking industry. Under the EnAct agreement, we became obligated for guaranteed royalty payments of $12.5 million. Based on our periodic evaluation of the future cash flows associated with this product, a liability for the remaining $2.5 million obligation was accrued at October 31, 2001, and the carrying value of the prepaid software royalties, at that time, of $9.7 million was reduced to zero. This resulted in a charge of $12.1 million to costs of revenue during the quarterly period ended October 31, 2001. During December 2001, we negotiated with Xchange and received a commitment for $960,000 as a partial offset to expenses incurred to enhance and support the EnAct software for the existing customer base. We reflected the $960,000 reimbursement as a ratable reduction in costs of revenue over the period November 1, 2001 through April 30, 2002.

        During the quarterly period ended January 31, 2003, in connection with our periodic impairment review of our portfolio of software products, the eiManager product acquired in the AIS business combination in January 2000 was deemed to be impaired. Based on the Company's calculation of the expected future cash flows of the product, a $586,000 non-cash charge was recorded.

        Effective June 2001, we entered into a software license agreement with Actuate Corporation in which the Company would integrate Actuate Corporation's software with our Global Tracking and Cash Solutions within the Global Payments Technologies business segment. We prepaid $400,000 for 40 copies of the software. Based on the expected sales forecasts of this product a $368,000 non-cash charge was recorded in the quarterly period ended January 31, 2003.

        These costs are summarized below (in thousands):

Cost of Software Maintenance ($ in millions):

39

        Cost of maintenance consists primarily of personnel and facility costs to provide telephone support, product defect support and other enhancements to our existing products which are not significant enough to extend the product's life cycle, or substantially increase its marketability. These costs are primarily contained within our GPT business segment. The increase in costs of maintenance in absolute dollars of $2.3 million in fiscal 2003, as compared to fiscal 2002, is the result of traditional research and development employees working on software development and enhancement projects classified as maintenance. We expect these costs to decline slightly during the first three quarters of fiscal 2004 as we increase the amount of effort to develop new products and then return to normal levels as these products are completed and made generally available to our customers. The increase in costs of maintenance in absolute dollars in fiscal 2002, as compared to fiscal 2001, was the result of our operations containing Check Solutions for the entire fiscal year. The annual maintenance fee is generally paid by the customer at the beginning of the maintenance period and we recognize this maintenance revenue ratably over the term of the related contract. If the annual maintenance fee is not paid at the beginning of the maintenance period, we defer revenue recognition until the time that the maintenance fee is paid by the customer. When the payment is received, maintenance revenue is recognized for the period that maintenance revenue was previously deferred. As a result, our cost of software maintenance as a percentage of related maintenance revenue will also fluctuate.

Cost of Software Implementation ($ in millions):

        Costs of software implementation consist primarily of personnel and facility costs to provide software implementation and project management support to customer software implementations primarily within our GPT business segment. The decline in costs of software implementation in absolute dollars of $1.8 million in fiscal 2003, as compared to fiscal 2002, was primarily driven by a $1.0 million decline in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2003, as a result of the decline in new software license and implementation projects contracted and also the completion of an implementation project at the Federal Reserve. The increase in the percentage of software implementation costs, as a percentage of software implementation revenue, is the result of the decline of software implementation revenue discussed above. We anticipate that our costs of software implementation, as a percentage of software implementation revenue, to improve in fiscal 2004 with the majority of the improvement in the last half of the fiscal year.

        The increase in costs of software implementation in absolute dollars of $4.2 million in fiscal 2002, as compared to fiscal 2001, is the result of our operations in fiscal 2002 containing a full year of costs derived from Check Solutions acquired in June 2001.

Out-of-Pocket Expenses ($ in millions):

        These costs represent travel, meals and other sundry expenses incurred by our employees. These costs are invoiced to the customer, without mark-up, usually on a monthly basis. Certain customer contracts do contain expense maximums, so in certain cases not all expenses incurred can be passed along to the customer.

40

Operating Costs and Expenses ($ in millions):

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses ($ in millions):

        Selling, general and administrative expenses generally consist of personnel costs such as salaries, commissions and other incentive compensation along with travel associated with selling, marketing, general management and software management. Additionally, the provision for doubtful accounts, insurance, including directors and officers insurance, as well as professional services, such as legal and accounting expenses, and other related costs are classified within selling, general and administrative expense. Selling, general and administrative expenses have remained relatively flat for fiscal 2003, 2002 and 2001, and the fluctuation in the percent of total revenue was the result of fluctuations in total revenue.

        In fiscal 2003, we made strides to lower these costs through lower professional services (approximately $500,000) and better accounts receivable management which reduced our bad debt charge (approximately $700,000), however these cost savings were offset by increases in insurance costs (approximately $700,000). Additionally, in fiscal 2003, we formed Carretek LLC, a jointly owned company to offer financial institutions offshore-centric outsourcing of their business processes and IT needs. Carretek LLC increased these costs by approximately $500,000 in fiscal 2003.

        In fiscal 2002, our operations included Check Solutions for the entire fiscal year and selling, general and administrative costs attributed to Check Solutions increased 11% to $10.9 million from $9.8 million in fiscal 2001. We have continued to control costs through reduced staffing levels, although these efforts have been offset by increases in professional services and also increased health insurance and directors and officers insurance.

        We expect to continue to reduce our selling, general and administrative expense base in order to better align our cost structure with our current revenue levels. However, these actions may be more than offset by increases in fiscal 2004 resulting from professional fees associated with our litigation, Sarbanes-Oxley compliance and increases in our director and officer insurance for a full fiscal year.

Research and Development ($ in millions):

        Research and development expenses consist primarily of personnel, contract labor, travel and facilities expenses incurred by our research and development organization. In fiscal 2003, research and development costs have decreased as compared to fiscal 2002 as a result of a concentration of projects classified as cost of software maintenance. Research and development costs are typically limited to development of new software products, or enhancements to existing software products, which extend the product's life cycle and/or substantially increase its marketability. In fiscal 2002, our operations included Check Solutions for the entire fiscal year.

        In accordance with SFAS No. 86, "Accounting for Costs of Computer Equipment to be Sold, Leased or Otherwise Marketed," we capitalized $1.0 million in fiscal 2003 as compared to $103,000 in fiscal 2002 and $4.0 million in fiscal 2001. In fiscal 2003, the majority of our capitalization is related to our first version of ExchgLink, our product offering to send and receive check images. We expect this product to

41

become generally available in the second or third quarter of fiscal 2004. We have several other development initiatives planned for fiscal 2004 such as the second version of ExchgLink, Express Research, an image-enabled back office application, Source Capture which enables customers to capture check images at corporate sites, bank branches and ATM's and an anti-money laundering application. Considering these initiatives, we expect the amount of research and development costs to increase in fiscal 2004.

        The capitalization of CheckFlow Services Packs No. 1 and No. 2 was $1.1 million in fiscal 2001. This version was never released due to our decision to no longer actively market the base CheckFlow product in July 2001. These costs were written off as a component of merger, restructuring and other charges in the second quarter of fiscal 2001. Other capitalized research and development projects in fiscal 2001 consisted of $1.1 million for iCom, an enterprise wide cash inventory management tool and $1.7 million related to four products within our Fraud Mitigation Solution line. Software development costs of a product are capitalized from the time technological feasibility is reached until the general release of the product. We establish technological feasibility through the process of creating a detailed program design and reviewing the detailed program design for any high risk development issues. Capitalization only occurs if we believe costs capitalized are recoverable through future sales of the software product under development.

        Amortization of Goodwill and Intangible Assets:    Amortization of goodwill and intangible assets was $1.4 million in each of fiscal 2003 and 2002, and decreased $2.9 million from $4.3 million in fiscal 2001. The amortization results from the periodic recognition of amortization expense of intangible customer relationships acquired in the Check Solutions acquisition. The reduction in amortization of $2.9 million was caused by the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 141 and No. 142 effective February 1, 2002. With the adoption of these standards, goodwill and other indefinite lived intangibles ceased to be amortized. See further discussion in Note 2 and 4 to our Consolidated Financial Statements regarding the adoption of SFAS No. 141 and No. 142.

        Goodwill Impairment:    During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2002, we performed our annual evaluation for goodwill impairment resulting in a charge of $46.0 million. The impairment charge was recorded to the Global Payments Technologies ("GPT") segment as all of the Company's goodwill has been assigned to the GPT segment. The fair value of the reporting unit to which goodwill is assigned was determined to be less than its carrying amount. Thus, an allocation of the estimated fair value of the reporting unit to all of the assets and liabilities of the reporting unit was made to determine the excess of fair value over amounts allocated to net assets. The excess represents the estimated fair value of the goodwill which was compared to recorded goodwill as of the evaluation date of November 1, 2002 and resulted in an impairment charge of $46.0 million. The fair values used in this evaluation were estimated based upon the consideration of a number of fair value estimation techniques including a discounted cash flow analysis and consideration of the market price of our stock. The assumptions in the discounted cash flow analysis include future revenue volume levels, price levels and rates of increases in operating expenses to compute projected cash flows for the reporting unit and other intangible assets within the reporting unit. A discount rate of 26% was applied to determine discounted cash flows.

42

        During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2003, we performed our annual evaluation for goodwill impairment. No impairment resulted from this assessment. We believe that our assumptions used to estimate future cash flows for this evaluation are reasonable. However, if market conditions deteriorate or if changes occur in the estimated projections with respect to GPT business, we may be required to record additional impairment charges in fiscal 2004, the amount of which could be material to our results of operations.

        Merger, Restructuring and Other Charges:    We recorded various Merger, restructuring and other charges during the fiscal years ended January 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 as follows (in thousands):

Fiscal Year Ended January 31, 2002

        In connection with the acquisition of Check Solutions during the quarter ended July 31, 2001, we recorded $12.2 million in merger-related costs (consisting of $10.2 million attributable to cost of revenues and $2.0 million attributable to selling, general and administrative costs).

        Included in this charge was $1.9 million of cash termination benefits associated with the separation of 50 employees. Most of the affected employees left their positions during the quarterly period ended October 31, 2001.

        After an extensive review of the CheckFlow Suite product line, management determined that the CheckFlow Suite was no longer viable in the market in the form originally developed. We developed the CheckFlow Suite with Pegasystems, Inc. ("Pega") under a Product Development, Distribution and Sublicensing Agreement effective May 5, 1999 ("the Agreement"). Pega filed suit to restrain us from developing, marketing, licensing, advertising, leasing, or selling any products, including certain Back Office products acquired during the Check Solutions business combination, that allegedly competed with the products jointly developed under the Agreement. The charges related to the discontinuance of

43

the CheckFlow Suite and the estimated settlement with Pega, as of July 31, 2001, were as follows (in thousands):

        In connection with the Check Solutions acquisition, a $2.3 million in-process research and development charge was recorded reflecting the estimated fair value of acquired research and development projects at Check Solutions, which have not yet reached technological feasibility.

        Included in the merger, restructuring and other charges recorded is a facility closure charge of $240,000 for office space, which would no longer be utilized.

        On October 1, 2001, the Delaware Chancery Court granted Pega's motion for preliminary injunction. On November 5, 2001, all matters relating to various legal and administrative actions surrounding this dispute were settled. Under this Settlement Agreement, we agreed to pay settlement and legal costs totaling $5.4 million (of which $1.1 million was accrued at July 31, 2001), which includes royalties on prior period sales of the four Back Office products. Consistent with the prior Agreement, we will continue to pay Pega royalties based on future sales of the four Back Office products through October 31, 2006. The resulting settlement and legal costs incurred in excess of the initial $1.1 million accrual recorded in the period ended July 31, 2001 were recorded as a component of Merger, restructuring and other charges in the quarterly period ended October 31, 2001.

        During the quarterly period ended January 31, 2002, we implemented a reduction in the workforce to adjust staffing levels to a level sufficient to support projected business activities. Primarily, as a result of the reductions approximately 95 employees were terminated and a charge of $3.5 million, related to severance costs including the termination of the agreement with the former owner of X-Port, and an additional $200,000 for facility closures and $74,000 of additional charges related to the CheckFlow Suite.

Fiscal Year Ended January 31, 2003

        During the quarterly period ended January 31, 2003, we recorded a charge of $633,000 relating to a reduction in the workforce for 44 employees that were terminated. Additionally, we recorded a charge for approximately $2.3 million for legal and professional fees related to the special investigation and restatement efforts.

Fiscal Year Ended January 31, 2004

        We recorded $545,000 in restructuring and other charges during the three month period ended April 30, 2003, principally associated with the separation of 17 employees, within both the Corporate and Global Payments Consulting ("GPC") business segments. During the quarterly period ended April 30, 2003, we recorded a charge of $139,000 relating to legal and professional fees relating to our restatement efforts and the shareholder legal actions described in Note 11.

        We recorded $648,000 in restructuring and other charges during the three month period ended July 31, 2003, principally associated with the separation of 9 employees, within both the Corporate and GPC business segments. During the quarterly period ended July 31, 2003, we recorded a charge of $130,000 relating to legal fees relating to the shareholder legal actions described in Note 11.

44

        As part of our settlement with one of the CheckFlow Suite customers, the customer agreed to pay us for the replacement product and installation. These payments are recorded directly to this reserve and all future expenditures to install the replacement product will be charged against this reserve. During the quarterly period ended July 31, 2003, $366,000 was received from this customer.

        We recorded $170,000 in restructuring and other charges during the three month period ended October 31, 2003, principally associated with the separation of 3 employees, within the Corporate business segment. During the quarterly period ended October 31, 2003, we recorded a charge of $141,000 relating to legal fees relating to the shareholder legal actions described in Note 11.

        Additionally, during the three months ended October 31, 2003, we reversed $421,000 primarily related to the true-up of termination benefits as actual costs were lower than estimated amounts. Additionally, $119,000 was reversed when estimated costs to close certain facilities were lower than our original estimates. The effect of these revisions in estimates, net of tax, was $0.02 per share on a fully diluted basis, for the year ended January 31, 2004.

        We recorded $390,000 of restructuring and other charges during the three months ended January 31, 2004, principally associated with the separation of 11 employees. We also discontinued the marketing of one of our software offerings and recorded a $97,000 charge. Finally, we recorded a charge of $181,000 relating to legal fees related to the shareholder legal actions described in Note 11.

        The activity related to the accrued merger and restructuring charge reserve balance during the years ended January 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 is as follows (in thousands):