| Litigation and Contingencies | Litigation and Contingencies HP is involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including those identified below, consisting of IP, commercial, securities, employment, employee benefits and environmental matters that arise in the ordinary course of business. HP accrues a liability when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. HP believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any such matters and, as of July 31, 2019, it was not reasonably possible that a material loss had been incurred in excess of the amounts recognized in HP’s financial statements. HP reviews these matters at least quarterly and adjusts its accruals to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, HP shares responsibility with Hewlett Packard Enterprise for certain matters, as indicated below, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise has agreed to indemnify HP in whole or in part with respect to certain matters. Based on its experience, HP believes that any damage amounts claimed in the specific matters discussed below are not a meaningful indicator of HP’s potential liability. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. However, HP believes it has valid defenses with respect to legal matters pending against it. 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. Litigation, Proceedings and Investigations Copyright Levies . Proceedings are ongoing or have been concluded involving HP in certain European countries, including litigation in Belgium and other countries, seeking to impose or modify levies upon IT equipment (such as multifunction devices (“MFDs”) and PCs), alleging that these devices enable the production of private copies of copyrighted materials. The levies are generally based upon the number of products sold and the per-product amounts of the levies, which vary. Some European countries that do not yet have levies on digital devices are expected to implement similar legislation to enable them to extend existing levy schemes, while other European countries have phased out levies or are expected to limit the scope of levy schemes and applicability in the digital hardware environment, particularly with respect to sales to business users. HP, other companies and various industry associations have opposed the extension of levies to the digital environment and have advocated alternative models of compensation to rights holders. Reprobel, a collecting society administering the remuneration for reprography to Belgian copyright holders, requested by extrajudicial means that HP amend certain copyright levy declarations submitted for inkjet MFDs sold in Belgium from January 2005 to December 2009 to enable it to collect copyright levies calculated based on the generally higher copying speed when the MFDs are operated in draft print mode rather than when operated in normal print mode. In March 2010, HP filed a lawsuit against Reprobel in the Court of First Instance of Brussels seeking a declaratory judgment that no copyright levies are payable on sales of MFDs in Belgium or, alternatively, that payments already made by HP are sufficient to comply with its obligations. The Court of Appeal in Brussels (the “Court of Appeal”) stayed the proceedings and referred several questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). On November 12, 2015, the CJEU published its judgment providing that a national legislation such as the Belgian one at issue in the main proceedings is incompatible with EU law on multiple legal points, as argued by HP, and returned the proceedings to the referring court. On May 12, 2017, the Court of Appeal held that (1) reprographic copyright levies are due notwithstanding the lack of conformity of the Belgian system with EU law in certain aspects and (2) the applicable levies are to be calculated based on the objective speed of each MFD as established by an expert appointed by the Court of Appeal. HP appealed this decision before the Belgian Supreme Court on January 18, 2018. Based on industry opposition to the extension of levies to digital products, HP’s assessments of the merits of various proceedings and HP’s estimates of the number of units impacted and the amounts of the levies, HP has accrued amounts that it believes are adequate to address the ongoing disputes. Hewlett-Packard Company v. Oracle Corporation . On June 15, 2011, HP filed suit against Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County in connection with Oracle’s March 2011 announcement that it was discontinuing software support for HP’s Itanium-based line of mission-critical servers. HP 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. The matter eventually progressed to trial, which was bifurcated into two phases. HP 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’s Itanium-based servers for as long as HP decided to sell such servers. The second phase 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’s damages claim infringed on Oracle’s First Amendment rights. On August 27, 2015, the California Court of Appeals rejected Oracle’s appeal. The matter was remanded to the trial court for the second phase 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, awarding HP approximately $3.0 billion in damages, which included approximately $1.7 billion for past lost profits and $1.3 billion for future lost profits. On October 20, 2016, the court entered judgment for HP 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 filed a notice of cross-appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest. Both parties have filed opening briefs. The Court of Appeals will schedule oral argument after the case is fully briefed. HP expects that the appeals process could take several years to complete. Litigation is unpredictable, and there can be no assurance that HP will recover damages, or that any award of damages will be for the amount awarded by the jury’s verdict. The amount ultimately awarded, if any, would be recorded in the period received. No adjustment has been recorded in the financial statements in relation to this potential award. Pursuant to the terms of the separation and distribution agreement, HP 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 Separation. Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise . This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18, 2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging the 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 originally sought to certify a nationwide collective class action under the ADEA comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had their employment terminated pursuant to a workforce reduction (“WFR”) plan on or after May 23, 2012 and who were 40 years of age or older. Plaintiffs also originally sought to represent 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 May 23, 2012. Following a partial motion to dismiss, a motion to strike and a motion to compel arbitration that the defendants filed in November 2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. New plaintiffs were added, but the plaintiffs agreed that the class period for the putative nationwide ADEA collective action should be shortened and now starts, at the earliest, on December 9, 2014. The plaintiffs also agreed that the class period for the putative California state law class action should be shortened and now starts on August 18, 2012. On January 30, 2017, the defendants filed another partial motion to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration as to several of the plaintiffs. On March 20, 2017, the defendants filed additional motions to compel arbitration as to a number of the opt-in plaintiffs. On September 20, 2017, the Court granted the motions to compel arbitration as to the plaintiffs and opt-ins who signed WFR release agreements, denied the pending motion to dismiss without prejudice, stayed the action and administratively closed the case pending the completion of the compelled arbitrations. On November 30, 2017, three named plaintiffs and twelve opt-in plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand. An additional arbitration claimant was added later by stipulation. On December 22, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to: (1) stay the claims of individuals not subject to arbitration 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. Pre-arbitration mediation proceedings took place on October 4 and 5, 2018, and the claims of all 16 arbitration claimants were resolved. Between November 2018 and April 2019, an additional 154 individuals filed consents to opt‐in to the action as party‐plaintiffs. Of the new opt-ins, 145 signed separation agreements that include class waivers and mandatory arbitration provisions. The addition of these opt-ins brings the total number of named and opt-in plaintiffs to 193 . Mediation proceedings took place in June 2019 with respect to the 145 op-ins who signed separation agreements, and the parties are continuing to engage in settlement discussions. The stay of the litigation remains in place. Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in federal district court in San Jose, California. The plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated African-Americans and individuals over the age of forty . The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of racial and age discrimination in lay-offs and promotions. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 29, 2017. On January 12, 2018, the defendants moved to transfer the matter to the federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia. The defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition. The Court dismissed the action on the basis of improper venue. On July 23, 2018, the plaintiffs refiled the case in the Northern District of Georgia. On August 9, 2018, the plaintiffs also filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 1, 2018, the Georgia court granted the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to stay and administratively close the Georgia action until the Ninth Circuit appeal is decided. 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 Limited (“HP India”), a subsidiary of HP, 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. The differential duty demand is subject to interest. 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 and April 11, 2016 were canceled at the request of the Customs Tribunal. A hearing on the merits of the appeal scheduled for January 15, 2019 has been cancelled. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, Hewlett Packard Enterprise has agreed to indemnify HP in part, based on the extent to which any liability arises from the products and spare parts of Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s businesses. Class Actions re Authentication of Supplies . Five purported consumer class actions were filed against HP, arising out of the supplies authentication protocol in certain OfficeJet printers. This authentication protocol rejects some third-party ink cartridges that use non-HP security chips. Two of the cases were dismissed, and the remaining cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned In re HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation . The remaining plaintiffs’ consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 15, 2018, alleging eleven causes of action: (1) unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (2) fraudulent business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (3) violations of the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.; (4) violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.; (5) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices ‒ Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.01, et seq.; (6) violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 19.86.010, et seq.; (7) violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, New Jersey Statutes Ann. 56:8-1, et seq.; (8) violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, et seq.; (9) violations of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code § 502; (10) Trespass to Chattels; and (11) Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations and/or Prospective Economic Advantage. On February 7, 2018, the plaintiffs moved to certify an injunctive relief class of “[a]ll persons in California who own a Class Printer” under the “unfair” prong of the California unfair competition statute and a class of “[a]ll persons in the United States who purchased a Class Printer and experienced a print failure while using a non-HP aftermarket cartridge during the period between March 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and common law trespass to chattels. On March 29, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part HP’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim under the “unfair” prong of the California unfair competition statute, claims under the non-California consumer protection statutes, and claim for tortious interference with contractual relations and/or prospective economic advantage. The court also dismissed in part the plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims under the California consumer protection statutes and computer hacking claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The court denied HP’s motion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs’ claim for trespass to chattels and claim under the “unlawful” prong of the California unfair competition statute. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend on all of the dismissed claims, except the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act claim to the extent it was based on two specific subsections of that statute. On September 18, 2018, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release pursuant to which the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all claims against HP in exchange for a $1.5 million payment to the class and an agreement that HP would not reinstall the authentication protocol on the printers at issue. The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which was granted by the court on November 19, 2018. Notice of the settlement was given to the class beginning on January 7, 2019, and the period for individuals to opt out of or object to the settlement ended in March 2019. The court granted final approval of the class settlement on April 25, 2019. On June 28, 2019, the court granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, awarding $1.9 million in attorneys’ fees and costs to class counsel. HP has paid the fee award and neither party has filed an appeal. The claims administrator is reviewing class members’ claims and will be administering the settlement fund to class members in the coming months. Neodron Patent Litigation . On May 21, 2019, Neodron Ltd. (“Neodron”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Hewlett Packard Enterprise in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. On the same day, Neodron filed a companion complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 against seven sets of respondents, including Hewlett Packard Enterprise. On May 23 and June 14, 2019, Neodron filed amended complaints in the ITC and the Western District of Texas, respectively, to replace Hewlett Packard Enterprise with HP. Both complaints allege that certain touch-controlled devices infringe four patents owned by Neodron. On June 19, 2019, the ITC instituted an investigation. The ITC hearing is scheduled to begin on March 23, 2020, and the ITC’s target date for completion of the investigation is October 26, 2020. The district court action is stayed pending resolution of the ITC proceedings. In the ITC proceeding, Neodron seeks an order enjoining HP from importing, selling for importation, or selling after importation certain touch-controlled notebook computers and tablets. On June 28, 2019, Neodron filed a second lawsuit in the Western District of Texas, asserting four additional patents against HP touch-controlled devices. Neodron seeks unspecified damages and a permanent injunction, among other remedies. Slingshot Printing LLC Litigation . On June 11, 2019, Slingshot Printing LLC filed three complaints in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas alleging HP infringes or has infringed sixteen patents. The accused products include inkjet printers, cartridges, and printheads. The complaints seek monetary damages. Autonomy-Related Legal Matters Investigations . As a result of the findings of an ongoing investigation, HP 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’s acquisition of Autonomy. On January 19, 2015, the U.K. Serious Fraud Office notified HP that it was closing its investigation and had decided to cede jurisdiction of the investigation to the U.S. authorities. On November 14, 2016, the DOJ announced that a federal grand jury indicted Sushovan Hussain, the former CFO of Autonomy. Mr. Hussain was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, securities fraud, and multiple counts of wire fraud. The indictment alleged that Mr. Hussain engaged in a scheme to defraud purchasers and sellers of securities of Autonomy and HP about the true performance of Autonomy’s business, its financial condition, and its prospects for growth. A jury trial commenced on February 26, 2018. On April 30, 2018, the jury found Mr. Hussain guilty of all charges against him. On November 15, 2016, the SEC announced that Stouffer Egan, the former CEO of Autonomy’s U.S.-based operations, settled charges relating to his participation in an accounting scheme to meet internal sales targets and analyst revenue expectations. On November 29, 2018, the DOJ announced that a federal grand jury indicted Michael Lynch, former CEO of Autonomy, and Stephen Chamberlain, former VP of Finance of Autonomy. Dr. Lynch and Mr. Chamberlain were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and multiple counts of wire fraud. HP is continuing to cooperate with the ongoing enforcement actions. Autonomy Corporation Limited v. Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain . On April 17, 2015, four former-HP subsidiaries that became subsidiaries of Hewlett Packard Enterprise at the time of the Separation (Autonomy Corporation Limited, Hewlett Packard 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 Hewlett Packard Enterprise subsidiary claimants filed their replies to the defenses and the asserted counter-claim on March 11, 2016. Trial began on March 25, 2019 and is scheduled to continue through the remainder of 2019. Environmental HP’s operations and products are 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 cleanup of contaminated sites, the content of HP’s products and the recycling, treatment and disposal of those products. In particular, HP faces increasing complexity in its product design and procurement operations as it adjusts to new and future requirements relating to the chemical and materials composition of its products, their safe use, and the energy consumption associated with those products, including requirements relating to climate change. HP is also subject to legislation in an increasing number of jurisdictions that makes producers of electrical goods, including computers and printers, financially responsible for specified collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of past and future covered products (sometimes referred to as “product take-back legislation”). HP 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 noncompliant with environmental laws. HP’s potential exposure includes 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. HP is 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 state laws similar to CERCLA, and may become a party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by private parties for contribution towards clean-up costs. HP is also conducting environmental investigations or remediations at several current or former operating sites pursuant to administrative orders or consent agreements with state environmental agencies. The separation and distribution agreement includes provisions that provide for the allocation of environmental liabilities between HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise including certain remediation obligations; responsibilities arising from the chemical and materials composition of their respective products, their safe use and their energy consumption; obligations under product take back legislation that addresses the collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of products; and other environmental matters. HP will generally be responsible for environmental liabilities related to the properties and other assets, including products, allocated to HP under the separation and distribution agreement and other ancillary agreements. Under these agreements, HP will indemnify Hewlett Packard Enterprise for liabilities for specified ongoing remediation projects, subject to certain limitations, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise has a payment obligation for a specified portion of the cost of those remediation projects. In addition, HP will share with Hewlett Packard Enterprise other environmental liabilities as set forth in the separation and distribution agreement. HP is indemnified in whole or in part by Hewlett Packard Enterprise for liabilities arising from the assets assigned to Hewlett Packard Enterprise and for certain environmental matters as detailed in the separation and distribution agreement. |
