Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended |
Dec. 27, 2013 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments |
|
In the normal course of business, the Company may provide certain clients, principally governmental entities, with financial performance guarantees, which are generally backed by stand-by letters of credit or surety bonds. In general, the Company would only be liable for the amounts of these guarantees in the event that nonperformance by the Company permits termination of the related contract by the Company’s client. As of December 27, 2013, the Company had $23 million of outstanding surety bonds and $102 million of outstanding letters of credit relating to these performance guarantees. The Company believes it is in compliance with its performance obligations under all service contracts for which there is a financial performance guarantee, and the ultimate liability, if any, incurred in connection with these guarantees will not have a material adverse affect on its consolidated results of operations or financial position. |
|
The Company also uses stand-by letters of credit, in lieu of cash, to support various risk management insurance policies. These letters of credit represent a contingent liability and the Company would only be liable if it defaults on its payment obligations towards these policies. As of December 27, 2013, the Company had $86 million of outstanding stand-by letters of credit. |
|
The following table summarizes the expiration of the Company’s financial guarantees and stand-by letters of credit outstanding as of December 27, 2013: |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(Amounts in millions) | | Fiscal 2014 | | Fiscal 2015 | | Fiscal 2016 and thereafter | | Total |
Surety bonds | | $ | 3 | | | $ | 20 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 23 | |
|
Letters of credit | | 16 | | | 42 | | | 44 | | | 102 | |
|
Stand-by letters of credit | | — | | | 73 | | | 13 | | | 86 | |
|
Total | | $ | 19 | | | $ | 135 | | | $ | 57 | | | $ | 211 | |
|
|
The Company generally indemnifies licensees of its proprietary software products against claims brought by third parties alleging infringement of their intellectual property rights (including rights in patents (with or without geographic limitations), copyright, trademarks and trade secrets). CSC’s indemnification of its licensees relates to costs arising from court awards, negotiated settlements and the related legal and internal costs of those licensees. The Company maintains the right, at its own costs, to modify or replace software in order to eliminate any infringement. Historically, CSC has not incurred any significant costs related to licensee software indemnification. |
Contingencies |
|
The Company has a contract with the NHS to develop and deploy an integrated patient records system as a part of the U.K. Government's NHS IT program. On August 31, 2012, the Company and NHS entered into a binding interim agreement contract change note, or IACCN, which amended the terms of the then current contract and formed the basis on which the parties finalized a full restatement of the contract. On March 28, 2013, the Company and the NHS signed a letter agreement that modified certain terms of the IACCN. On October 4, 2013, the Company and NHS finalized a full restatement of the contract through a revised project agreement (RPA). The RPA embodies and incorporates the principal terms of the IACCN and such letter agreement, makes certain other changes with respect the Company’s non-Lorenzo product deployments and consolidates the three regional contracts which comprised the Company's NHS contract into a single agreement. See Note 17 for further information relating to the foregoing matters. |
|
As previously disclosed, the Company initiated an investigation into out of period adjustments resulting from certain accounting errors in its former MSS segment, primarily involving accounting irregularities in the Nordic region. Initially, the investigation was conducted by Company personnel, but outside Company counsel and forensic accountants retained by such counsel later assisted in the Company's investigation. On January 28, 2011, the Company was notified by the SEC's Division of Enforcement that it had commenced a formal civil investigation relating to these matters, which investigation has been expanded to other matters subsequently identified by the SEC, including matters specified in subpoenas issued to the Company from time to time by the SEC's Division of Enforcement as well as matters under investigation by the Audit Committee, as further described below. The Company is cooperating in the SEC's investigation. |
|
On May 2, 2011, the Audit Committee commenced an independent investigation into the matters relating to the former MSS segment and the Nordic region, matters identified by subpoenas issued by the SEC's Division of Enforcement, and certain other accounting matters identified by the Audit Committee and retained independent counsel to represent CSC on behalf of, and under the exclusive direction of, the Audit Committee in connection with such independent investigation. Independent counsel retained forensic accountants to assist with their work. Independent counsel also represents CSC on behalf of, and under the exclusive direction of, the Audit Committee in connection with the investigation by the SEC's Division of Enforcement. |
|
The Audit Committee’s investigation was expanded to encompass (i) the Company’s operations in Australia, (ii) certain aspects of the Company’s accounting practices within its Americas Outsourcing operation, and (iii) certain of the Company’s accounting practices that involve the percentage-of-completion accounting method, including the Company’s contract with the NHS. In the course of the Audit Committee's expanded investigation, accounting errors and irregularities were identified. As a result, certain personnel have been reprimanded, suspended, terminated and/or have resigned. The Audit Committee determined in August 2012 that its independent investigation was complete. The Audit Committee instructed its independent counsel to cooperate with the SEC's Division of Enforcement by completing production of documents and providing any further information requested by the SEC's Division of Enforcement. |
|
In addition to the matters noted above, the SEC's Division of Enforcement is continuing its investigation involving its concerns with certain of the Company's prior disclosure and accounting determinations with respect to the Company's contract with the NHS and the possible impact of such matters on the Company's financial statements for years prior to the Company's current fiscal year. The Company and the Audit Committee and its independent counsel are continuing to respond to SEC questions and to cooperate with the SEC's Division of Enforcement in its investigation of prior disclosures of the Company's contract with the NHS. The SEC's investigative activities are ongoing. |
|
In addition, the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance has issued comment letters to the Company requesting, among other things, additional information regarding its previously disclosed adjustments in connection with the above-referenced accounting errors, the Company's conclusions relating to the materiality of such adjustments, and the Company's analysis of the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures and its internal control over financial reporting. The SEC's Division of Corporation Finance's comment letter process is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to cooperate with that process. |
|
The investigation being conducted by the SEC's Division of Enforcement and the review of the Company's financial disclosures by the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance are continuing and could identify other accounting errors, irregularities or other areas of review. As a result, we have incurred and may continue to incur significant legal and accounting expenditures. As the Company previously disclosed, certain of its non-U.S. employees and certain of its former employees, including certain former executives in the United States, have received Wells notices from the SEC’s Division of Enforcement in connection with its ongoing investigation of the Company. The Company, through outside counsel, has been in discussions with the SEC Enforcement Staff concerning a potential resolution of the investigation involving the Company. However, to date those discussions have not resulted in a resolution. The Company received a Wells notice from the SEC’s Division of Enforcement on December 11, 2013. A Wells notice is not a formal allegation or a finding of wrongdoing; it is a preliminary determination by the SEC Enforcement Staff to recommend that the Commission file a civil enforcement action or administrative proceeding against the recipient. Under SEC procedures, a recipient of a Wells notice has an opportunity to respond in the form of a Wells submission that seeks to persuade the Commission that such an action should not be brought. The Company is availing itself of the Wells process by making a Wells submission to explain its views concerning such matters, which are aided by the Company Audit Committee's independent investigation and certain expert opinions of outside professionals. The Company made such a submission on January 14, 2014. The Company is unable to estimate with confidence or certainty how long the SEC process will last or its ultimate outcome, including whether the Company will reach a settlement with the SEC and, if so, the amount of any related monetary fine and other possible remedies. In addition, the Company is unable to predict the timing of the completion of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance's review of its financial disclosures or the outcome of such review. Publicity surrounding the foregoing or any enforcement action as a result of the SEC's investigation, even if ultimately resolved favorably for CSC, could have an adverse impact on the Company's reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company is unable to estimate with confidence or certainty any possible loss or range of loss associated with these matter at this time. See Note 4 for further information. |
|
Between June 3, 2011, and July 21, 2011, four putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, entitled City of Roseville Employee's Retirement System v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00610-TSE-IDD), Murphy v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00636-TSE-IDD), Kramer v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00751-TSE-IDD) and Goldman v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-777-TSE-IDD). On August 29, 2011, the four actions were consolidated as In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities Litigation (No. 1:11-cv-610-TSE-IDD) and Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board was appointed lead plaintiff. A consolidated class action complaint was filed by plaintiff on September 26, 2011, and names as defendants CSC, Michael W. Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso and Donald G. DeBuck. A corrected complaint was filed on October 19, 2011. The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding the business and operations of the Company. Specifically, the allegations arise from the Company's disclosure of the Company's investigation into certain accounting irregularities in the Nordic region and its disclosure regarding the status of the Company's agreement with the NHS. Among other things, the plaintiff sought unspecified monetary damages. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification with the court on September 22, 2011, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 18, 2011. A hearing was held on November 4, 2011. On August 29, 2012, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiff's claims in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Company's operations in the Nordic Region. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiff's claims in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Company's internal controls and the Company's contract with the NHS. The court also granted the plaintiff leave to amend its complaint by September 12, 2012, and maintained the stay of discovery until the sufficiency of the amended complaint had been decided. The court further denied plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice. On September 12, 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice advising the Court that it had determined not to amend its complaint and renewed its motion for class certification. On September 21, 2012, the court issued an Order setting the hearing on the motion for class certification for October 12, 2012, directing the parties to complete discovery by January 11, 2013 and scheduling the final pretrial conference for January 17, 2013. On October 9, 2012, the defendants filed their answer to the plaintiff's complaint. On October 12, 2012, the hearing on the motion for class certification was rescheduled to November 1, 2012. On October 31, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion with the court requesting that the hearing on the motion for class certification be rescheduled to a later date. On November 1, 2012, the court issued an order setting the hearing for class certification for November 15, 2012. On November 30, 2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. On December 14, 2012, defendants filed with the Fourth Circuit a petition for permission to appeal the class certification order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). Plaintiff's response to the petition was filed on February 20, 2013. On March 5, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied the petition for permission to appeal the class certification order. On December 14, 2012, the court issued an order extending the expert discovery deadline to February 25, 2013. On December 20, 2012, the court issued an order extending the fact discovery deadline to February 11, 2013 and the expert discovery deadline to March 25, 2013. On January 13, 2013, the court issued an order extending the expert discovery deadline to April 1, 2013. Motions for summary judgment were filed on March 18, 2013. On May 15, 2013, the Company entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement with the lead plaintiff to settle all claims in the lawsuit for $97.5 million, which was accrued for as of March 29, 2013 and included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet. As of March 29, 2013, the Company has also recorded a receivable of $45 million, which represents the amount recoverable under the Company's corporate insurance policies, and is included in receivables on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet. The agreement was subject to approval by the court. On May 24, 2013, the Court entered a Preliminary Approval Order Providing for Notice and Hearing in Connection with Proposed Class Action Settlement. On September 19, 2013, a Settlement Hearing was held before the Court. On September 20, 2013, the Court entered a Final Order and Judgment, which, among other things, approved the Settlement in all respects. |
|
On September 13, 2011, a shareholder derivative action entitled Che Wu Hung v. Michael W. Laphen, et al. (CL 2011 13376) was filed in Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, against Michael W. Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso, the members of the Audit Committee and the Company as a nominal defendant asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty and contribution and indemnification relating to alleged failure by the defendants to disclose accounting and financial irregularities in the MSS segment, primarily in the Nordic region, and the Company's performance under the NHS agreement and alleged failure to maintain effective internal controls. The plaintiff sought damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 24, 2011, the defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On November 23, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court. Argument was held on December 15, 2011. During argument the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his complaint without prejudice to refiling the action in state court. The Court granted the plaintiff's request, dismissed the complaint without prejudice and denied the motion to remand as moot. On December 22, 2011, the plaintiff refiled his complaint in Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia in a shareholder derivative action entitled Che Wu Hung v. Michael W. Laphen, et al. (CL 2011 18046). Named as defendants are Michael W. Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso, the members of the Audit Committee and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty relating to alleged failure by the defendants to disclose accounting and financial irregularities in the MSS segment, primarily in the Nordic region, the Company's performance under the NHS agreement and alleged failure to maintain effective internal controls and (ii) corporate waste. The plaintiff sought damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 6, 2012, the state court stayed the action until the earlier of (i) entry of an order on the pending motion to dismiss In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities Litigation (No. 1:11-cv-610-TSE-IDD) or (ii) July 5, 2012. On July 20, 2012, the state court renewed the stay until the earlier of (i) entry of an order on the pending motion to dismiss in In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities Litigation or (ii) October 18, 2012. The stay expired on August 30, 2012 with the entry of the court's order in In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities Litigation. On October 19, 2012, upon the joint motion of the parties, the state court issued an order staying the action while discovery proceeded in In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities Litigation. The order required defendants to provide to the plaintiff certain of the discovery produced in the federal action. On May 10, 2013, the court continued the stay to May 31, 2013 upon joint motion of the parties. On June 1, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to continue the stay. On June 28, 2013, the court denied the joint motion to continue the stay and set the matter for trial on January 6, 2014. On August 9, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which named as defendants Messrs. Laphen and Mancuso, members of the Company’s Board of Directors and the Company as a nominal defendant. On August 23, 2013, the parties, as well as the parties to the Bainto and Himmel cases, entered into a stipulation of settlement, which, if approved by the court, would require CSC to implement or maintain corporate governance reforms and pay to plaintiffs’ counsel an attorney fee and expense amount of $2 million and would release the claims asserted in the Hung, Bainto, Himmel and Morefield cases. The settlement was subject to approval by the Nevada state court. In accordance with the terms of the stipulation of settlement, on August 28, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for nonsuit, which was entered by the Virginia state court on September 11, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the Nevada state court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Derivative Settlement and Providing for Notice. The Order scheduled a Settlement Hearing for November 6, 2013. On November 6, 2013, the Nevada state court entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, which, among other things, approved the settlement in all respects. |
|
On May 11, 2012, a separate shareholder derivative action entitled Judy Bainto v. Michael W. Laphen et al. (No. A-12-661695-C), was filed in District Court, Clark County, Nevada, against Messrs. Laphen and Mancuso, members of the Company's Board of Directors and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint is substantively similar to the second Hung complaint. On or about August 1, 2012, the court granted the parties' joint motion to extend the time for defendants to respond to the complaint to sixty days after the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia's entry of an order on the pending motion to dismiss the complaint in In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities Litigation. On September 5, 2012, Defendants notified the court of the Eastern District of Virginia's ruling in In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities Litigation. On September 11, 2012, the parties filed a joint status report proposing a schedule for the filing of an amended complaint by plaintiff and for motion to dismiss briefing. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 28, 2012. Upon stipulation of the parties, the court consolidated the Bainto case and Himmel case (described below) and deemed the amended complaint filed in Bainto the operative complaint. In addition, on November 8, 2012, upon joint motion of the parties, the court issued an order staying the action while discovery proceeded in In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities Litigation. The order required Defendants to provide to the Plaintiffs certain of the discovery produced in the federal action. On August 23, 2013, the parties, as well as the parties to the Hung and Himmel cases, entered into a stipulation of settlement, which, if approved by the court, would require CSC to implement or maintain corporate governance reforms and pay to plaintiffs’ counsel an attorney fee and expense amount of $2 million and would release the claims asserted in the Hung, Bainto, Himmel and Morefield cases. The settlement was subject to approval by the Nevada state court. On September 27, 2013, the Nevada state court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Derivative Settlement and Providing for Notice. The Order scheduled a Settlement Hearing for November 6, 2013. On November 6, 2013, the Nevada state court entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, which, among other things, approved the settlement in all respects. |
|
On October 16, 2012, a separate shareholder derivative action entitled Daniel Himmel v. Michael W. Laphen et al. (No. A-12-670190-C), was filed in District Court, Clark County, Nevada, against Messrs. Laphen and Mancuso, members of the Company's Board of Directors and the Company as a nominal defendant. The Himmel complaint is substantively similar to the Bainto complaint, but included a claim for unjust enrichment and sought additional injunctive relief. Upon stipulation of the parties, the court consolidated the Bainto case (described above) and the Himmel case and deemed the amended complaint filed in Bainto the operative complaint. In addition, on November 8, 2012, upon joint motion of the parties, the court issued an order staying the action while discovery proceeded in In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities Litigation. The order required Defendants to provide to the Plaintiffs certain of the discovery produced in the federal action. On August 23, 2013, the parties, as well as the parties to the Hung and Bainto cases, entered into a stipulation of settlement, which, if approved by the court, would require CSC to implement or maintain corporate governance reforms and pay to plaintiffs’ counsel an attorney fee and expense amount of $2 million and would release the claims asserted in the Hung, Bainto, Himmel and Morefield cases. The settlement was subject to approval by the Nevada state court. On September 27, 2013, the Nevada state court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Derivative Settlement and Providing for Notice. The Order scheduled a Settlement Hearing for November 6, 2013. On November 6, 2013, the Nevada state court entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, which, among other things, approved the settlement in all respects. |
|
On December 20, 2012, a separate shareholder derivative complaint entitled Shirley Morefield v. Irving W. Bailey, II, et al, (Case No. 1:120V1468GBL/TCB) was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint names certain of CSC's current and former directors and officers as defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint is similar to the Hung complaint but asserts only a claim for breach of fiduciary duty and alleges that the plaintiff made a demand on the CSC Board prior to commencing suit and that such demand was refused. Motions to dismiss were filed on March 18, 2013. On April 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Motions to dismiss the amended complaint were filed on April 17, 2013 and were heard on May 10, 2013. On August 7, 2013, the court granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. On or about August 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On October 6, 2013, the parties reached an agreement to resolve the appeal. Plaintiff agreed to dismiss her appeal upon approval of the settlement in the Hung, Bainto and Himmel matters and agreed that, upon final approval of that settlement, her claims shall be released, fully, finally and forever. CSC agreed to pay to Plaintiff’s counsel an attorney fee and expense amount of $195,000. On November 6, 2013, the Nevada state court entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, which, among other things, approved the settlement of the Hung, Bainto and Himmel matters in all respects. Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on November 8, 2013. |
|
On March 1, 2012, the Company was competitively awarded the Maryland Medicaid Enterprise Restructuring Project (“MERP”) contract by the State of Maryland (the State) to modernize the Medicaid Management Information System ("MMIS"), a database of Medicaid recipients and providers used to manage Medicaid reimbursement claims. The MERP contract is predominately fixed price. Also, since awarded, federal government-mandated Medicaid information technology standards have been in considerable flux. The State has directed the Company to include additional functionality in the design to incorporate new federal mandates and guidance promulgated after the base scope of the Contract was finalized. Further, the State has declined to approve contract modifications to compensate the Company for the additional work. |
|
As a result of the State’s refusal to amend the MERP contract and equitably adjust the compensation to be paid to the Company and, in accordance with prescribed State statutes and regulations, the Company timely filed a certified claim with the State in the total estimated amount of approximately $61 million on September 27, 2013 (the Claim). The Company believes it has valid and reasonable factual and legal bases for the Claim and that the circumstances that have led or will lead to the Company’s additional costs set forth in the Claim were unforeseen as of the operative proposal submission dates and are not the result of deficiencies in CSC’s performance. However, the Company’s position is subject to the ongoing evaluation of new facts and information which may come to the Company’s attention should the Claim be denied and an appeal litigated before the Board. |
|
For service and non-construction State contracts, Maryland law does not impose any deadline upon a State procurement officer to render a decision. If the final decision of the State with regard to the Claim is unsatisfactory to the Company, the Company may file a Notice of Appeal with the Maryland State Board of Contact Appeals (the Board), which has exclusive initial jurisdiction of State contract claims concerning breach, performance, modification, or termination of contracts procured under Title II of Maryland's General Procurement Law. |
|
In addition to the matters noted above, the Company is currently party to a number of disputes which involve or may involve litigation. The Company consults with legal counsel on those issues related to litigation and seeks input from other experts and advisors with respect to such matters in the ordinary course of business. Whether any losses, damages or remedies ultimately resulting from such matters could reasonably have a material effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operation, or cash flows will depend on a number of variables, including, for example, the timing and amount of such losses or damages (if any) and the structure and type of any such remedies. For these reasons, it is not possible to make reasonable estimates of the amount or range of loss that could result from these other matters at this time. Company management does not, however, presently expect any of such other matters to have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements of the Company. |