XML 39 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.2

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 17. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments See "Note 9. 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 for the below matters as of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024. Appian Corp. v. Pegasystems Inc. & Youyong Zou 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. A panel of the Court of Appeals of Virginia heard oral arguments on November 15, 2023, and issued a written opinion on July 30, 2024. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment on Appian’s Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim and ordered a new trial on that claim. Appian filed a petition for appeal with the Supreme Court of Virginia on August 29, 2024, and the Company filed a response to the petition on October 21, 2024. The Supreme Court of Virginia heard oral argument on February 11, 2025, and, on March 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of Virginia granted Appian’s petition for appeal and Pega’s assignments of cross-error. The parties have completed briefing before the Supreme Court of Virginia. There is no date for oral argument. Although it is not possible to predict timing, the entirety of the 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. PS Lit Recovery, LLC v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell and Eminence Fund Long Master, Ltd., Eminence Fund Master, Ltd., Eminence Fund II Master, LP, Eminence Partners Long II, LP, Eminence Fund Leveraged Master, Ltd., Eminence Partners, L.P., Eminence Partners II, L.P. v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell On December 4, 2024, the shareholders representing approximately 3% of the settlement class that opted out of the court approved settlement in the class action matter 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 “Class Action”) filed two lawsuits 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 District of Massachusetts. The first is captioned Eminence Fund Long Master, Ltd., Eminence Fund Master, Ltd., Eminence Fund II Master, LP, Eminence Partners Long II, LP, Eminence Fund Leveraged Master, Ltd., Eminence Partners, L.P., and Eminence Partners II, L.P. v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell (Case 1:24-cv-12999-WGY); the second is captioned PS Lit Recovery, LLC v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell (Case 1:24-cv-11220-WGY). The complaints, which are substantially similar, generally allege, 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 complaints also assert claims for common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and seek unspecified damages. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaints on March 13, 2025. The plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 10, 2025. The defendants filed a reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss on April 10, 2025. On May 21, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court (i) granted the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs’ scheme liability claims; (ii) granted the motion to dismiss as to all claims against Ken Stillwell, except for the plaintiffs’ control person liability claims; and (iii) took the motion to dismiss under advisement as to all other claims. The parties are awaiting a written order ruling on the motion to dismiss as to the remaining claims. On February 26, 2025, the same shareholders filed two lawsuits against the Company, the Company’s chief executive officer, and the Company’s chief operating and financial officer in Massachusetts Superior Court. The first is captioned Eminence Fund Long Master, Ltd., Eminence Fund Master, Ltd., Eminence Fund II Master, LP, Eminence Partners Long II, LP, Eminence Fund Leveraged Master, Ltd., Eminence Partners, L.P., and Eminence Partners II, L.P. v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell (Case No. 2584CV00541-BLS1); the second is captioned PS Lit Recovery, LLC v. Pegasystems, Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell (Case No. 2584CV00539-BLS1). The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege the same state law claims raised in the two federal lawsuits brought by the same plaintiffs in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On April 14, 2025, the court granted the parties’ joint stipulations to stay both cases pending the resolution of the parallel federal actions and ordered the plaintiffs to file periodic status reports regarding the federal cases showing cause why the state cases should remain open. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible damages or a range of possible damages in these matters given the stage of the lawsuits and there being no specified quantum of damages sought in the complaints. In re Pegasystems Inc., Derivative Litigation 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 April 28, 2023, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Dag Sagfors, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Pegasystems Inc., asserting breach of fiduciary duty and related claims relating to the Virginia Appian litigation against the same defendants as the Larkin lawsuit. On May 17, 2023, the Larkin and Sagfors cases were consolidated and a joint motion to stay the consolidated case is pending before the Court (“Consolidated Action”). The Company also has received confidential demand letters raising substantially the same allegations set forth in the foregoing derivative complaints. On April 12, 2023, the Company’s board of directors (other than Mr. Trefler, who recused himself), formed a committee consisting solely of independent directors, to review, analyze, and investigate the matters raised in the demands and to determine in good faith what actions (if any) are reasonably believed to be appropriate under similar circumstances and reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the Company in response to the demand letters. On December 4, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in the Consolidated Action. On December 17, 2024, the plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss the Consolidated Action, and the Court granted the motion on December 18, 2024. On February 7, 2025, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a new complaint against the members of the Company’s board of directors, certain employees of the Company, and the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Mary Larkin and Dag Sagfors, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Pegasystems Inc. v. Alan Trefler, Peter Gyenes, Richard Jones, Christopher Lafond, Dianne Ledingham, Sharon Rowlands, Leon Trefler, Larry Weber, Kenneth Stillwell, Don Schuerman, Kerim Akgonul, and Benjamin Baril, defendants, and Pegasystems Inc., nominal defendant (Case 1:25-cv-10303). The complaint asserts against Defendants claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Exchange Act relating to (i) the litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, described above; (ii) alleged misconduct by Company employees alleged in that litigation; and the Class Action, described above. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on April 28, 2025. The plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the motions to dismiss on June 9, 2025, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motions to dismiss on June 30, 2025. The Court has scheduled a hearing on the motions to dismiss for July 21, 2025. On June 6, 2025, the plaintiffs in the consolidated derivative matter currently pending in Massachusetts Superior Court, Case No. 2484CV01734 (discussed below), moved to intervene in this matter and to stay it pending the resolution of the state derivative matter. After briefing by the parties, the Court scheduled a hearing on the motions for July 21, 2025. On June 28, 2024, a lawsuit was filed against members of the Company’s board of directors, certain employees of the Company and the Company in the Business Litigation Section of the Superior Court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, captioned John Dwyer and Ray Gerber, Plaintiffs, v. Alan Trefler, Peter Gyenes, Richard Jones, Christopher Lafond, Dianne Ledingham, Sharon Rowlands, Larry Weber, Leon Trefler, Don Schuerman, Kerim Akgonul, and Benjamin Baril, Defendants, and Pegasystems Inc., Nominal Defendant (Case 2484CV01734) (“Dwyer Action”). The complaint generally alleges the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with alleged misconduct by Company employees alleged in the litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, described above, and alleges damages from the approximately $2 billion verdict in the litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, described above, the settlement of the Class Action, and litigation costs from various proceedings. On October 18, 2024, the defendants served a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the defendants then withdrew on November 26, 2024 pending resolution of whether this complaint and the other derivative actions would be consolidated in Superior Court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. On November 22, 2024, a lawsuit was filed against members of the Company’s board of directors, certain employees of the Company and the Company in the Business Litigation Section of the Superior Court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, captioned Jayne Birch and Robert Garfield, Plaintiffs, v. Alan Trefler, Peter Gyenes, Richard Jones, Christopher Lafond, Dianne Ledingham, Sharon Rowlands, Larry Weber, Leon Trefler, Kerim Akgonul, Don Schuerman, Leon Trefler, Douglas Kim, John Petronio, Benjamin Baril, and Kenneth Stillwell, Defendants, and Pegasystems Inc., Nominal Defendant (Case 2484CV03076-BLS-1) (“Birch Action”). The complaint generally alleges the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with alleged misconduct by Company employees alleged in the litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, described above, and alleges damages from the approximately $2 billion verdict in the litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, described above, the settlement of the Class Action, and litigation costs from various proceedings. The parties agreed on November 26, 2024 to suspend indefinitely the deadlines for any response to the complaint pending resolution of whether this complaint and the other derivative actions would be consolidated in the Superior Court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. On February 4, 2025, the parties to the Dwyer and Birch Actions filed a stipulation and proposed order in the Business Litigation Section of the Superior Court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts consolidating the two actions and setting a schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint and any motion to dismiss. On February 12, 2025, an order was entered consolidating the Dwyer and Birch Actions and approving the schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint and a motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in Case No. 2484CV01734. The consolidated complaint generally alleges the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with alleged misconduct by Company employees alleged in the litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, described above, and in connection with the investigation conducted and the report issued by the Demand Review Committee of the Company’s board regarding the same. The defendants served motions to dismiss the complaint on May 15, 2025, and the plaintiffs served a brief in opposition to the motions to dismiss on July 11, 2025. Defendants’ reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss are due on August 1, 2025. The court scheduled a hearing on the motion to dismiss for September 4, 2025. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible damages or a range of possible damages in these matters given the stage of the lawsuits and there being no specified quantum of damages sought in the complaints.

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://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration