XML 30 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.2

Litigation and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jul. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
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, 2020, 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 SCRL (“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 Brussels Court of First Instance in Belgium, 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 Brussels Court of Appeal (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 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. The case is fully briefed and awaiting the Court of Appeals to schedule oral argument. 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. In their initial complaint, Plaintiffs 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 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. In November 2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, adding new plaintiffs and narrowing the class period for the nationwide collective action to a period that started on December 9, 2014. On September 20, 2017, the Court granted defendants’ motions to compel arbitration as to the party plaintiffs who signed WFR release agreements, and also stayed the entire case until the arbitrations were completed. In October 2018, 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, which brought the total number of named and opt-in plaintiffs to 193. Of the new opt-ins, 145 signed separation agreements that included class waivers and mandatory arbitration provisions. The parties have resolved the claims of 142 of those 145 opt-ins, and the remaining three opt-ins who signed separation agreements dismissed their claims without prejudice. In February 2020, the claims of thirteen additional party plaintiffs were dismissed voluntarily without prejudice, leaving the total number of named and opt-in plaintiffs at 35. On January 7, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint that seeks to represent (1) a putative nationwide ADEA collective comprised of all individuals 40 years of age and older who had their employment terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after December 9, 2014 and did not sign a Waiver and General Release Agreement in connection with their selection for WFR; and (2) a putative Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all individuals 40 years of age and older who had their employment terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012 and did not sign a Waiver and General Release Agreement in connection with their selection for WFR. On May 18, 2020, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in part, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. On July 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint that further narrowed the scope of the putative ADEA collectives and California state law classes. On August 24, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss or strike certain allegations from the fourth amended complaint. The stay of the litigation otherwise remains in place. 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, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (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. Neodron Patent Litigation. United States. 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 alleged that certain touch-controlled devices infringe four patents owned by Neodron. On June 19, 2019, the ITC instituted an investigation. In the ITC proceeding, Neodron sought 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 amended its complaint in the second lawsuit to assert a total of eight patents against HP touch-controlled devices. Neodron sought unspecified damages and a permanent injunction, among other remedies. Germany. On October 29, 2019, Neodron served HP with a claim of patent infringement at the Munich State Court in Germany. The patent asserted in the German case is related to a patent asserted in the ITC. The initial hearing was held on July 29, 2020. If the German court had found infringement of a valid patent, the court may have issued an injunction as part of any remedy. Settlement of Litigation. On July 31, 2020, HP and Neodron entered into an agreement to settle all pending litigation between them on a worldwide basis and to dismiss all pending legal actions against one another. Slingshot Printing LLC Litigation. On June 11, 2019, Slingshot Printing LLC (“Slingshot”) filed three complaints in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas alleging HP infringes or has infringed sixteen patents. On September 20, 2019, Slingshot filed a fourth complaint and amended the three earlier complaints, alleging that HP infringes or has infringed thirty-two patents. On December 12, 2019, Slingshot voluntarily dismissed its allegations as to one patent because it did not own a related patent. On January 23, 2020, Slingshot filed a fifth complaint, re-asserting the dismissed patent as well as the related patent. On February 13, 2020, Slingshot voluntarily dismissed its allegations as to another patent, which was asserted in its third complaint. On March 25, 2020, Slingshot voluntarily dismissed its allegations as to an additional patent, which was also asserted in its third complaint. Slingshot is currently asserting a total of 31 patents. The accused products include inkjet printers, cartridges, and printheads. The complaints seek monetary damages. Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. HP Inc., et al. On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. On May 20, 2020, the court appointed the State of Rhode Island, Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds as Lead Plaintiffs. On July 20, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which additionally names as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph Schell. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that from February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements about HP’s printing supplies business, including HP’s use of its four-box model to predict the demand for supplies. It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly selling shares of HP common stock during this period while in possession of material, non-public adverse information about HP’s print business. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. Legal Proceedings re Authentication of Supplies. Civil litigation or government investigations are pending in the United States, Italy, Israel, and the Netherlands involving supplies authentication protocols used in certain HP printers. These protocols are often referred to as Dynamic Security. The core allegations in these proceedings claim misleading or inadequate consumer notifications and permissions pertaining to the use of Dynamic Security, the impact of firmware updates, or the potential inability of cartridges with clone chips or circuitry to work in HP printers with Dynamic Security. 123Inkt Foundation litigation (Netherlands). On November 23, 2016, a foundation known as Stichting 123Inkt-Huismerk Klanten (the “Foundation”) filed a complaint in district court in Amsterdam against HP Nederland B.V. and HP Inc. arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. Digital Revolution B.V. (a.k.a. 123Inkt) established the Foundation to pursue the interests of approximately 960 of its customers who transferred their claims to it. The complaint alleges: (1) violation of right of ownership; (2) destruction and damage to property; (3) computer vandalism; (4) unlawful act; (5) non-compliance; (6) unfair commercial practices; (7) misleading commercial practices; and (8) misleading advertising. The complaint seeks injunctive relief to prohibit use of Dynamic Security, damages, and attorneys’ fees. On December 27, 2017, the District Court dismissed the case and awarded fees to HP. On January 25, 2018, the Foundation filed a summons with the Amsterdam Court of Appeal to appeal. On December 17, 2019, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the District Court, adopted a new decision declaring that HP provided inadequate and partially incorrect information to the Foundation members around September 13, 2016, awarded damages to them in an amount to be later determined, but denied all other claims, including injunctive relief, holding that the use of Dynamic Security is not inherently impermissible and the Foundation lacks legal interest to pursue such action. On March 19, 2020, the Foundation filed a cassation writ of summons with the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad der Nederlanden) appealing the decision of the Court of Appeal. On May 29, 2020, HP filed its statement of defense and incidental appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court appealing the decision of the Court of Appeal. Gensin v. HP Inc. (Israel). On October 25, 2017, a purported consumer class action, captioned Gensin v. HP Inc., was filed in the District Court in Jerusalem against HP arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The petition and motion for certification as a class action alleges: (1) tortious wrongdoing in violation of the Computers Law, 5755-1995; (2) breach of Contracts Law, 5731-1970; (3) breach of the Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981; (4) negligence; and (5) improper enrichment. The named petitioner initially sought to represent nationwide classes comprised of anyone who “owns an HP printer that has been blocked, disrupted, or interfered with by HP in the use of ink cartridges not manufactured by HP” or who “purchased ink cartridges not manufactured by HP for use in the blocked printers.” Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees. On November 16, 2017, a second purported consumer class action was filed against HP in the Central District Court, captioned Dror v. HP, Inc., also arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The petition and motion allege similar causes of action on behalf of similar nationwide classes. After the Dror case was consolidated with the Gensin case in Jerusalem, the District Court on June 24, 2018 dismissed the Dror case and designated Gensin as the lead matter. On March 9, 2020, the petitioner moved to modify the proposed nationwide class to be comprised of “[a]ll persons who have an HP printer and whose printer was blocked or rendered unusable by HP with any ink cartridge that is not made by HP” and “[a]ll persons who purchased ink cartridges that are not made by HP, for use in the Blocked Printers.” On July 2, 2020, HP filed its response to the amended petition. Parziale v. HP Inc. (United States). On August 27, 2019, a purported consumer class action was filed against HP in federal court in the Northern District of California arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The complaint alleges two causes of action under Florida Consumer Protection statutes: (1) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, F.S.A. §§ 501.201 et seq., and (2) violation of the Florida Misleading Advertisement Law, F.S.A. §§ 817.41 et seq. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of “[a]ll United States Citizens who, between the applicable statute of limitations and the present, had an HP Printer that was modified to reject third party ink cartridges or refilled HP ink cartridges.” On November 13, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding three causes of action to the case: (1) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq., (2) trespass to chattels, and (3) tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. On December 30, 2019, HP moved to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint. On April 24, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part HP’s motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed plaintiff’s causes of action under the Florida Consumer Protection statutes, as well as the tortious interference with business relations claim and four of the five claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Court denied HP’s motion to dismiss on the remaining claims and on the request for injunctive relief and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On June 5, 2020, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on behalf of both a nationwide class and a Florida subclass alleging violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and trespass to chattels. Plaintiff is seeking class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. On July 17, 2020, HP moved to dismiss the complaint. Consumer Protection Investigation (Italy). On September 26, 2019, the Italian Competition and Consumer Protection Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) (“AGCM”) served a Notice of Initiation of Proceedings on HP concerning the investigation of alleged aggressive practices involving undue influence on consumers and alleged misleading actions and omissions regarding the restriction or prevention of the use of third-party ink cartridges in HP printers, accompanied by a request for information. In such an investigation, the AGCM may impose fines for violations and impose orders to cease and desist. HP submitted its reply to the AGCM’s request for information on November 15, 2019 and has addressed subsequent requests for information. On May 22, 2020, the AGCM gave notice that it intended to expand its investigation into certain alleged warranty practices regarding the use of third-party cartridges. On June 26, 2020, HP submitted its response to the warranty allegations. The AGCM must conclude the proceedings and adopt its final decision by November 18, 2020. Digital Revolution B.V. v. HP Nederland B.V., et al. (Netherlands). On March 30, 2020, Digital Revolution B.V. (a.k.a. 123Inkt) served a complaint filed in Amsterdam District Court arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain HP printers. The complaint alleges several causes of action: (1) abuse of dominant position; (2) misleading advertising; (3) unfair and misleading commercial practice; and (4) misleading comparative advertising. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including prohibition of Dynamic Security and disclosure of cartridge authentication protocols, damages, and attorneys’ fees. The parties’ initial appearance in front of the Court took place on July 8, 2020. SEC Investigation. In 2017, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC requesting documents regarding HP’s printing supplies business for the time period before June 2016, with a primary focus on the APJ region. HP has been fully cooperating with the SEC in connection with its investigation. Following recent discussions, HP has reached an understanding in principle on the terms of a settlement with the Division of Enforcement staff, subject to approval by the SEC. If the settlement is approved, HP would enter into an administrative resolution that would include allegations that HP violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules thereunder, and impose a civil penalty of $6 million, for failure to disclose certain known trends and uncertainties regarding supplies sales practices and their impact on margin and supplies channel inventory and for incomplete disclosures regarding supplies channel inventory in its SEC filings and related earnings calls from November 2015 through June 2016. HP would neither admit nor deny these allegations. 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 August 26, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of conviction against Mr. Hussain. 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 was completed in January 2020. The parties are awaiting a ruling from the Court. Environmental HP’s business is subject to various federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations that could result in costs or other sanctions that adversely affect our business and results of operations. For example, HP is subject to 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 clean-up of contaminated sites, the content of HP’s products and the recycling, treatment and disposal of those products, including batteries. 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, the energy consumption associated with those products, climate change laws and regulations, and product repairability, reuse and 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.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
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