XML 45 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Purchase obligations We have purchase obligations that are associated with agreements for purchases of goods or services. Management believes that cancellation of these contracts is unlikely, and we expect to make future cash payments according to the contract terms. The following reflects estimated future payments for purchase obligations by fiscal year. The amount of purchase obligations reflects estimated future payments as of March 31, 2023.
(In millions) | March 31, 2023
2024 | $ | 320 |
2025 | 79 |
2026 | 31 |
2027 | 11 |
2028 | 1 |
Total purchase obligations | $ | 442 |
Deemed repatriation taxes Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R.1), we are required to pay a one-time transition tax on untaxed earnings of our foreign subsidiaries through July 2025. The following reflects estimated future payments for deemed repatriation taxes by fiscal year:
(In millions) | March 31, 2023
2024 | $ | 128 |
2025 | 171 |
2026 | 139 |
Total obligations | $ | 438 |
Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, we may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, business partners, subsidiaries and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, product warranties and losses arising out of our breach of agreements or representations and warranties made by us, including claims alleging that our software infringes on the intellectual property rights of a third party. In addition, our bylaws contain indemnification obligations to our directors, officers, employees, and agents, and we have entered into indemnification agreements with our directors and certain of our officers to give such directors and officers additional contractual assurances regarding the scope of the indemnification set forth in our bylaws and to provide additional procedural protections. We maintain director and officer insurance, which may cover certain liabilities arising from our obligation to indemnify our directors and officers. It is not possible to determine the aggregate maximum potential loss under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Such indemnification agreements might not be subject to maximum loss clauses. We monitor the conditions that are subject to indemnification to identify if a loss has occurred. Historically, we have not incurred material costs as a result of obligations under these agreements, and we have not accrued any material liabilities related to such indemnification obligations in our Consolidated Financial Statements. In connection with the sale of our Enterprise Security business to Broadcom, we assigned several leases to Broadcom or certain of its subsidiaries. As a condition to consenting to the assignments, certain lessors required us to agree to indemnify the lessor under the applicable lease with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of Broadcom’s or such subsidiaries’ breach of payment obligations under the terms of such lease. As with our other indemnification obligations discussed above and in general, it is not possible to determine the aggregate maximum potential loss under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. As with our other indemnification obligations, such indemnification agreements might not be subject to maximum loss clauses, and to date, generally under our real estate obligations, we have not incurred material costs as a result of such obligations under our leases and have not accrued any liabilities related to such indemnification obligations in our Consolidated Financial Statements. Litigation contingencies For a description of our accounting policy regarding litigation and loss contingencies, see “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” included in Part II, Item 7 of this Annual Report. Trustees of the University of Columbia in the City of New York v. NortonLifeLock As previously disclosed, on May 2, 2022, a jury returned its verdict in a patent infringement case filed in 2013 by the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (Columbia) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Columbia originally brought suit alleging infringement of six patents owned by the university. We won a favorable claim construction order on all six patents, and the claim construction was upheld by the Federal Circuit in 2016 on all but U.S. Patent Nos. 8,601,322 and 8,074,115. We also sought inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the claims of the ‘322 and ‘115 Patents and all but two claims of the ‘322 Patent and three claims of the ‘115 Patent were invalidated. The remaining claims of the ‘322 and ‘115 Patents were the only claims that remained in suit at trial. The jury found that our Norton Security products and Symantec Endpoint Protection products (the latter of which were sold by us to Broadcom as part of an Asset Purchase Agreement dated November 4, 2019) willfully infringe the ‘322 and ‘115 Patents through the use of SONAR/BASH behavioral protection technology. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $185 million. Columbia did not seek injunctive relief against us. We intend to cease use of the technology found by the jury to infringe. The jury also found that we did not fraudulently conceal its prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,643 but did find that two Columbia professors were coinventors of this patent. No damages were awarded related to this patent. A formal judgment has not yet been entered in the case. Post-verdict motions have been filed, and we intend to file an appeal challenging the verdict. At this time, our current estimate of the low end of the range of probable estimated losses from this matter is approximately $237 million, reflecting the jury award and prejudgment interest, which we have accrued. The jury’s verdict may be enhanced and, should it be upheld on appeal, could ultimately result in the payment of somewhere between one and three times the jury’s verdict, plus interest and attorneys’ fees. There is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred in excess of our accrual for this matter; however, such loss cannot be reasonably estimated. Securities Class Action and Derivative Litigation Securities class action lawsuits, which have since been consolidated, were filed in May 2018 against us and certain of our former officers, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lead plaintiff’s consolidated amended complaint alleged that, during a purported class period of May 11, 2017 to August 2, 2018, defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and that certain individuals violated Section 20A, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). On May 24, 2021, the parties reached a proposed settlement and release of all claims in the class action, for $70 million, and on June 8, 2021, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, exclusive of any claims that may be brought by shareholders who opted out of the class action. Of the $70 million, $67.1 million was covered under the applicable insurance policy with the remainder to be paid by us. The Court approved the settlement on February 12, 2022. On November 22, 2021, investment funds managed by Orbis Investment Management Ltd. which previously opted out of the securities class action, filed suit under the Exchange Act of 1934, the Arizona Securities Act, the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and certain common law causes of action to recover alleged damages for losses incurred by the funds for their purchases or acquisitions of our common stock during the class period. On February 7, 2023, our Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The parties have now settled the matter and the action was dismissed with prejudice on April 26, 2023. The impact of settlement was not material. Purported shareholder derivative lawsuits have been filed against us and certain of our former officers and current and former directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery (In re Symantec Corp. S’holder. Deriv. Litig.), Northern District of California (Lee v. Clark et al.,), and the District of Delaware (Milliken vs. Clark et al.). These assert generally the same facts and circumstances as alleged in the securities class action and allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty and related claims. On January 4, 2023, after reaching an agreement on the terms of the proposed settlement, which provides for, among other things, a payment of $12 million to the Company by the insurers of the Company’s directors and officers, the parties to the Chancery action filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise and Release in that Court, which was approved by the Court on May 4, 2023, over the objection of the Lee and Milliken plaintiffs, and releases all claims in the Chancery, Lee, and Milliken actions, as well as any other claims based on the same operative facts. The parties in the Milliken action stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice, which was entered by the Court on May 12, 2023. The Lee action has been stayed pending the settlement hearing in the Chancery Court and we intend to seek dismissal of the Lee action based on the preclusive effect of the approved release in the Chancery action. A fourth lawsuit filed in the Delaware Superior Court, Kukard v. Symantec, brings claims derivatively on behalf of our 2008 Employee Stock Purchase Plan. At this stage, we are unable to assess whether any material loss or adverse effect is reasonably possible as a result of the Kukard action or estimate the range of any potential loss. We will continue to incur legal fees in connection with these pending cases, including expenses for the reimbursement of legal fees of present and former officers and directors under indemnification obligations. The expense of continuing to defend such litigation may be significant. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but there can be no assurance that we will be successful in any defense. If any of the lawsuits are decided adversely, we may be liable for significant damages directly or under our indemnification obligations, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and cash flows. GSA During the first quarter of fiscal 2013, we were advised by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Division and the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia that the government is investigating our compliance with certain provisions of our U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule Contract No. GS-35F-0240T effective January 24, 2007, including provisions relating to pricing, country of origin, accessibility, and the disclosure of commercial sales practices. As reported on the GSA’s publicly-available database, our total sales under the GSA Schedule contract were approximately $222 million from the period beginning January 2007 and ending September 2012. We fully cooperated with the government throughout its investigation, and in January 2014, representatives of the government indicated that their initial analysis of our actual damages exposure from direct government sales under the GSA Schedule contract was approximately $145 million; since the initial meeting, the government’s analysis of our potential damages exposure relating to direct sales has increased. The government also indicated they would pursue claims for certain sales to California, Florida, and New York as well as sales to the federal government through reseller GSA Schedule contracts, which could significantly increase our potential damages exposure. In 2012, a sealed civil lawsuit was filed against us related to compliance with the GSA Schedule contract and contracts with California, Florida, and New York. On July 18, 2014, the Court-imposed seal expired, and the government intervened in the lawsuit. On September 16, 2014, the states of California and Florida intervened in the lawsuit, and the state of New York notified the Court that it would not intervene. On October 3, 2014, the DOJ filed an amended complaint, which did not state a specific damages amount. On October 17, 2014, California and Florida combined their claims with those of the DOJ and the relator on behalf of New York in an Omnibus Complaint, and a First Amended Omnibus Complaint was filed on October 8, 2015; the state claims also do not state specific damages amounts. On March 23, 2021, Plaintiffs withdrew their demand for a jury trial and we consented to proceed with a bench trial, which concluded on March 24, 2022. On January 19, 2023, the Court issued its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in which it found in favor of the United States in part and awarded damages and penalties in the amount of $1.3 million. The Court also found in favor of the State of California in part and awarded penalties in the amount of $0.4 million. The resulting Judgment was filed by the Court on January 20, 2023. On February 16, 2023, Plaintiffs filed Motions to Amend Judgment to revive the damages claimed at trial. We have opposed and the motion is now fully briefed before the Court. On May 13, 2021, we reached a settlement in principle with the State of Florida to resolve all claims it asserted in the litigation for $0.5 million, plus the relator’s statutory attorney’s fees with respect to the State of Florida’s claims. On February 28, 2022, we reached a settlement in principle with the State of New York and the relator to resolve all of the New York claims asserted in the litigation for $5 million. The January 2023 Judgment has been paid, and at this time, our current estimate of the low end of the range of probable estimated losses from this matter was reduced to $1.4 million, which we have accrued. It is possible that the Court could grant Plaintiffs’ Motions to Amend Judgment, in whole or in part, or an appeal of the Court’s Judgment by the Plaintiffs, if brought, could lead to further claims or findings of violations of the False Claims Act and could be material to our results of operations and cash flows for any period. Resolution of False Claims Act investigations can ultimately result in the payment of somewhere between one and three times the actual damages proven by the government, plus civil penalties. There is a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred in excess of our accrual for this matter; however, such loss cannot be reasonably estimated. Jumpshot Matters At the end of 2019, Avast came under media scrutiny for provision of Avast customer data to its data analytics subsidiary Jumpshot Inc. Jumpshot was a subsidiary of Avast with its own management team and technical experts. Avast announced the decision to terminate its provision of data to, and wind down, Jumpshot on January 30, 2020. As Avast has previously disclosed, it has been in communication with certain regulators and authorities prior to completion of the Merger, and we will continue cooperating fully in respect of all regulatory enquiries. On December 23, 2019, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to Avast seeking documents and information related to its privacy practices, including Jumpshot's past use of consumer information that was provided to it by Avast. Avast responded cooperatively to the CID and related follow-up requests from the FTC. On October 29, 2021, staff at the FTC sent Avast a draft complaint and proposed settlement order. We have been engaged in ongoing negotiations with the FTC staff regarding the scope and terms of the proposed settlement. Any negotiated settlement with the FTC, or absent settlement, any litigation or other legal proceeding between us and the FTC could result in material monetary remedies and/or compliance requirements that impose significant and material cost and resource burdens on us, and may impact our ability to use data in the future. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in negotiating a favorable settlement or in litigation. Any remedies or compliance requirements could adversely affect our ability to operate our business or have a materially adverse impact on our financial results. At this stage, we are unable to assess whether any material loss or adverse effect is reasonably possible as a result of this investigation or estimate the range of any potential loss. On February 27, 2020, the Czech Office for Personal Data Protection (the Czech DPA) initiated offense proceedings concerning Avast`s practices with respect to Jumpshot, which remain ongoing and we continue to evaluate our options. In addition, we received a letter and notification before action from Stichting CUIC – Privacy Foundation for Collective Redress, a Dutch foundation (the Foundation). The Foundation has asserted it represents the interests of Avast customers in the Netherlands whose data was provided to Jumpshot and that by doing so Avast violated the requirements of the GDPR and other provisions in Dutch and European Union privacy and consumer law entitling those customers to damages and other compensation, all of which we dispute. No specific amount of damages has been alleged and to date, no action has been filed. At this stage, we are unable to assess whether any material loss or adverse effect is reasonably possible as a result of this notification before action or estimate the range of any potential loss. On December 12, 2022, a putative class action, Lau v. Gen Digital Inc. and Jumpshot Inc., was filed in the Northern District of California alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, statutory larceny, unfair competition and various common law claims related to the provision of customer data to Jumpshot. On February 24, 2023, we filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is still pending. At this stage, we are unable to assess whether any material loss or adverse effect is reasonably possible as a result of this action or estimate the range of any potential loss. We dispute these claims and intend to defend them vigorously. The outcome of the regulatory proceedings, government enforcement actions and litigation is difficult to predict, and the cost to defend, settle or otherwise resolve these matters may be significant. Plaintiffs or regulatory agencies or authorities in these matters may seek recovery of large or indeterminate amounts or seek to impose sanctions, including significant monetary penalties, as well as equitable relief. The monetary and other impact of these litigations, proceedings or actions may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. Further, an unfavorable resolution of litigations, proceedings or actions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations and cash flows. The amount of time that will be required to resolve these matters is unpredictable, and these matters may divert management’s attention from the day-to-day operations of our business. Any future investigations or additional lawsuits may also adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Other We are involved in a number of other judicial and administrative proceedings that are incidental to our business. Although adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur in one or more of the cases, it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or losses from each of these cases. The final resolution of these lawsuits, individually or in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

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 commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration