important to the matters. The company reviews claims, suits, investigations and proceedings at least quarterly, and decisions are made with respect to recording or adjusting provisions and disclosing reasonably possible losses or range of losses (individually or in the aggregate), to reflect the impact and status of settlement discussions, discovery, procedural and substantive rulings, reviews by counsel and other information pertinent to a particular matter.
Whether any losses, damages or remedies finally determined in any claim, suit, investigation or proceeding could reasonably have a material effect on the company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows will depend on a number of variables, including: the timing and amount of such losses or damages; the structure and type of any such remedies; the significance of the impact any such losses, damages or remedies may have in the Consolidated Financial Statements; and the unique facts and circumstances of the particular matter that may give rise to additional factors. While the company will continue to defend itself vigorously, it is possible that the company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be affected in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of these matters.
The following is a summary of the more significant legal matters involving the company.
The company is a defendant in an action filed on March 6, 2003 in state court in Salt Lake City, Utah by the SCO Group (SCO v. IBM). The company removed the case to Federal Court in Utah. Plaintiff is an alleged successor in interest to some of AT&T’s UNIX IP rights, and alleges copyright infringement, unfair competition, interference with contract and breach of contract with regard to the company’s distribution of AIX and Dynix and contribution of code to Linux and the company has asserted counterclaims. On September 14, 2007, plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection, and all proceedings in this case were stayed. The court in another suit, the SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., held a trial in March 2010. The jury found that Novell is the owner of UNIX and UnixWare copyrights; the judge subsequently ruled that SCO is obligated to recognize Novell’s waiver of SCO’s claims against IBM and Sequent for breach of UNIX license agreements. On August 30, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling and denied SCO’s appeal of this matter. In June 2013, the Federal Court in Utah granted SCO’s motion to reopen the SCO v. IBM case. In February 2016, the Federal Court ruled in favor of IBM on all of SCO’s remaining claims, and SCO appealed. On October 30, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all but 1 of SCO’s remaining claims, which was remanded to the Federal Court in Utah.
On March 9, 2017, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry sued IBM in Pennsylvania state court regarding a 2006 contract for the development of a custom software system to manage the Commonwealth’s unemployment insurance benefits programs. The matter is pending in a Pennsylvania court.
In December 2017, CIS General Insurance Limited (CISGIL) sued IBM UK regarding a contract entered into by IBM UK and CISGIL in 2015 to implement and operate an IT insurance platform. The contract was terminated by IBM UK in July 2017 for non-payment by CISGIL. CISGIL alleges wrongful termination, breach of contract and breach of warranty. The matter is pending in the London High Court with trial beginning in January 2020.
In May 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the company’s October 2014 announcement that it was divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology business, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Management’s Retirement Plans Committee and 3 former IBM executives are named as defendants. On September 29, 2017, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On December 10, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court order. On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated the decision and remanded the case to the Second Circuit. On June 22, 2020, the Second Circuit reinstated its prior decision and remanded the case to the District Court.
The company is party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by U.S. federal or state environmental agencies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), known as “Superfund,” or laws similar to CERCLA. Such statutes require potentially responsible parties to participate in remediation activities regardless of fault or ownership of sites. The company is also conducting environmental