XML 39 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.2

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
May 31, 2019
Legal Proceedings [Abstract] |
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
17. | LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Hewlett-Packard Company Litigation On June 15, 2011, Hewlett-Packard Company, now Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HP), filed a complaint in the California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara against Oracle Corporation alleging numerous causes of action including breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of the California Unfair Business Practices Act. The complaint alleged that when Oracle announced on March 22 and 23, 2011 that it would no longer develop future versions of its software to run on HP’s Itanium-based servers, it breached a settlement agreement signed on September 20, 2010 between HP and Mark Hurd (the Hurd Settlement Agreement), who is our Chief Executive Officer and was both HP’s former chief executive officer and chairman of HP’s board of directors. HP sought a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights and obligations under the Hurd Settlement Agreement and other equitable and monetary relief. Oracle answered the complaint and filed cross-claims. After a bench trial on the meaning of the Hurd Settlement Agreement, the court found that the Hurd Settlement Agreement required Oracle to continue to develop certain of its software products for use on HP’s Itanium-based servers at no cost to HP. The case proceeded to a jury trial in May 2016. On June 30, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of HP on its claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and against Oracle on its cross-claims. The jury awarded HP $3.0 billion in damages. Under the court’s rulings, HP is entitled to post-judgment interest, but not pre-judgment interest, on this award. After the trial court denied Oracle’s motion for a new trial, Oracle filed a notice of appeal on January 17, 2017. On February 2, 2017, HP filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s denial of pre-judgment interest. Oracle has posted a bond for the amounts owing. No amounts have been paid or recorded to our results of operations. We continue to believe that we have meritorious defenses against HP’s claims, and we intend to present these defenses to the appellate court. Oracle filed its opening brief on March 7, 2019. Briefing on the appeal is scheduled to be completed by October 2019, and the appellate court has not scheduled a date for oral argument. We cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action due to the complexities and uncertainty surrounding the appeal process and the nature of the claims. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and the outcome of the appeal process related to this action is uncertain. It is possible that the resolution of this action could have a material impact on our future cash flows and results of operations. Derivative Litigation Concerning Oracle’s NetSuite Acquisition On May 3, 2017, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and on July 18, 2017, a second stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the same court. The second case was brought by an alleged stockholder of Oracle, purportedly on Oracle’s behalf. The suit was brought against all the then-current members and one former member of our Board of Directors, and Oracle as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing Oracle to agree to purchase NetSuite Inc. at an excessive price. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, unspecified monetary damages (including interest), and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 9, 2017, the court consolidated the two derivative cases. In a September 7, 2017 order, the court appointed plaintiff’s counsel in the second case as lead plaintiffs’ counsel and designated the July 18, 2017 complaint as the operative complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 27, 2017, and after briefing and argument, the court denied this motion on March 19, 2018. The parties stipulated that all of the individual defendants, except for our Chief Technology Officer and one of our Chief Executive Officers, should be dismissed from this case without prejudice, and on March 28, 2018, the court approved this stipulation. On May 4, 2018, the remaining defendants answered plaintiff’s complaint. On May 4, 2018, the Board of Directors established a Special Litigation Committee (the SLC) to investigate the allegations in this derivative action. Three outside directors serve on the SLC. On July 24, 2018, the court entered an order granting the SLC’s motion to stay this case for six months. The stay has been extended twice and is due to expire on August 15, 2019. The SLC and the two individual defendants are scheduled to participate in a mediation on July 2, 2019. While Oracle continues to evaluate these claims, we do not believe this litigation will have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations. Securities Class Action and Derivative Litigation Concerning Oracle’s Cloud Business On August 10, 2018, a putative class action, brought by an alleged stockholder of Oracle, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against us, our Chief Technology Officer, our two Chief Executive Officers, two other Oracle executives, and one former Oracle executive. On December 21, 2018, the court granted plaintiff’s motion that it be appointed lead plaintiff and approving its selection of lead plaintiff’s counsel. On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants made or are responsible for false and misleading statements regarding Oracle’s cloud business. Plaintiff further alleges that the former Oracle executive engaged in insider trading. Plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class action, and seeks damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and unspecified declaratory/injunctive relief. On April 19, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint, and on May 31, 2019, plaintiff filed an opposition. We believe that we have meritorious defenses against this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it. On February 12, 2019, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The derivative suit is brought by two alleged stockholders of Oracle, purportedly on Oracle’s behalf, against all members of our Board of Directors, and Oracle as a nominal defendant. Plaintiffs claim that the alleged actions described in the August 10, 2018 class action discussed above caused harm to Oracle, and that Oracle’s Board members violated their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, reasonable inquiry, and good faith by failing to prevent this alleged harm. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants’ actions constitute gross mismanagement, waste, and securities fraud. Plaintiffs seek a ruling that this case may proceed as a derivative action, a finding that defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary duties, an order directing defendants to enact corporate reforms, attorneys’ fees and costs, and unspecified equitable relief. On April 26, 2019, the court approved a stay of this action, which will be lifted if the class action discussed above is dismissed, if the motion to dismiss the class action is denied, or if either party voluntarily chooses to lift the stay. On May 8, 2019, a second derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The derivative suit is brought by an alleged stockholder of Oracle, purportedly on Oracle’s behalf, against our Chief Technology Officer, our two Chief Executive Officers, one former Oracle executive, and Oracle as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff claims that the alleged actions described in the August 10, 2018 class action discussed above caused harm to Oracle, and plaintiff raises further allegations of impropriety relating to Oracle’s stock buybacks and acquisition of NetSuite Inc. Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of securities laws, violation of fiduciary duties, contribution and indemnification. Plaintiff seeks a ruling that the case may proceed as a derivative action, and seeks damages, declaratory and other equitable relief, attorneys’ and expert fees and costs. On June 4, 2019, the court issued an order finding that this case was related to the derivative case above and staying the case under the court’s prior stay order. While Oracle continues to evaluate these claims, we do not believe this litigation will have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations. Other Litigation We are party to various other legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, which arise in the ordinary course of business, including proceedings and claims that relate to acquisitions we have completed or to companies we have acquired or are attempting to acquire. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the outcome of any of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will result in losses that are materially in excess of amounts already recognized, if any.

X
- Definition Legal proceedings. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | orcl_LegalProceedingsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | orcl_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration