Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings. From time to time, the Company is subject to various claims and is involved in various legal, regulatory, and arbitration proceedings concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of its business activities, including those noted in this section. Although management at present has no basis to conclude that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will materially harm the Company's financial position, results of operations, cash flows, or overall trends, legal proceedings and related government investigations are subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings or other events could occur. Unfavorable resolutions could include substantial monetary damages. In addition, in matters for which injunctive relief or other conduct remedies are sought, unfavorable resolutions could include an injunction or other order prohibiting the Company from selling one or more products at all or in particular ways, precluding particular business practices, or requiring other remedies. An unfavorable outcome may result in a material adverse impact on the Company's business, results of operations, financial position, and overall trends. The Company might also conclude that settling one or more such matters is in the best interests of its stockholders, employees, and customers, and any such settlement could include substantial payments. Competition Matters. The Company is currently involved in the following antitrust lawsuits that set forth allegations of anti-competitive agreements between the Company and The Reynolds and Reynolds Company ("Reynolds") relating to the manner in which the defendants control access to, and allow integration with, their respective Dealer Management System ("DMS"), and that seek, among other things, treble damages and injunctive relief. These lawsuits have been transferred to, or filed in, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for consolidated and coordinated pretrial proceedings as part of a multi-district litigation proceeding ("MDL"). • Teterboro Automall, Inc. d/b/a Teterboro Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram ("Teterboro") brought a putative class action suit on behalf of itself and all similarly situated automobile dealerships against CDK Global, LLC and Reynolds. Teterboro’s suit was originally filed on October 19, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Since that time, several more putative class actions were filed in a number of federal district courts, with substantively similar allegations; all of them have been consolidated with the MDL proceeding. On June 4, 2018, a consolidated class action complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class made up of all dealerships in the United States that directly purchased DMS and/or allegedly indirectly purchased DMS or data integration services from CDK Global, LLC or Reynolds ("Putative Dealership Class Plaintiffs"). CDK Global, LLC moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative, compel arbitration of certain of the cases while staying the remainder pending the outcome of those arbitration proceedings; its motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, while its motion to compel arbitration was denied. On February 22, 2019, CDK Global, LLC filed an answer to the remaining claims in Putative Dealership Class Plaintiffs' complaint and asserted counterclaims against the Putative Dealership Class Plaintiffs. The Putative Dealership Class Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss CDK Global, LLC’s counterclaims; that motion was granted in part and denied in part on September 3, 2019. On October 23, 2018, the Putative Dealership Class Plaintiffs and Reynolds filed a motion for preliminary approval of settlement and for conditional certification of the proposed settlement class. The court finally approved that settlement on January 22, 2019. The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions were fully briefed as of September 28, 2020 and remain pending. • Loop LLC d/b/a AutoLoop ("AutoLoop") brought suit against CDK Global, LLC on April 9, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, but reserved its rights with respect to remand to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin at the conclusion of the MDL proceedings. On June 5, 2018, AutoLoop amended its complaint to sue on behalf of itself and a putative class of all other automotive software vendors in the United States that purchased data integration services from CDK Global, LLC or Reynolds. CDK Global, LLC moved to compel arbitration of AutoLoop's claims, or in the alternative, to dismiss those claims; that motion was denied on January 25, 2019. CDK Global, LLC filed an answer to AutoLoop’s complaint and asserted counterclaims against AutoLoop on February 15, 2019. AutoLoop filed an answer to CDK Global, LLC's counterclaims on March 8, 2019. The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions were fully briefed as of September 28, 2020 and remain pending. The Company believes that the remaining unsettled cases are without merit and will continue to vigorously contest all asserted claims. Nonetheless, in light of the Company's settlements with Authenticom, i3 Brands, MVSC, and Cox and its continued expenditure of legal costs to contest the remaining claims, the Company has determined that a loss of some measure is probable and can be reasonably estimated. As of December 31, 2021 and June 30, 2021, the litigation liability for the remaining unsettled cases was $34.0 million and $34.0 million, respectively. This estimated loss is based upon currently available information and represents the Company's best estimate of such loss. Estimating the value of this estimated loss involved significant judgment given the uncertainty that still exists with respect to the remaining unsettled cases due to a variety of factors typical of complex, large scale litigation, including, among others: (i) formative issues, including: (a) the causes of action the plaintiffs can pursue; (b) the definition of the class(es) of plaintiffs; (c) the types of damages that can be recovered; and (d) whether plaintiffs can establish loss causation as a matter of law, all of which have yet to be determined pending the outcome of dispositive motions (e.g., motions for class certification and motions for summary judgment); (ii) significant factual issues remain to be resolved; (iii) expert perspectives with respect to, among other things, alleged antitrust injury and damages is widely divergent and remains subject to dispositive motions; (iv) the absence of productive settlement discussions to date with the remaining plaintiffs; and (v) the novel or uncertain nature of the legal issues presented. For these same reasons, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a maximum potential loss exposure at this time. In addition, the Company's estimate does not incorporate or reflect the potential value of the Company's counterclaims against certain of the plaintiffs in the ongoing cases. The legal proceedings underlying the estimated litigation liability will change from time to time and actual results may vary significantly from the estimate. As noted above, an adverse result in any of the remaining cases could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. On June 22, 2017, the Company received from the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") a Civil Investigative Demand consisting of specifications calling for the production of documents relating to any agreements between the Company and Reynolds. Parallel document requests have been received from certain states' Attorneys General. Since 2017, the Company has engaged in continuing communication with and received subsequent requests from the FTC related to its investigation. The Company has responded to the requests and no proceedings have been instituted. The Company believes there has not been any conduct by the Company or its current or former employees that would be actionable under the antitrust laws in connection with the agreements between the Company and Reynolds or otherwise. At this time, the Company does not have sufficient information to predict the outcome of, or the cost of responding to or resolving, these investigations. Other Commitments and Contingencies. In the normal course of business, the Company may enter into contracts in which the Company makes representations and warranties that relate to the performance of the Company's services and products. The Company does not expect any material losses related to such representations and warranties. The Company has provided approximately $28.1 million of guarantees as of December 31, 2021 in the form of surety bonds issued to support certain licenses and contracts which require a surety bond as a guarantee of performance of contractual obligations. In general, the Company would only be liable for the amount of these guarantees in the event the Company defaulted in performing the obligations under each contract, of which, the probability is remote. The Company had a total of $1.8 million in letters of credit outstanding as of December 31, 2021 primarily in connection with insurance programs. |