| Commitments and Contingencies | 9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In the normal course of business, NCR is subject to various proceedings, lawsuits, claims and other matters, including, for example, those that relate to the environment and health and safety, labor and employment, employee benefits, import/export compliance, intellectual property, data privacy and security, product liability, commercial disputes and regulatory compliance, among others. Additionally, NCR is subject to diverse and complex laws and regulations, including those relating to corporate governance, public disclosure and reporting, environmental safety and the discharge of materials into the environment, product safety, import and export compliance, data privacy and security, antitrust and competition, government contracting, anti-corruption, and labor and human resources, which are rapidly changing and subject to many possible changes in the future. Compliance with these laws and regulations, including changes in accounting standards, taxation requirements, and federal securities laws among others, may create a substantial burden on, and substantially increase costs to NCR or could have an impact on NCR's future operating results. NCR believes the amounts provided in its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, as prescribed by GAAP, are currently adequate in light of the probable and estimable liabilities with respect to such matters, but there can be no assurances that the amounts required to satisfy alleged liabilities from such matters will not impact future operating results. Other than as stated below, the Company does not currently expect to incur material capital expenditures related to such matters. However, there can be no assurances that the actual amounts required to satisfy alleged liabilities from various lawsuits, claims, legal proceedings and other matters, including, but not limited to the Fox River and Kalamazoo River environmental matters and other matters discussed below, and to comply with applicable laws and regulations, will not exceed the amounts reflected in NCR’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements or will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, capital expenditures, competitive position, financial condition or cash flows. Any costs that may be incurred in excess of those amounts provided as of June 30, 2015 cannot currently be reasonably determined, or are not currently considered probable. In 2012, NCR received anonymous allegations from a purported whistleblower regarding certain aspects of the Company's business practices in China, the Middle East and Africa. The principal allegations received in 2012 related to the Company's compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and federal regulations that prohibit U.S. persons from engaging in certain activities in Syria. NCR promptly retained experienced outside counsel and began an internal investigation of those allegations that was completed in January 2013. On August 31, 2012, the Board of Directors received a demand letter from an individual shareholder demanding that the Board investigate and take action in connection with certain of the whistleblower allegations. The Board formed a Special Committee to investigate those matters, and that Special Committee also separately retained experienced outside counsel, and completed an investigation in January 2013. On January 23, 2013, upon the recommendation of the Special Committee following its review, the Board of Directors adopted a resolution rejecting the shareholder demand. As part of its resolution, the Board determined, among other things, that the officers and directors named in the demand had not breached their fiduciary duties and that the Company would not commence litigation against the named officers and directors. The Board further resolved to review measures proposed and implemented by management to strengthen the Company's compliance with trade embargos, export control laws and anti-bribery laws. In March 2013, the shareholder who sent the demand filed a derivative action in a Georgia state court, naming as defendants three Company officers, five members of the Board of Directors, and the Company as a nominal defendant. As reported in prior filings, the litigation and associated shareholder demands have been resolved. With respect to Syria, in 2012 NCR voluntarily notified the U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of potential violations and ceased operations in Syria, which were commercially insignificant. The notification related to confusion stemming from the Company's failure to register in Syria the transfer of the Company's Syrian branch to a foreign subsidiary and to deregister the Company's legacy Syrian branch, which was a branch of NCR Corporation. The Company has applied for and received from OFAC various licenses that have permitted the Company to take measures required to wind down its past operations in Syria. The Company also submitted a detailed report to OFAC regarding this matter, including a description of the Company's comprehensive export control program and related remedial measures. With respect to the FCPA, the Company made a presentation to the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) providing the facts known to the Company related to the whistleblower's FCPA allegations, and advising the government that many of these allegations were unsubstantiated. The Company responded to subpoenas of the SEC and to requests of the DOJ for documents and information related to the FCPA, including matters related to the whistleblower's FCPA allegations. The Company's investigations of the whistleblower's FCPA allegations identified a few opportunities to strengthen the Company's comprehensive FCPA compliance program, and the Company continues to evaluate and enhance its compliance program as appropriate. With respect to the DOJ, the Company responded to its most recent requests for documents in 2014. With respect to the SEC, on June 22, 2015, the SEC staff notified the Company that it did not intend to recommend an enforcement action against the Company with respect to these matters. The Company continues to cooperate with the authorities. There can be no assurance that the Company will not be subject to fines or other remedial measures as a result of OFAC's investigation. In June 2014, one of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiaries, NCR Manaus, was notified of a Brazilian federal tax assessment of R$168 million, or approximately $54 million as of June 30, 2015 , including penalties and interest regarding certain federal indirect taxes for 2010 through 2012. The assessment alleges improper importation of certain components into Brazil's free trade zone that would nullify related indirect tax incentives. We have not recorded an accrual for the assessment, as the Company believes it has a valid position regarding indirect taxes in Brazil and, as such, has filed an appeal. However, it is possible that the Company could be required to pay taxes, penalties and interest related to this matter, which could be material to the Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. As of June 30, 2015 , the Company estimated the aggregate risk related to this matter to be zero to approximately $63 million , which includes penalties and interest subsequent to the assessment. Environmental Matters NCR's facilities and operations are subject to a wide range of environmental protection laws, and NCR has investigatory and remedial activities underway at a number of facilities that it currently owns or operates, or formerly owned or operated, to comply, or to determine compliance, with such laws. Also, NCR has been identified, either by a government agency or by a private party seeking contribution to site clean-up costs, as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at a number of sites pursuant to various state and federal laws, including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and comparable state statutes. Other than the Fox River matter and the Kalamazoo River matter detailed below, we currently do not anticipate material expenses and liabilities from these environmental matters. Fox River NCR is one of eight entities that were formally notified by governmental and other entities, such as local Native American tribes, that they are PRPs for environmental claims (under CERCLA and other statutes) arising out of the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in sediments in the lower Fox River and in the Bay of Green Bay in Wisconsin. The other Fox River PRPs that received notices are Appleton Papers Inc. (API; now known as Appvion, Inc.), P.H. Glatfelter Company (“Glatfelter”), Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP (GP, successor to Fort James Operating Company), WTM I Co. (formerly Wisconsin Tissue Mills, now owned by Canal Corporation, formerly known as Chesapeake Corporation), CBC Corporation (formerly Riverside Paper Corporation), U.S. Paper Mills Corp. (owned by Sonoco Products Company), and Menasha Corporation. NCR was identified as a PRP because of alleged PCB discharges from two carbonless copy paper manufacturing facilities it previously owned, which were located along the Fox River. NCR sold its facilities in 1978 to API. Some parties contend that NCR is also responsible for PCB discharges from paper mills owned by other companies because NCR carbonless copy paper "broke" was allegedly purchased by those other mills as a raw material. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (together, the Governments) developed clean-up plans for the upper and lower parts of the Fox River and for portions of the Bay of Green Bay. On November 13, 2007, the Governments issued a unilateral administrative order (the 2007 Order) under CERCLA to the eight original PRPs, requiring them to perform remedial work under the Governments’ clean-up plan for the lower parts of the river (operable units 2 through 5). In April 2009, NCR and API formed a limited liability company (the LLC), which entered into an agreement with an environmental remediation contractor to perform the work at the Fox River site. In-water dredging and remediation under the clean-up plan commenced shortly thereafter. NCR and API, along with B.A.T Industries p.l.c. (BAT), share among themselves a portion of the cost of the Fox River clean-up and natural resource damages (NRD) based upon a 1998 agreement (the Cost Sharing Agreement), a 2005 arbitration award (subsequently confirmed as a judgment), and a September 30, 2014 Funding Agreement (the Funding Agreement). The Cost Sharing Agreement and the arbitration resolved disputes that arose out of the Company's 1978 sale of its Fox River facilities to API. The Cost Sharing Agreement and arbitration award resulted in a 45% share for NCR of the first $75 million of such costs (a threshold that was reached in 2008), and a 40% share for amounts in excess of $75 million . The Funding Agreement, arose out of a 2012 to 2014 arbitration dispute between NCR and API, provides for regular, ongoing funding of NCR-incurred Fox River remediation costs via contributions, made to a new limited liability corporation created by the Funding Agreement, by BAT, API and, for 2014, API's indemnitor Windward Prospects. The Funding Agreement creates an obligation on BAT and API to fund 50% of NCR’s Fox River remediation costs from October 1, 2014 forward; the Funding Agreement also provides NCR opportunities to recoup, both indirectly from third parties and directly, the difference between BAT’s and API’s 60% obligation under the Cost Sharing Agreement and arbitration award on the one hand and their 50% payments under the Funding Agreement on the other, as well as the difference between the amount NCR received under the Funding Agreement and the amount owed to it under the Cost Sharing Agreement and arbitration award for the period from April 2012 through the end of September 2014. Various litigation proceedings concerning the Fox River are pending, and, as the result of appellate decisions in September 2014, NCR’s potential liability for the Fox River matter, for purposes of calculating the Company’s Fox River reserve, is no longer considered to be 100% of the remediation costs in the lower parts of the river. In a contribution action filed in 2008 seeking to determine allocable responsibility of several companies and governmental entities, a federal court in Wisconsin had issued rulings in 2009 and 2011 that effectively placed all remediation liability on NCR for four of the five “operable units” of the site. In another part of the same lawsuit, the Company prevailed in a 2012 trial on claims seeking to hold it liable under an “arranger” theory for the most upriver portion of the site, operable unit 1. On September 25, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its ruling on appeal. That ruling vacated the lower court’s contribution decisions that were adverse to NCR (i.e., it vacated “the decision to hold NCR responsible for all of the response costs at operable units 2 through 5 in contribution”), set aside an adverse judgment against the Company in the amount of $76 million , and affirmed the Company’s favorable verdict in the “arranger” liability trial with respect to operable unit 1. The case was remanded to the federal district court in Wisconsin for further proceedings, for potential consideration of additional factors noted by the appellate court, in which proceedings NCR will vigorously contest the amount of remediation costs allocable to it, and seek to recover from other parties portions of the costs it has previously paid. The case is scheduled for trial on June 13, 2016. In the quarter ended March 31, 2015, under a case management order applicable to the remanded case the federal district court allowed the filing of certain additional contractual and other claims, including claims against the Company, as well as certain claims by API against other parties (in light of the September 2014 appellate ruling that had restored those claims), which resulted in claims for potential indemnity by those other parties against the Company (under the Funding Agreement, to the extent the Company is liable for such claims, API must pay its recoveries into the limited liability corporation created by the Funding Agreement, and the Company may then seek to obtain reimbursement under its terms). The Company also updated the amounts it is seeking in its affirmative claims against other parties. Additionally, in March 2015, notwithstanding the prior trial and appellate results that had been favorable to the Company, the court entered a ruling holding NCR liable for contamination in operable unit 1, an area upriver from the Company’s former facilities, on what the court considered to be new guidance created by the appellate court in its September 2014 decision. The Company believes the March 2015 decision incorrectly applied the appellate court ruling. While the Company's effort to obtain special appellate review in the form of a petition for mandamus was denied on May 1, 2015 by the appellate court, in a decision dated May 15, 2015 the district court indicated, in a ruling that addressed several issues, that NCR had no liability for operable unit 1, noting “NCR discharged no PCBs in OU1, and therefore has no divisible share of the clean-up costs for that area." In 2010 the Governments filed a lawsuit (the Government enforcement action) in Wisconsin federal court against the companies named in the 2007 Order. After a 2012 trial, in May 2013 that court held, among other things, that harm at the site is not divisible, and it entered a declaratory judgment against seven defendants (including NCR) finding them jointly and severally liable to comply with the applicable provisions of the 2007 Order. The court also issued an injunction against four companies (including NCR), ordering them to comply with the applicable provisions of the 2007 Order; only NCR complied with the injunction. Several parties, including NCR, appealed from the judgment. In a companion opinion to the ruling described in the preceding paragraph, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, also on September 25, 2014, vacated the injunction, and also vacated the declaratory judgment that had been entered against the Company. The court also ruled that NCR’s defense based on divisibility of harm at the site, which the district court had rejected, must be reconsidered by that court. The case was remanded to the federal district court in Wisconsin for further proceedings. In a ruling on May 15, 2015, the district court ruled in NCR’s favor and rejected the Governments’ efforts to reinstate the declaratory judgment against NCR. The court issued findings in favor of the Company’s divisibility defense, and held that NCR’s share of liability for operable unit 4 was 28% (the Company has already paid more than 28% of the remediation costs for that part of the river); the court invited the Company to submit a proposed judgment in the Government enforcement action. Various parties have asked the court to reconsider its ruling, and one has sought to intervene as a co-plaintiff with the Governments, and those motions remained pending as of June 30, 2015 . With respect to remaining remediation work, one other PRP, GP, has agreed by virtue of an earlier settlement with the Governments that it is “liable to the United States . . . for performance of all response actions that the [2007 Order] requires for” the lower portion of operable unit 4 and operable unit 5. The declaratory judgment in the Government enforcement action with respect to liability under the 2007 Order against another defendant, Glatfelter, which pursued its appeal on grounds different from those pursued by NCR, was affirmed. With respect to ongoing 2015 remediation, following negotiations with the Governments and GP the Company agreed in April 2015 to perform a portion of the work planned for 2015, and to fund approximately one-third of the cost of that work, with GP funding an equal amount. This agreement was formalized in a stipulation and proposed consent decree filed with the federal court; each party is preserving its rights to recover its 2015 costs from the other in the contribution litigation. The Governments are demanding that Glatfelter agree to perform or fund the remaining approximate one-third of the work. Remediation work for the 2015 season commenced on March 31, 2015, and NCR, GP and Glatfelter are each undertaking certain remediation efforts. With respect to the Company’s prior dispute with API, which was generally superseded by the Funding Agreement, the Company has continued to receive timely payments under the Funding Agreement. NCR's eventual remediation liability, followed by long-term monitoring, will depend on a number of factors. In establishing the reserve, NCR attempts to estimate a range of reasonably possible outcomes for each of these factors, although each range is itself uncertain. NCR uses its best estimate within the range, if that is possible. Where there is a range of equally possible outcomes, and there is no amount within that range that is considered to be a better estimate than any other amount, NCR uses the low end of the range. In general, the most significant factors include: (1) the total remaining clean-up costs, including long-term monitoring following completion of the clean-up; (2) total NRD for the site; (3) the share of clean-up costs and NRD that NCR will bear; (4) NCR's transaction and litigation costs to defend itself in this matter; and (5) the share of NCR's payments that API and/or BAT will bear, as discussed above. With respect to NRD, in connection with a certain settlement entered into by other PRPs, in the quarter ended June 30, 2015 the Government asked the court to allow it to withdraw the NRD claims it had prosecuted on behalf of NRD trustees, including those NRD claims asserted against the Company (the Government had represented it would do so in the course of presenting the settlement to the court for approval). Calculation of the Company's Fox River reserve is subject to several complexities, and it is possible there could be additional changes to some elements of the reserve over upcoming periods, although the Company is unable to predict or estimate such changes at this time. There can be no assurance that the clean-up and related expenditures and liabilities will not have a material effect on NCR's capital expenditures, earnings, financial condition, cash flows, or competitive position. As of June 30, 2015 , the net reserve for the Fox River matter was approximately $23 million , compared to $40 million as of December 31, 2014 . The decrease in the net reserve is due to payments for clean-up activities and litigation costs, and to take into account the impact of the court decision on divisibility. NCR contributes to the LLC in order to fund remediation activities and generally, by contract, has funded certain amounts of remediation expenses in advance. As of June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , approximately zero remained from this funding. NCR's reserve for the Fox River matter is reduced as the LLC makes payments to the remediation contractor and other vendors with respect to remediation activities. Under a 1996 agreement, AT&T and Alcatel-Lucent are responsible severally (not jointly) for indemnifying NCR for certain portions of the amounts paid by NCR for the Fox River matter over a defined threshold and subject to certain offsets. (The agreement governs certain aspects of AT&T Corp.'s divestiture of NCR and of what was then known as Lucent Technologies.) NCR's estimate of what AT&T and Alcatel-Lucent remain obligated to pay under the indemnity totaled approximately $11 million and $30 million as of June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , respectively, and is deducted in determining the net reserve discussed above. In connection with the Fox River and other matters, through June 30, 2015 , NCR has received a combined total of approximately $173 million in settlements reached with its principal insurance carriers. Portions of most of these settlements are payable to a law firm that litigated the claims on the Company's behalf. Some of the settlements cover not only the Fox River but also other environmental sites. Of the total amount collected to date, $9 million is subject to competing claims by API. Kalamazoo River In November 2010, USEPA issued a "general notice letter" to NCR with respect to the Allied Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River Superfund Site (Kalamazoo River site) in Michigan. Three other companies - International Paper, Mead Corporation, and Consumers Energy - also received general notice letters at or about the same time. USEPA asserts that the site is contaminated by various substances, primarily PCBs, as a result of discharges by various paper mills located along the river. USEPA does not claim that the Company made direct discharges into the Kalamazoo River, but indicated that "NCR may be liable under Section 107 of CERCLA ... as an arranger, who by contract or agreement, arranged for the disposal, treatment and/or transportation of hazardous substances at the Site." USEPA stated that it "may issue special notice letters to [NCR] and other PRPs for future RI/FS [remedial investigation / feasibility studies] and RD/RA [remedial design / remedial action] negotiations." In connection with the Kalamazoo River site, in December 2010 the Company, along with two other defendants, was sued in federal court by three GP affiliate corporations in a contribution and cost recovery action for alleged pollution. The suit, pending in Michigan, asks that the Company pay a "fair portion" of these companies’ costs, which are represented in the complaint as $79 million to that point in time; various removal and remedial actions remain to be performed at the Kalamazoo River site, the costs for which have not been determined. The suit alleges that the Company is liable as an "arranger" under CERCLA. The initial phase of the case was tried in a Michigan federal court in February 2013; on September 26, 2013 the court issued a decision that held NCR was liable as an “arranger,” as of at least March 1969. (PCB-containing carbonless copy paper was produced from approximately 1954 to April 1971.) The Court did not determine NCR’s share of the overall liability or how NCR’s liability relates to the liability of other liable or potentially liable parties at the site. Relative shares of liability will be litigated in a subsequent phase of the case, with trial scheduled to commence on September 22, 2015. NCR has preserved its right to appeal the September 2013 decision, and in March 2015 moved for the dismissal of all or some of the claims against it on the basis of applicable statutes of limitations; that motion remained pending as of June 30, 2015 . If the Company is found liable for money damages or otherwise with respect to the Kalamazoo River site, it would have claims against BAT and API under the Cost Sharing Agreement, the arbitration award, the judgment and the Funding Agreement discussed above in connection with the Fox River matter (the Funding Agreement may provide partial reimbursement of such damages depending on the extent of certain recoveries, if any, against third parties under its terms). The Company would also have claims against AT&T and Alcatel-Lucent under the arrangement discussed above in connection with the Fox River matter. Environmental Remediation Estimates It is difficult to estimate the future financial impact of environmental laws, including potential liabilities. NCR records environmental provisions when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount or range of the liability is reasonably estimable. Provisions for estimated losses from environmental restoration and remediation are, depending on the site, based generally on internal and third-party environmental studies, estimates as to the number and participation level of other PRPs, the extent of contamination, estimated amounts for attorney and other fees, and the nature of required clean-up and restoration actions. Reserves are adjusted as further information develops or circumstances change. Management expects that the amounts reserved from time to time will be paid out over the period of investigation, negotiation, remediation and restoration for the applicable sites. The amounts provided for environmental matters in NCR's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements are the estimated gross undiscounted amounts of such liabilities, without deductions for indemnity insurance, third-party indemnity claims or recoveries from other PRPs, except as qualified in the following sentences. Except for the sharing agreement with API described above with respect to a particular insurance settlement, in those cases where insurance carriers or third-party indemnitors have agreed to pay any amounts and management believes that collectibility of such amounts is probable, the amounts are recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. For the Fox River site, as described above, assets relating to the AT&T and Alcatel-Lucent indemnity and to the API/BAT obligations are recorded as payment is supported by contractual agreements, public filings and/or payment history. Guarantees and Product Warranties Guarantees associated with NCR’s business activities are reviewed for appropriateness and impact to the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. As of June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , NCR had no material obligations related to such guarantees, and therefore its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements do not have any associated liability balance. NCR provides its customers a standard manufacturer’s warranty and records, at the time of the sale, a corresponding estimated liability for potential warranty costs. Estimated future obligations due to warranty claims are based upon historical factors, such as labor rates, average repair time, travel time, number of service calls per machine and cost of replacement parts. When a sale is consummated, the total customer revenue is recognized, provided that all revenue recognition criteria are otherwise satisfied, and the associated warranty liability is recorded using pre-established warranty percentages for the respective product classes. From time to time, product design or quality corrections are accomplished through modification programs. When identified, associated costs of labor and parts for such programs are estimated and accrued as part of the warranty reserve. The Company recorded the activity related to the warranty reserve for the six months ended June 30 as follows: In millions 2015 2014 Warranty reserve liability Beginning balance as of January 1 $ 22 $ 22 Accruals for warranties issued 19 18 Settlements (in cash or in kind) (18) (19) Ending balance as of June 30 $ 23 $ 21 In addition, NCR provides its customers with certain indemnification rights. In general, NCR agrees to indemnify the customer if a third party asserts patent or other infringement on the part of its customers for its use of the Company’s products subject to certain conditions that are generally standard within the Company’s industries. On limited occasions the Company will undertake additional indemnification obligations for business reasons. From time to time, NCR also enters into agreements in connection with its acquisition and divestiture activities that include indemnification obligations by the Company. The fair value of these indemnification obligations is not readily determinable due to the conditional nature of the Company’s potential obligations and the specific facts and circumstances involved with each particular agreement. The Company has not recorded a liability in connection with these indemnifications, and no current indemnification instance is material to the Company’s financial position. Historically, payments made by the Company under these types of agreements have not had a material effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. |
