Contingencies and Litigation | Contingencies and Litigation As more fully discussed below, the Company is involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings concerning: securities law; governmental entity contracting, servicing and procurement law; intellectual property law; environmental law; employment law; commercial and contracts law; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and other laws and regulations. The Company determines whether an estimated loss from a contingency should be accrued by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company assesses its potential liability by analyzing its litigation and regulatory matters using available information. The Company develops its view on estimated losses in consultation with outside counsel handling its defense in these matters, which involves an analysis of potential results, assuming a combination of litigation and settlement strategies. Should developments in any of these matters cause a change in the Company's determination as to an unfavorable outcome and result in the need to recognize a material accrual, or should any of these matters result in a final adverse judgment or be settled for significant amounts, in excess of any accrual for such matter or matters, this could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period or periods in which such change in determination, judgment or settlement occurs. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any such matters as of June 30, 2018 . Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters and such outcome in any such matters could be in excess of any amounts accrued and could be material to the Company's results of operations, cash flows or financial position in any reporting period. Additionally, guarantees, indemnifications and claims arise during the ordinary course of business from relationships with suppliers, customers and non-consolidated affiliates when the Company undertakes an obligation to guarantee the performance of others if specified triggering events occur. Nonperformance under a contract could trigger an obligation of the Company. These potential claims include actions based upon alleged exposures to products, real estate, intellectual property such as patents, environmental matters and other indemnifications. The ultimate effect on future financial results is not subject to reasonable estimation because considerable uncertainty exists as to the final outcome of these claims. However, while the ultimate liabilities resulting from such claims may be significant to results of operations in the period recognized, management does not anticipate they will have a material adverse effect on the condensed consolidated financial position or liquidity. As of June 30, 2018 , the Company had accrued its estimate of liability incurred under its indemnification arrangements and guarantees. Litigation Against the Company State of Texas v. Xerox Corporation, Conduent Business Services, LLC (f/k/a Xerox Business Services, LLC), Conduent State Healthcare, LLC (f/k/a Xerox State Healthcare, LLC, f/k/a ACS State Healthcare, LLC) and Conduent Incorporated: On May 9, 2014, the State of Texas, via the Texas Office of Attorney General (the “State”), filed a lawsuit in the 53rd Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas. The lawsuit alleges that Xerox Corporation, Xerox State Healthcare, LLC and ACS State Healthcare (collectively, the "Xerox Defendants") violated the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act in the administration of its contract with the Texas Department of Health and Human Services (“HHSC”). The State alleges that the Xerox Defendants made false representations of material facts regarding the processes, procedures, implementation and results regarding the prior authorization of orthodontic claims. The State seeks recovery of amounts paid for orthodontic treatment under the Texas Medicaid program for the period from approximately 2004 to 2012, three times the amount of the payments made as a result of the alleged unlawful acts, civil penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest and all costs and attorneys’ fees. The Xerox Defendants filed their Answer in June, 2014 denying all allegations. A trial date is schedule for November, 2018. During the first quarter of 2018, the State notified the Xerox Defendants in the litigation discovery process that its claim is in excess of two billion dollars based primarily on the assertion of treble damages and civil penalties per illegal act for almost two hundred thousand purported illegal acts. The Xerox Defendants will forcefully contest this assertion and continue to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. During the second quarter of 2018, the trial date was rescheduled for May, 2019. We are not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or to estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of losses, if any, in excess of the thirty-eight million dollars the Company has already accrued. In the course of litigation, the Company periodically engages in discussions with the State's counsel for possible resolution of the matter. Should developments cause a change in the Company's determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or settlement for a significant amount, there could be a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period in which such change in determination, judgment or settlement occurs. Dennis Nasrawi v. Buck Consultants et al.: On October 8, 2009, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County, and on November 24, 2009, the case was removed to the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. Plaintiffs allege actuarial negligence against Buck Consultants, LLC (“Buck”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Conduent, for the use of faulty actuarial assumptions in connection with the 2007 actuarial valuation for the Stanislaus County Employees Retirement Association (“StanCERA”). Plaintiffs allege that the employer contribution rate adopted by StanCERA based on Buck’s valuation was insufficient to fund the benefits promised by the County. On July 13, 2012, the Court entered its ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of all plan participants. The Court also ruled that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded their claim that Buck allegedly aided and abetted StanCERA in breaching its fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs then filed their Fifth Amended Complaint and added StanCERA to the litigation. Buck and StanCERA filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On September 13, 2012, the Court sustained both demurrers with prejudice, completely dismissing the matter and barring plaintiffs from refiling their claims. Plaintiffs appealed, and ultimately the California Court of Appeals (Sixth District) reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case back to the trial court. This case has been stayed pending the outcome of parallel litigation the plaintiffs are pursuing against StanCERA. Buck will continue to aggressively defend these lawsuits. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or reasonably provide an estimate or range of estimate of the possible outcome or loss, if any. Conduent Business Services, LLC v. Cognizant Business Services, LLC: On April 12, 2017, Conduent Business Services LLC (“Conduent”) filed a lawsuit against Cognizant Business Services Corporation (“Cognizant”) in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York. The lawsuit relates to the Amended and Restated Master Outsourcing Services Agreement effective as of October 24, 2012, and the service delivery contracts and work orders thereunder, between Conduent and Cognizant, as amended and supplemented (the “Contract”). The Contract contains certain minimum purchase obligations by Conduent through the date of expiration. The lawsuit alleges that Cognizant committed multiple breaches of the Contract, including Cognizant’s failure to properly perform its obligations as subcontractor to Conduent under Conduent’s contract with the New York Department of Health to provide a Medicaid Management Information Systems (the “NY MMIS Contract”). In the lawsuit, Conduent seeks damages in excess of one hundred fifty million dollars . During the first quarter of 2018, Conduent provided notice to Cognizant that it was terminating the Contract for cause and recorded in the same period certain charges associated with the termination. Cognizant has asserted counterclaims against Conduent in the lawsuit seeking damages in excess of twenty-two million dollars . Conduent has responded to Cognizant’s counterclaims by denying the allegations. Conduent will continue to vigorously defend itself against the counterclaims but the Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or reasonably provide an estimate or range of estimate of the possible outcome. Other Matters On January 5, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "CFPB") notified Xerox Education Services, Inc. (XES) that, in accordance with the CFPB’s discretionary Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise (NORA) process, the CFPB’s Office of Enforcement is considering recommending that the CFPB take legal action against XES, alleging that XES violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition of unfair practices. Should the CFPB commence an action, it may seek restitution, civil monetary penalties, injunctive relief, or other corrective action. The purpose of a NORA letter is to provide a party being investigated an opportunity to present its position to the CFPB before an enforcement action is recommended or commenced. XES submitted its response to the NORA. The CFPB’s NORA stems from an inquiry that commenced in 2014 when XES received and responded to a CFPB Civil Investigative Demand containing a broad request for information. During this process, XES self-disclosed to the U.S. Department of Education (the "Department") and the CFPB certain adjustments of which it had become aware that had not been timely made relating to its servicing of a small percentage of third-party student loans under outsourcing arrangements for various financial institutions. The CFPB, the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Justice, the New York Office of the Attorney General, the New York Department of Financial Services and the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General began similar reviews. XES has cooperated and continues to fully cooperate with all regulatory agencies and resolved the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General investigation in November 2016. Both as a result of these inquiries, its own reviews of operations and work performed by external auditors, XES has identified certain other operational issues requiring remediation, and this remediation work has commenced. XES continues to review its operations to determine whether any additional remediation work is necessary. XES disclosed these additional operational projects to the Department at the end of the second quarter of 2018 and is working with the Department to develop plans to complete these projects while XES exits the business. The Company cannot provide assurance that the CFPB or another regulator or party will not ultimately commence a legal action against XES in which fines, penalties or other liabilities are sought from XES, nor is the Company able to predict the likely outcome of these investigations. The Company could in future periods incur judgments or enter into settlements to resolve these investigations for amounts in excess of current reserves and there could be a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period in which such change in judgment or settlement occurs. Other Contingencies Certain contracts, primarily in the Company's Public Sector segment, require the Company to provide a surety bond or a letter of credit as a guarantee of performance. As of June 30, 2018 , the Company had $635 million of outstanding surety bonds used to secure its performance of contractual obligations with its clients and $339 million of outstanding letters of credit issued to secure the Company's performance of contractual obligations to its clients as well as other corporate obligations. In general, the Company would only be liable for the amount of these guarantees in the event of default in the Company's performance of its obligations under each contract. The Company believes it has sufficient capacity in the surety markets and liquidity from its cash flow and its various credit arrangements (including its Credit Facility) to allow it to respond to future requests for proposals that require such credit support. The Company has service arrangements where the Company services third-party student loans in the Federal Family Education Loan program (FFEL) on behalf of various financial institutions. At July 31 2018, the Company serviced a FFEL portfolio of approximately 14,500 loans. Some servicing agreements contain provisions that, under certain circumstances, require the Company to purchase the loans if the loan guaranty has been permanently terminated as a result of a loan default caused by the Company's servicing error. If defaults caused by the Company are cured during an initial period, any obligation the Company may have to purchase these loans expires. Loans that the Company purchases may be subsequently cured, the guaranty reinstated and the loans repackaged for sale to third parties. The Company evaluates its exposure under its purchase obligations on defaulted loans and establishes a reserve for potential losses. The reserve is evaluated periodically and adjusted based upon management’s analysis of the historical performance of the defaulted loans. As of June 30, 2018 , Other current liabilities included reserves of approximately $0.3 million , which the Company believes to be adequate. In addition to potential purchase obligations arising from servicing errors, various laws and regulations applicable to student loan borrowers could give rise to fines, penalties and other liabilities associated with loan servicing errors. |