Litigation and Contingencies | Note 17: Litigation and Contingencies Hewlett Packard Enterprise is involved in various lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings including those consisting of IP, commercial, securities, employment, employee benefits and environmental matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business. In addition, as part of the Separation and Distribution Agreement, the Company and HP Inc. agreed to cooperate with each other in managing certain existing litigation related to both parties' businesses. The Separation and Distribution Agreement also included provisions that assign to the parties responsibility for managing pending and future litigation related to the general corporate matters of HP Inc. arising prior to the separation. Hewlett Packard Enterprise records a liability when it believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required to determine both the probability of having incurred a liability and the estimated amount of the liability. Hewlett Packard Enterprise reviews these matters at least quarterly and adjusts these liabilities to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other updated information and events pertaining to a particular matter. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. However, Hewlett Packard Enterprise believes it has valid defenses with respect to legal matters pending against us. Nevertheless, cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of these contingencies. Hewlett Packard Enterprise believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any such matters and, as of October 31, 2015, it was not reasonably possible that a material loss had been incurred in connection with such matters in excess of the amounts recognized in its financial statements. Litigation, Proceedings and Investigations Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation. Hewlett Packard Enterprise is involved in several pre-separation lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of Electronic Data Systems Corporation ("EDS") or HP Inc. have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and/or in violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws. Those matters include the following: • Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York claiming that current and former EDS employees allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. Another purported collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation , was filed on October 23, 2007 in the same court alleging similar facts. The Steavens case was consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham case. On December 14, 2010, the court granted conditional certification of a class consisting of employees in 20 legacy EDS job codes in the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter. On December 11, 2013, HP Inc. and plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter, and the Salva matter described below, mediated these cases and reached a settlement agreement. The court approved the settlement on June 16, 2015 and HP Inc. funded the settlement on July 27, 2015. • Salva v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective action filed on June 15, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York alleging that certain information technology employees allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On December 11, 2013, HP Inc. and plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter and the Salva matter mediated these cases and reached a settlement agreement. The court consolidated the Salva matter into the Cunningham/Steavens matter and approved the settlement on June 16, 2015. HP Inc. funded the settlement on July 27, 2015. • Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed on March 16, 2009 in California Superior Court alleging facts similar to the Cunningham and Steavens matters. On October 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a Rule 23 state class of all California-based EDS employees in the Infrastructure Associate, Infrastructure Analyst, Infrastructure Specialist, and Infrastructure Specialist Senior job codes from March 16, 2005 through October 31, 2009 that they claim were improperly classified as exempt from overtime under state law. • Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported class action filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that certain technical support employees allegedly involved in installing, maintaining and/or supporting computer software and/or hardware for HP Inc. were misclassified as exempt employees under the FLSA. The plaintiff has also alleged that HP Inc. violated California law by, among other things, allegedly improperly classifying these employees as exempt. On February 13, 2014, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification. On May 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a Rule 23 state class of certain Technical Solutions Consultants in California, Massachusetts, and Colorado that they claim were improperly classified as exempt from overtime under state law. On July 30, 2015, the court dismissed the Technology Consultant and certain Field Technical Support Consultant opt-ins from the conditionally certified FLSA collective action. India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Proceedings . On April 30 and May 10, 2010, the India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (the "DRI") issued show cause notices to Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Ltd ("HP India"), a subsidiary of HP Inc., seven HP India employees and one former HP India employee alleging that HP India underpaid customs duties while importing products and spare parts into India and seeking to recover an aggregate of approximately $370 million, plus penalties. Prior to the issuance of the show cause notices, HP India deposited approximately $16 million with the DRI and agreed to post a provisional bond in exchange for the DRI's agreement to not seize HP India products and spare parts and to not interrupt the transaction of business by HP India. On April 11, 2012, the Bangalore Commissioner of Customs issued an order on the products-related show cause notice affirming certain duties and penalties against HP India and the named individuals of approximately $386 million, of which HP India had already deposited $9 million. On December 11, 2012, HP India voluntarily deposited an additional $10 million in connection with the products-related show cause notice. On April 20, 2012, the Commissioner issued an order on the parts-related show cause notice affirming certain duties and penalties against HP India and certain of the named individuals of approximately $17 million, of which HP India had already deposited $7 million. After the order, HP India deposited an additional $3 million in connection with the parts-related show cause notice so as to avoid certain penalties. HP India filed appeals of the Commissioner's orders before the Customs Tribunal along with applications for waiver of the pre-deposit of remaining demand amounts as a condition for hearing the appeals. The Customs Department has also filed cross-appeals before the Customs Tribunal. On January 24, 2013, the Customs Tribunal ordered HP India to deposit an additional $24 million against the products order, which HP India deposited in March 2013. The Customs Tribunal did not order any additional deposit to be made under the parts order. In December 2013, HP India filed applications before the Customs Tribunal seeking early hearing of the appeals as well as an extension of the stay of deposit as to HP India and the individuals already granted until final disposition of the appeals. On February 7, 2014, the application for extension of the stay of deposit was granted by the Customs Tribunal until disposal of the appeals. On October 27, 2014, the Customs Tribunal commenced hearings on the cross-appeals of the Commissioner's orders. The Customs Tribunal rejected HP India's request to remand the matter to the Commissioner on procedural grounds. The hearings scheduled to reconvene on April 6, 2015 and again on November 3, 2015 were cancelled at the request of the Customs Tribunal. A new hearing date has not been set. Russia GPO and Other Anti-Corruption Investigations . The German Public Prosecutor's Office ("German PPO") has been conducting an investigation into allegations that current and former employees of HP Inc. engaged in bribery, embezzlement and tax evasion relating to a transaction between Hewlett-Packard ISE GmbH in Germany, a former subsidiary of HP Inc., and the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation. The approximately €35 million transaction, which was referred to as the Russia GPO deal, spanned the years 2001 to 2006 and was for the delivery and installation of an IT network. The German PPO issued an indictment of four individuals, including one current and two former HP Inc. employees, on charges including bribery, breach of trust and tax evasion. The German PPO also requested that HP Inc. be made an associated party to the case, and, if that request is granted, HP Inc. would participate in any portion of the court proceedings that could ultimately bear on the question of whether HP Inc. should be subject to potential disgorgement of profits based on the conduct of the indicted current and former employees. The Regional Court of Leipzig will determine whether the matter should be admitted to trial. The Polish Central Anti-Corruption Bureau is also investigating potential corrupt actions by a former employee of Hewlett-Packard Polska Sp. z o.o., an indirect subsidiary of HP Inc., in connection with certain public-sector transactions in Poland. HP Inc. and the Company are cooperating with these investigating agencies. ECT Proceedings . In January 2011, the postal service of Brazil, Empresa Brasileira de Correios e Telégrafos ("ECT"), notified a former subsidiary of HP Inc. in Brazil ("HP Brazil") that it had initiated administrative proceedings to consider whether to suspend HP Brazil's right to bid and contract with ECT related to alleged improprieties in the bidding and contracting processes whereby employees of HP Brazil and employees of several other companies allegedly coordinated their bids and fixed results for three ECT contracts in 2007 and 2008. In late July 2011, ECT notified HP Brazil it had decided to apply the penalties against HP Brazil and suspend HP Brazil's right to bid and contract with ECT for five years, based upon the evidence before it. In August 2011, HP Brazil appealed ECT's decision. In April 2013, ECT rejected HP Brazil's appeal, and the administrative proceedings were closed with the penalties against HP Brazil remaining in place. In parallel, in September 2011, HP Brazil filed a civil action against ECT seeking to have ECT's decision revoked. HP Brazil also requested an injunction suspending the application of the penalties until a final ruling on the merits of the case. The court of first instance has not issued a decision on the merits of the case, but it has denied HP Brazil's request for injunctive relief. HP Brazil appealed the denial of its request for injunctive relief to the intermediate appellate court, which issued a preliminary ruling denying the request for injunctive relief but reducing the length of the sanctions from five to two years. HP Brazil appealed that decision and, in December 2011, obtained a ruling staying enforcement of ECT's sanctions until a final ruling on the merits of the case. Hewlett Packard Enterprise expects the decision may be issued in 2015 and any subsequent appeal on the merits to last several years. Cisco Systems . On August 21, 2015, Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Cisco Systems") and Cisco Systems Capital Corporation ("Cisco Capital") filed an action in Santa Clara County Superior Court for declaratory judgment and breach of contract against HP Inc. in connection with a dispute arising out of a third-party's termination of a services contract with HP Inc. As part of that third-party services contract, HP Inc. separately contracted with Cisco on an agreement to utilize Cisco products and services. HP Inc. prepaid the entire amount due Cisco through a financing arrangement with Cisco Capital. Following the termination of HP Inc.'s services contract with the third-party, HP Inc. no longer required Cisco's products and services, and, accordingly, exercised its contractual termination rights under the agreement with Cisco, and requested that Cisco apply the appropriate credit toward the remaining balance owed Cisco Capital. This lawsuit relates to the calculation of that credit under the agreement between Cisco and HP Inc. Cisco contends that after the credit is applied, HP Inc. still owes Cisco Capital approximately $58 million. HP Inc. contends that under a proper reading of the agreement, HP Inc. owes nothing to Cisco Capital, and that Cisco owes significant amounts to HP Inc. No responsive pleadings will be filed until after a December 18, 2015 status conference with the court. Abstrax Proceeding . On February 28, 2014, Abstrax, Inc. ("Abstrax"), a company with a principal place of business in Mesa, Arizona, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against HP Inc. Abstrax claimed to market software for sales operations and manufacturing operations for configurable products, including those in the custom shutter industry. The case was pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. Abstrax asserted one patent, U.S. Patent 6,240,328, which is directed generally to a method of generating assembly instructions. In its complaint, Abstrax claimed that HP Inc.'s methods and processes of manufacturing configurable servers, storage, networking devices, PCs, laptops, imaging and printing devices and their sub-systems infringe its patent, as do the products made by the accused processes. Abstrax also claimed that HP Inc.'s alleged infringement was willful and that the case was exceptional. On November 14, 2014, HP Inc. filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the Abstrax patent based on prior art. In late January 2015, Abstrax dropped its infringement allegations against the manufacturing of PCs and imaging and printing devices from its expert reports. On March 4, 2015, the court heard HP Inc.'s motion challenging the subject matter of the patent under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. Trial was scheduled for May 11, 2015. The parties reached a settlement in principle in early April, which was finalized on April 28, 2015. The parties agreed to file separate dismissal papers at the Patent Office to dismiss HP Inc.'s challenge to the validity of patent. The district court litigation was dismissed on May 5, 2015. HP Inc.'s challenge to the validity of the patent was terminated on May 18, 2015. Stockholder Litigation . As described below, HP Inc. is involved in various stockholder litigation matters commenced against certain current and former HP Inc. executive officers and/or certain current and former members of HP Inc.'s board of directors in which the plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages related to HP Inc.'s allegedly inflated stock price, certain compensation paid by HP Inc. to the defendants, other damages and/or injunctive relief. As part of the Separation and Distribution Agreement, the Company and HP Inc. have agreed to cooperate with each other in managing this pending litigation, as it relates to the general corporate matter of HP Inc. arising prior to the separation: • A.J. Copeland v. Raymond J. Lane, et al. ("Copeland I") is a lawsuit filed on March 7, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets in connection with HP Inc.'s alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 ("FCPA"), HP Inc.'s severance payments made to Mark Hurd (a former Chairman of HP Inc.'s board of directors and HP Inc.'s Chief Executive Officer), and HP Inc.'s acquisition of 3PAR Inc. The lawsuit also alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with HP Inc.'s 2010 and 2011 proxy statements. On February 8, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On October 10, 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to file an amended complaint. On November 1, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding an unjust enrichment claim and claims that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and breached their fiduciary duties in connection with HP Inc.'s 2012 proxy statement. On December 13, 14 and 17, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 28, 2012, the plaintiff moved for leave to file a third amended complaint. On May 6, 2013, the court denied the motion for leave to amend, granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the defendants' favor. On May 31, 2013, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 26, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action. • A.J. Copeland v. Léo Apotheker, et al. ("Copeland II") is a lawsuit filed on February 10, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that the defendants used their control over HP Inc. and its corporate suffrage process in effectuating, directly participating in and/or aiding and abetting violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and breach of the duty of candor. The claims arise out of the circumstances at HP Inc. relating to its 2013 and 2014 proxy statements, the departure of Mr. Hurd as Chairman of HP Inc.'s board of directors and HP Inc.'s Chief Executive Officer, alleged violations of the FCPA, and HP Inc.'s acquisition of 3PAR Inc. and Autonomy Corporation plc ("Autonomy"). On February 25, 2014, the court issued an order granting HP Inc.'s administrative motion to relate Copeland II to Copeland I . On April 8, 2014, the court granted the parties' stipulation to stay the action pending resolution of Copeland I by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. • Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class action filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making statements regarding HP Inc.'s Standards of Business Conduct ("SBC") that were false and misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was serving as HP Inc.'s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with HP Inc. On February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September 9, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 9, 2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on October 24, 2013. On June 25, 2014, the court issued an order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss and on July 25, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On November 4, 2014, the plaintiff-appellant filed its opening brief in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. HP Inc. filed its answering brief on January 16, 2015 and the plaintiff-appellant's reply brief was filed on March 2, 2015. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled. Autonomy-Related Legal Matters Investigations . As a result of the findings of an ongoing investigation, HP Inc. has provided information to the U.K. Serious Fraud Office, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the SEC related to the accounting improprieties, disclosure failures and misrepresentations at Autonomy that occurred prior to and in connection with HP Inc.'s acquisition of Autonomy. On November 21, 2012, DOJ representatives advised HP Inc. that they had opened an investigation relating to Autonomy. On February 6, 2013, representatives of the U.K. Serious Fraud Office advised HP Inc. that they had also opened an investigation relating to Autonomy. On January 19, 2015, the U.K. Serious Fraud Office notified HP Inc. that it was closing its investigation and had decided to cede jurisdiction of the investigation to the U.S. authorities. HP Inc. is cooperating with the DOJ and the SEC, whose investigations are ongoing. Litigation . As described below, HP Inc. is involved in various stockholder litigation relating to, among other things, its October 2011 acquisition of Autonomy and its November 20, 2012 announcement that it recorded a non-cash charge for the impairment of goodwill and intangible assets within its Software segment of approximately $8.8 billion in the fourth quarter of its 2012 fiscal year and HP Inc.'s statements that, based on HP Inc.'s findings from an ongoing investigation, the majority of this impairment charge related to accounting improprieties, misrepresentations to the market and disclosure failures at Autonomy that occurred prior to and in connection with HP Inc.'s acquisition of Autonomy and the impact of those improprieties, failures and misrepresentations on the expected future financial performance of the Autonomy business over the long term. This stockholder litigation was commenced against, among others, certain current and former HP Inc. executive officers, certain current and former members of HP Inc.'s board of directors and certain advisors to HP Inc. The plaintiffs in these litigation matters are seeking to recover certain compensation paid by HP Inc. to the defendants and/or other damages. As part of the Separation and Distribution Agreement, the Company and HP Inc. have agreed to cooperate with each other in managing this pending litigation, as it relates to the general corporate matter of HP Inc. arising prior to the separation. These matters include the following: • In re HP Securities Litigation consists of two consolidated putative class actions filed on November 26 and 30, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from August 19, 2011 to November 20, 2012, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements related to HP Inc.'s acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance of HP Inc.'s enterprise services business. On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging that, during that same period, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5(b) by concealing material information and making false statements related to HP Inc.'s acquisition of Autonomy and that certain defendants violated SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) by engaging in a "scheme" to defraud investors. On July 2, 2013, HP Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On November 26, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part HP Inc.'s motion to dismiss, allowing claims to proceed against HP Inc. and Margaret C. Whitman based on alleged statements and/or omissions made on or after May 23, 2012. The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims that were based on alleged statements and/or omissions made between August 19, 2011 and May 22, 2012. The lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on November 4, 2014 and, on December 15, 2014, defendants filed their opposition to the motion. On June 9, 2015, HP Inc. entered into a settlement agreement with the lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities class action. Under the terms of the settlement, HP Inc., through its insurers, will contribute $100 million to a settlement fund that will be used to compensate persons who purchased HP Inc.'s shares during the period from August 19, 2011 through November 20, 2012. No individual is contributing to the settlement. HP Inc. and its current and former officers, directors, and advisors will be released from any Autonomy-related securities claims as part of the settlement. On July 17, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval to the settlement. On November 13, 2015 the court granted final approval to the settlement. • In re Hewlett-Packard Shareholder Derivative Litigation consists of seven consolidated lawsuits filed beginning on November 26, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements related to HP Inc.'s acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance of HP Inc.'s enterprise services business. The lawsuits also allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched in connection with HP Inc.'s acquisition of Autonomy and by causing HP Inc. to repurchase its own stock at allegedly inflated prices between August 2011 and October 2012. One lawsuit further alleges that certain individual defendants engaged in or assisted insider trading and thereby breached their fiduciary duties, were unjustly enriched and violated Sections 25402 and 25403 of the California Corporations Code. On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging, among other things, that the defendants concealed material information and made false statements related to HP Inc.'s acquisition of Autonomy and Autonomy's Intelligent Data Operating Layer technology and thereby violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breached their fiduciary duties, engaged in "abuse of control" over HP Inc., corporate waste and were unjustly enriched. The litigation was stayed until June 2014. The lead plaintiff filed a stipulation of proposed settlement on June 30, 2014. The court declined to grant preliminary approval to this settlement, and, on December 19, 2014, also declined to grant preliminary approval to a revised version of the settlement. On January 22, 2015, the lead plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of a further revised version of the settlement. On March 13, 2015, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval to the settlement. On July 30, 2015, the court granted final approval to the settlement and denied all remaining objections to the settlement. Certain objectors to the settlement have appealed the court's final approval order. • In re HP ERISA Litigation consists of three consolidated putative class actions filed beginning on December 6, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from August 18, 2011 to November 22, 2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations to HP Inc.'s 401(k) Plan and its participants and thereby violated Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by concealing negative information regarding the financial performance of Autonomy and HP Inc.'s enterprise services business and by failing to restrict participants from investing in HP Inc. stock. On August 16, 2013, HP Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On March 31, 2014, the court granted HP Inc.'s motion to dismiss this action with leave to amend. On July 16, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint containing substantially similar allegations and seeking substantially similar relief as the first amended complaint. On June 15, 2015, the court granted HP Inc.'s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety and denied plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint. On July 2, 2015, plaintiffs appealed the court's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. • Vincent Ho v. Margaret C. Whitman, et al. is a lawsuit filed on January 22, 2013 in California Superior Court alleging, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets in connection with HP Inc.'s acquisition of Autonomy and by causing HP Inc. to repurchase its own stock at allegedly inflated prices between August 2011 and October 2012. On April 22, 2013, the court stayed the lawsuit pending resolution of the In re Hewlett-Packard Shareholder Derivative Litigation matter in federal court. Two additional derivative actions, James Gould v. Margaret C. Whitman, et al. and Leroy Noel v. Margaret C. Whitman, et al., were filed in California Superior Court on July 26, 2013 and August 16, 2013, respectively, containing substantially similar allegations and seeking substantially similar relief. Those actions were also stayed pending resolution of the In re Hewlett-Packard Shareholder Derivative Litigation matter. The court's final approval of the settlement of the federal derivative case resulted in a release of the claims asserted in all three actions other than claims asserted against Michael Lynch, the former chief executive officer of Autonomy. The Ho matter was dismissed in its entirety with prejudice on August 13, 2015. • Cook v. Whitman, et al. is a lawsuit filed on March 18, 2014 in the Delaware Chancery Court, alleging, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets in connection with HP Inc.'s acquisition of Autonomy. On May 15, 2014, HP Inc. moved to dismiss or stay the Cook matter. On July 22, 2014, the Delaware Chancery Court stayed the motion pending the United States District Court's hearing on preliminary approval of the proposed settlement in the In re Hewlett-Packard Shareholder Derivative Litigation matter. The court's final approval of the settlement of the federal derivative case resulted in a release of all the claims asserted in the Cook matter other than those asserted against Michael Lynch, Sushovan Hussain, the former chief financial officer of Autonomy, and Deloitte UK. The Cook matter was dismissed by stipulation and order on August 19, 2015. • Autonomy Corporation Limited v. Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain. On April 17, 2015, four HP Inc. subsidiaries (Autonomy Corporation Limited, HP Vision BV, Autonomy Systems, Limited, and Autonomy, Inc.) initiated civil proceedings in the U.K. High Court of Justice against two members of Autonomy's former management, Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain. The Particulars of Claim seek damages in excess of $5 billion from Messrs. Lynch and Hussain for breach of their fiduciary duties by causing Autonomy group companies to engage in improper transactions and accounting practices. On October 1, 2015, Messrs. Lynch and Hussain filed their defenses. Mr. Lynch also filed a counterclaim against Autonomy Corporation Limited seeking $160 million in damages, among other things, for alleged misstatements regarding Lynch. The HP Inc. subsidiary claimants will have an opportunity to file a response to the defenses and asserted counterclaim. Environmental The Company's operations and products are or may in the future become subject to various federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations concerning environmental protection, including laws addressing the discharge of pollutants into the air and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, the clean-up of contaminated sites, the substances and materials used in the Company's products, the energy consumption of products, services and operations and the operationa |