XML 40 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments See "Note 7. Leases" for additional information. Legal proceedings In addition to the matters below, the Company is or may become involved in a variety of claims, demands, suits, investigations, and proceedings that arise from time to time relating to matters incidental to the ordinary course of the Company’s business, including actions concerning contracts, intellectual property, employment, benefits, and securities matters. Regardless of the outcome, legal disputes can have a material effect on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors. In addition, as the Company is a party to ongoing litigation, it is at least reasonably possible that the Company’s estimates will change in the near term, and the effect may be material. The Company had no accrued losses for litigation as of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022. Appian Corp. v. Pegasystems Inc. & Youyong Zou As previously reported, the Company is a defendant in litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia (the “Court”) titled Appian Corp. v. Pegasystems Inc. & Youyong Zou, No. 2020-07216 (Fairfax Cty. Ct.). On May 9, 2022, the jury rendered its verdict finding that the Company had misappropriated one or more of Appian’s trade secrets, that the Company had violated the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, and that the trade secret misappropriation was willful and malicious. The jury awarded damages of $2,036,860,045 for trade secret misappropriation and $1.00 for violating the Virginia Computer Crimes Act. On September 15, 2022, the circuit court of Fairfax County entered judgment of $2,060,479,287, consisting of the damages previously awarded by the jury plus attorneys’ fees and costs, and stating that the judgment is subject to post-judgment interest at a rate of 6.0% per annum, from the date of the jury verdict (May 9, 2022) as to the amount of the jury verdict and from September 15, 2022 as to the amount of the award of attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 15, 2022, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the judgment. On September 29, 2022, the circuit court of Fairfax County approved a $25,000,000 letter of credit obtained by the Company to secure the judgment and entered an order suspending the judgment during the pendency of the Company’s appeal. Appellate briefing is currently in process. Although it is not possible to predict timing, this appeals process could potentially take years to complete. The Company continues to believe that it did not misappropriate any alleged trade secrets and that its sales of the Company’s products at issue were not caused by, or the result of, any alleged misappropriation of trade secrets. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible damages because of, among other things, uncertainty as to the outcome of appellate proceedings and/or any potential new trial resulting from the appellate proceedings. City of Fort Lauderdale Police and Firefighters’ Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell On May 19, 2022, a lawsuit was filed against the Company, the Company’s chief executive officer and the Company’s chief operating and financial officer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Alexandria Division, captioned City of Fort Lauderdale Police and Firefighters’ Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell (Case 1:22-cv-00578-LMB-IDD). The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, in each case by allegedly making materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as allegedly failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, which caused the Company’s securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s securities between May 29, 2020 and May 9, 2022. The litigation has since been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case 1:22-cv-11220-WGY), and lead plaintiff class representatives—Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund - Defined Benefit Plan, Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund - Retirement Income Plan 1987, and Construction Industry Laborers Pension Fund—have been appointed. On October 18, 2022, a consolidated amended complaint was filed that does not add any new parties or legal claims, is based upon the same general factual allegations as the original complaint, and now seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s securities between June 16, 2020 and May 9, 2022. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December 19, 2022. The hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for May 17, 2023. The Company believes the claims brought against the defendants are without merit and intends to defend against these claims vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible damages or a range of possible damages in this matter given the stage of the lawsuit, the Company’s belief that the claims are without merit, and there being no specified quantum of damages sought in the complaint. Mary Larkin, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Pegasystems Inc. v. Peter Gyenes, Richard Jones, Christopher Lafond, Dianne Ledingham, Sharon Rowlands, Alan Trefler, Larry Weber, and Kenneth Stillwell, defendants, and Pegasystems Inc., nominal defendant On November 21, 2022, a lawsuit was filed against the members of the Company’s board of directors, the Company’s chief operating and financial officer and the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Mary Larkin, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Pegasystems Inc. v. Peter Gyenes, Richard Jones, Christopher Lafond, Dianne Ledingham, Sharon Rowlands, Alan Trefler, Larry Weber, and Kenneth Stillwell, defendants, and Pegasystems Inc., nominal defendant (Case 1:22-cv-11985). The complaint generally alleges the defendants sold shares of the Company while in possession of material nonpublic information relating to (i) the litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, described above, and (ii) alleged misconduct by Company employees alleged in that litigation. On January 10, 2023, the Court entered an order staying the matter until after a final judgment dismissing the City of Fort Lauderdale matter referenced above, the denial of a motion to dismiss in the City of Fort Lauderdale action, or if any related derivative complaint is filed and not stayed for the same or longer duration. The Company believes the claims brought against the defendants are without merit and intends to defend against these claims vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible damages or a range of possible damages in this matter given the stage of the lawsuit, the Company’s belief that the claims are without merit, and there being no specified quantum of damages sought in the complaint. SEC Inquiry Beginning in March 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has requested certain information relating to, among other things, the accounting treatment of the Company’s above-described litigation with Appian Corporation. The Company is fully cooperating with the SEC’s requests.

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