Contingencies | Contingencies The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in legal and tax proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Management periodically assesses the Company’s liabilities and contingencies in connection with these matters based upon the latest information available. For those matters where management currently believes it is probable that the Company will incur a loss and that the probable loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company has recorded reserves in the consolidated financial statements based on its best estimates of such loss. In other instances, because of the uncertainties related to either the probable outcome or the amount or range of loss, management is unable to make a reasonable estimate of a liability, if any. However, even in many instances where the Company has recorded an estimated liability, the Company is unable to predict with certainty the final outcome of the matter or whether resolution of the matter will materially affect the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows. As additional information becomes available, the Company adjusts its assessments and estimates of such liabilities accordingly. The Company routinely enters into agreements with third parties, including our clients and suppliers, all in the normal course of business. In these agreements, the Company sometimes agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other party for any damages such other party may suffer as a result of potential intellectual property infringement and other claims. The Company has not accrued a liability with respect to these matters generally, as the exposure is considered remote. Based on its review of the latest information available, management does not expect the impact of pending legal and tax proceedings, claims and litigation, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial position. However, one or more unfavorable outcomes in any claim or litigation against the Company could have a material adverse effect for the period in which it is resolved. The following is a summary of certain legal matters involving the Company. On February 13, 2014, a group of approximately 1,200 medical doctors and 900 private individuals filed a civil lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court against IMS Korea and two other defendants, KPA and the Korean Pharmaceutical Information Center (“KPIC”). The civil lawsuit alleges KPA and KPIC collected their personal information in violation of applicable privacy laws without the necessary consent through a software system installed on pharmacy computer systems in Korea, and that personal information was transferred to IMS Korea and sold to pharmaceutical companies. On September 11, 2017, the District Court issued a final decision that the encryption in use by the defendants since June 2014 was adequate to meet the requirements of the Korean Personal Information Privacy Act (“PIPA”) and the sharing of non-identified information for market research purposes was allowed under PIPA. The District Court also found an earlier version of encryption was insufficient to meet PIPA requirements, but no personal data had been leaked or re-identified. The District Court did not award any damages to plaintiffs. Approximately 280 medical doctors and 200 private individuals appealed the District Court decision. On May 3, 2019, the Appellate Court issued a final decision in which it concluded all of the non-identified information transferred by KPIC to IMS Korea for market research purposes violated PIPA, but did not award any damages to plaintiffs (affirming the District Court’s decision on this latter point). On May 24, 2019, approximately 247 plaintiffs appealed the Appellate Court’s decision to the Supreme Court. The Company believes the appeal is without merit and is vigorously defending its position. On July 23, 2015, indictments were issued by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office in South Korea against 24 individuals and companies alleging improper handling of sensitive health information in violation of, among others, South Korea’s Personal Information Protection Act. IMS Korea and two of its employees were among the individuals and organizations indicted. Although there is no assertion that IMS Korea used patient identified health information in any of its offerings, prosecutors allege that certain of IMS Korea’s data suppliers should have obtained patient consent when they converted sensitive patient information into non-identified data and that IMS Korea had not taken adequate precautions to reduce the risk of re-identification. On February 14, 2020, the Seoul Central District Court acquitted IMS Korea and its two employees of the charges of improper handling of sensitive health information, and the Prosecutor's Office appealed. On December 23, 2021, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court. The Prosecutor's Office has appealed to the Supreme Court. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position on appeal. On January 10, 2017, Quintiles IMS Health Incorporated and IMS Software Services Ltd. (collectively “IQVIA Parties”), filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Veeva Systems, Inc. (“Veeva”) alleging Veeva unlawfully used IQVIA Parties intellectual property to improve Veeva data offerings, to promote and market Veeva data offerings and to improve Veeva technology offerings. IQVIA Parties seek injunctive relief, appointment of a monitor, the award of compensatory and punitive damages and reimbursement of all litigation expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 13, 2017, Veeva filed counterclaims alleging anticompetitive business practices in violation of the Sherman Act and state laws. Veeva claims damages in excess of $200 million, and is seeking punitive damages and litigation costs, including attorneys’ fees. We believe the counterclaims are without merit, reject all counterclaims raised by Veeva and intend to vigorously defend IQVIA Parties’ position and pursue our claims against Veeva. Since the initial filings, the parties have filed additional litigations against each other, primarily concerning the use of IQVIA data with various other Veeva products. The parties are engaged in the discovery process in connection with these lawsuits. On May 7, 2021, the Court issued an order and opinion (the “Order”) in which it found significant evidence that Veeva had (1) misappropriated IQVIA data and unlawfully used it to improve Veeva data offerings, (2) engaged in a cover-up by deleting significant evidence of its theft of IQVIA’s trade secrets, and (3) improperly withheld certain evidence in furtherance of a crime and/or fraud against IQVIA. The Court imposed five sanctions against Veeva, including ordering three separate adverse inference instructions be issued to the jury and that IQVIA be permitted to present evidence to the jury of Veeva’s destruction efforts. Veeva is currently appealing the Order. |