XML 28 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.0.1

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Feb. 28, 2022
Legal Proceedings [Abstract] |
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
1 1. | 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 (the HP Settlement Agreement), resolving litigation between HP and one of Oracle’s former CEOs who had previously acted as HP’s chief executive officer and chairman of HP’s board of directors. HP sought a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights and obligations under the HP 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 HP Settlement Agreement, the court found that the HP 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. Oral argument was held on May 27, 2021. On June 14, 2021, the Court of Appeal affirmed both the judgment against Oracle noted above, and the denial of pre-judgment interest. On June 29, 2021, Oracle filed a Petition for Rehearing with the Court of Appeal, which was denied on July 8, 2021. On July 26, 2021, Oracle filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied on September 29, 2021. During the nine months ended February 28, 2022, Oracle remitted the entirety of the $3.0 billion judgment and related $1.7 billion of accrued post-judgment interest and awarded costs and recorded such amounts as acquisition related and other expenses as presented per our condensed consolidated statements of operations. We continue to believe that errors were made in the proceedings. On January 27, 2022, Oracle filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the judgment amount awarded to HP. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and the outcome of any actions we pursue related to this action is uncertain. Derivative Litigation Concerning Oracle’s NetSuite Acquisition On May 3 and July 18, 2017, two alleged stockholders filed separate derivative lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, purportedly on Oracle’s behalf. Thereafter, the court consolidated the two derivative cases and designated the July 18, 2017 complaint as the operative complaint. The consolidated lawsuit was brought against all the then-current members and one former member of our Board of Directors, and Oracle as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing Oracle to agree to purchase NetSuite Inc. (NetSuite) at an excessive price. The complaint sought (and the operative complaint continues to seek) declaratory relief, unspecified monetary damages (including interest), and attorneys’ fees and costs. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court denied on March 19, 2018. On May 4, 2018, our Board of Directors established a Special Litigation Committee (the SLC) to investigate the allegations in this derivative action. Three non-employee directors served on the SLC. On August 15, 2019, the SLC filed a letter with the court, stating that the SLC believed that plaintiff should be allowed to proceed with the derivative litigation on behalf of Oracle. After the SLC advised the Board that it had fulfilled its duties and obligations, the Board withdrew the SLC’s authority, except that the SLC maintained certain authority to respond to discovery requests in the litigation. After plaintiff filed the July 18, 2017 complaint, an additional plaintiff joined the case. Plaintiffs filed several amended complaints, and filed their most recent amended complaint on December 11, 2020. The operative complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Technology Officer, the estate of Mark Hurd (our former Chief Executive Officer who passed away on October 18, 2019), and two other members of our Board of Directors. Oracle is named as a nominal defendant. On December 11, 2020, the estate of Mark Hurd and the two other members of our Board of Directors moved to dismiss this complaint, and a hearing on this motion was held on February 16, 2021. On June 21, 2021, the court granted this motion as to the estate of Mark Hurd and one Board member and denied the motion as to the other Board member, who filed an answer to the complaint on August 9, 2021. On December 28, 2020, our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Technology Officer, and Oracle as a nominal defendant filed answers to the operative complaint. Expert discovery has concluded. On December 23, 2021, the Board-member defendant brought a motion for summary judgment. A hearing on this motion is scheduled for March 11, 2022. Trial is scheduled to commence on July 18, 2022. 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 then-two Chief Executive Officers, two other Oracle executives, and one former Oracle executive. As noted above, Mr. Hurd, one of our then-two Chief Executive Officers, passed away on October 18, 2019. 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. On December 17, 2019, the court granted this motion, giving plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint, which plaintiff filed on February 17, 2020. On April 23, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and the court held a hearing on this motion on September 24, 2020. On March 22, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part this motion. The court dismissed the action as to one Oracle executive and the former Oracle executive. The court permitted plaintiff to proceed with only a narrow omissions theory against the remaining defendants. On April 21, 2021, defendants filed an answer to the complaint. The parties are currently conducting discovery. On October 8, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which is scheduled for hearing on March 24, 2022. The parties participated in a court-ordered mediation on February 18, 2022, which did not resolve this case. Trial is scheduled to commence on November 6, 2023. We believe that we have meritorious defenses against this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it. On February 12 and May 8, 2019, two stockholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The cases were consolidated, and on July 8, 2019, a single plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint brought various claims relating to the 10b-5 class action described immediately above. The parties agreed to stay the derivative case pending resolution of defendants’ motion to dismiss the securities case, which the court granted in part and denied in part on March 22, 2021. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2021. The derivative suit is brought by an alleged stockholder of Oracle, purportedly on Oracle’s behalf, against our Chief Technology Officer, our Chief Executive Officer, and the estate of Mark Hurd. Plaintiff claims that the alleged actions described in the class action discussed above caused harm to Oracle, and that defendants violated their fiduciary duties of candor, good faith, loyalty, and due care by failing to prevent this alleged harm. Plaintiff also brings derivative claims for violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiffs seek a ruling that this case may proceed as a derivative action, a finding that defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary duties, damages, an order directing defendants to enact corporate reforms, attorneys’ fees and costs, and unspecified relief. On June 14, 2021, the court “so ordered” a stipulation from the parties, staying this case pending resolution of the 10b-5 action. 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: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration