| Litigation and Contingencies | Litigation and Contingencies Hewlett Packard Enterprise is involved in various lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings including those consisting of Intellectual Property ("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, Hewlett Packard Enterprise and HP Inc. (formerly known as "Hewlett-Packard Company") agreed to cooperate with each other in managing certain existing litigation related to both parties' businesses. The Separation and Distribution Agreement included provisions that allocate liability and financial responsibility for pending litigation involving the parties, as well as provide for cross-indemnification of the parties against liabilities to one party arising out of liabilities allocated to the other party. 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 April 30, 2020, 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 Ross and Rogus v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging that HPE pays its California-based female employees “systemically lower compensation” than HPE pays male employees performing substantially similar work. The complaint alleges various California state law claims, including California’s Equal Pay Act, Fair Employment and Housing Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and seeks certification of a California-only class of female employees employed in certain “Covered Positions.” The complaint seeks damages, statutory and civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 2, 2019, HPE filed a demurrer to all causes of action and an alternative motion to strike portions of the complaint. On July 2, 2019, the court denied HPE’s demurrer as to the claims of the putative class and granted HPE’s demurrer as to the claims of the individual plaintiffs. 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 were scheduled to reconvene on April 6, 2015, and again on November 3, 2015 and April 11, 2016, but were canceled at the request of the Customs Tribunal. The hearing was rescheduled for January 15, 2019 but was postponed and has not yet been rescheduled. 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 Forsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18, 2016 and an amended complaint was filed on December 19, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business and Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective action under the ADEA comprised of all individuals aged 40 and older who had their employment terminated by an HP entity pursuant to a work force reduction ("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 for individuals terminated in deferral states and on or after April 8, 2015 in non-deferral states. Plaintiffs also seek to certify a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012. On September 20, 2017, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration and administratively closed the case pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings. On November 30, 2017, three named plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand. Thirteen additional plaintiffs later joined the arbitration. On December 22, 2017, defendants filed a motion to (1) stay the case pending arbitrations and (2) enjoin the demanded arbitration and require each plaintiff to file a separate arbitration demand. On February 6, 2018, the court granted the motion to stay and denied the motion to enjoin. The claims of these sixteen arbitration named plaintiffs have been resolved. Additional opt-in plaintiffs were added to the litigation and these claims also were resolved as part of the arbitration process. The stay of the Forsyth class action has been lifted and a Third Amended Complaint was filed on January 7, 2020. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on February 6, 2020. On May 18, 2020, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a Fourth Amended Complaint is July 9, 2020. Wall v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and HP Inc. This certified California class action and Private Attorney General Act action was filed against Hewlett-Packard Company on January 17, 2012 and the fifth amended (and operative) complaint was filed against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise on June 28, 2016 in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. The complaint alleges that the defendants paid earned incentive compensation late and failed to timely pay final wages in violation of the California Labor Code. On August 9, 2016, the court ordered the class certified without prejudice to a future motion to amend or modify the class certification order or to decertify. The scheduled January 22, 2018 trial date was vacated following the parties’ notification to the court that they had reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the dispute. The parties subsequently finalized and executed a settlement agreement and, on May 9, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 2, 2018, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. On December 21, 2018, the court issued an order granting final approval. A Qualified Settlement Fund has been fully funded and distributed to class members. On March 5, 2020, the Court signed an Amendment to Final Approval Order and Judgment, directing that the matter be closed. Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. Plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated African-Americans and individuals over the age of forty filed an amended complaint on September 29, 2017. Plaintiffs seek damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and declaratory and injunctive relief. On January 12, 2018, defendants moved to transfer the matter to the federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia. Defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition. On July 11, 2018, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss this action for improper venue, and also partially dismissed and struck certain claims without prejudice to re-filing in the appropriate venue. On July 23, 2018, plaintiffs re-filed their lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On August 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of the Northern District of California action with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 15, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay their lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia, which was granted by the court. On February 7, 2020, Defendants resolved the claims of the individual plaintiffs and the matters were dismissed. Hewlett-Packard Company v. Oracle (Itanium). On June 15, 2011, HP Inc. filed suit against Oracle in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara in connection with Oracle's March 2011 announcement that it was discontinuing software support for HP Inc.’s Itanium-based line of mission critical servers. HP Inc. asserted, among other things, that Oracle’s actions breached the contract that was signed by the parties as part of the settlement of the litigation relating to Oracle’s hiring of Mark Hurd. Trial was bifurcated into two phases. HP Inc. prevailed in the first phase of the trial, in which the court ruled that the contract at issue required Oracle to continue to offer its software products on HP Inc.'s Itanium-based servers for as long as HP Inc. decided to sell such servers. Phase 2 of the trial was then postponed by Oracle’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of Oracle’s “anti-SLAPP” motion, in which Oracle argued that HP Inc.’s damages claim infringed on Oracle’s First Amendment rights. On August 27, 2015, the California Court of Appeal rejected Oracle’s appeal. The matter was remanded to the trial court for Phase 2 of the trial, which began on May 23, 2016, and was submitted to the jury on June 29, 2016. On June 30, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of HP Inc., awarding HP Inc. approximately $3 billion in damages: $1.7 billion for past lost profits and $1.3 billion for future lost profits. On October 20, 2016, the court entered judgment for this amount with interest accruing until the judgment is paid. Oracle’s motion for a new trial was denied on December 19, 2016, and Oracle filed its notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment on January 17, 2017. On February 2, 2017, HP Inc. filed a notice of cross-appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest. On May 16, 2019, HP Inc. filed its application to renew the judgment. As of May 16, 2019, the renewed judgment is approximately $3.8 billion. Daily interest on the renewed judgment is now accruing at $1 million and will be recorded upon receipt. The parties have completed appellate briefing in the California Court of Appeal and are awaiting the scheduling of oral argument. Pursuant to the terms of the Separation and Distribution Agreement, HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise will share equally in any recovery from Oracle once Hewlett Packard Enterprise has been reimbursed for all costs incurred in the prosecution of the action prior to the HP Inc. /Hewlett Packard Enterprise separation on November 1, 2015. Oracle America, Inc., et al. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (Terix copyright matter). On March 22, 2016, Oracle filed a complaint against HPE in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging copyright infringement, interference with contract, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and unfair competition. Oracle’s claims arise out of HPE’s prior use of a third-party maintenance provider named Terix Computer Company, Inc. (“Terix”). Oracle contends that in connection with HPE’s use of Terix as a subcontractor for certain customers of HPE’s multivendor support business, Oracle’s copyrights were infringed, and HPE is liable for vicarious and contributory infringement and related claims. The lawsuit against HPE follows a prior lawsuit brought by Oracle against Terix in 2013 relating to Terix’s alleged unauthorized provision of Solaris patches to customers on Oracle hardware. On June 14, 2018, the court heard oral argument on HPE's and Oracle's cross-motions for summary judgment. On January 29, 2019, the court granted HPE’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to all of Oracle’s claims and vacated the trial date. On February 20, 2019, the court entered judgment in favor of HPE, dismissing Oracle’s claims in their entirety. Oracle has appealed the trial court’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oracle’s opening brief was filed on July 29, 2019. HPE’s responsive brief was filed on September 27, 2019. Oracle’s reply brief was filed November 18, 2019. Oral argument has been scheduled before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for June 8, 2020. Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., et al. This patent infringement action was filed on September 15, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that various Hewlett Packard Enterprise switches and access points infringe Network-1’s patent relating to the 802.3af and 802.3at “Power over Ethernet” standards. Network-1 seeks damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Network-1 patent at issue expires in 2020. A jury trial was conducted beginning on November 6, 2017. On November 13, 2017, the jury returned a verdict in favor of HPE, finding that HPE did not infringe Network-1’s patent and that the patent was invalid. On August 29 2018, the court denied Network-1's motion for a new trial on infringement and entered the jury's verdict finding that HPE does not infringe the relevant Network-1 patent. The court also granted Network-1's motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on validity. Network-1 has appealed the jury verdict of non-infringement to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. HPE has cross-appealed the court’s decision to grant Network-1's motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on validity. Appellate briefing has been completed. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeal held oral argument on November 4, 2019. Shared Litigation with HP Inc., DXC and Micro Focus As part of the Separation and Distribution Agreements between Hewlett Packard Enterprise and HP Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise and DXC, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Seattle SpinCo, the parties to each agreement agreed to cooperate with each other in managing certain existing litigation related to both parties' businesses. The Separation and Distribution Agreements also included provisions that assign to the parties responsibility for managing pending and future litigation related to the general corporate matters of HP Inc. (in the case of the separation of Hewlett Packard Enterprise from HP Inc.) or of Hewlett Packard Enterprise (in the case of the separation of DXC from Hewlett Packard Enterprise and the separation of Seattle SpinCo from Hewlett Packard Enterprise), in each case arising prior to the applicable separation. 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 operational or financial responsibility for recycling, treatment and disposal of those products. This includes legislation that makes producers of electrical goods, including servers and networking equipment, financially responsible for specified collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of past and future covered products (sometimes referred to as "product take-back legislation"). The Company could incur substantial costs, its products could be restricted from entering certain jurisdictions, and it could face other sanctions, if it were to violate or become liable under environmental laws or if its products become non-compliant with environmental laws. The Company's potential exposure includes impacts on revenue, fines and civil or criminal sanctions, third-party property damage or personal injury claims and clean-up costs. The amount and timing of costs to comply with environmental laws are difficult to predict. In particular, the Company may become a party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by U.S. or state environmental agencies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), known as "Superfund," or other federal, state or foreign laws and regulations addressing the clean-up of contaminated sites, and may become a party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by private parties for contribution towards clean-up costs. The Company is also contractually obligated to make financial contributions to address actions related to certain environmental liabilities, both ongoing and arising in the future, pursuant to its Separation and Distribution Agreement with HP Inc. |
