XML 45 R30.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.4

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments The Company signed long-term purchase agreements with certain software, hardware, telecommunication, and other service providers to obtain favorable pricing and terms for services, and products that are necessary for the operations of business activities. Under the terms of these agreements, the Company is contractually committed to purchase specified minimums over periods ranging from one to five years. If the Company does not meet the specified minimums, the Company would have an obligation to pay the service provider all, or a portion, of the shortfall. Minimum purchase commitments as of December 31, 2020 were as follows:
Fiscal year |  | Minimum Purchase Commitment (1)
(in millions) |
Remainder of 2021 |  | $ | 1,339 |
2022 |  | 1,093 |
2023 |  | 817 |
2024 |  | 227 |
Total |  | $ | 3,476 |
(1)A portion of the minimum purchase commitments for fiscal 2021 relates to the amounts committed under the HPE preferred vendor agreements. In the normal course of business, the Company may provide certain clients with financial performance guarantees, and at times performance letters of credit or surety bonds. In general, the Company would only be liable for the amounts of these guarantees in the event that non-performance by the Company permits termination of the related contract by the Company’s client. The Company believes it is in compliance with its performance obligations under all service contracts for which there is a financial performance guarantee, and the ultimate liability, if any, incurred in connection with these guarantees will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations or financial position. The Company also uses stand-by letters of credit, in lieu of cash, to support various risk management insurance policies. These letters of credit represent a contingent liability and the Company would only be liable if it defaults on its payment obligations on these policies. The following table summarizes the expiration of the Company’s financial guarantees and stand-by letters of credit outstanding as of December 31, 2020:
(in millions) |  | Remainder of Fiscal 2021 |  | Fiscal 2022 |  | Fiscal 2023 and Thereafter |  | Totals
Surety bonds |  | $ | 14 |  |  | $ | 93 |  |  | $ | 87 |  |  | $ | 194 |
Letters of credit |  | 37 |  |  | 147 |  |  | 527 |  |  | 711 |
Stand-by letters of credit |  | 36 |  |  | 41 |  |  | 31 |  |  | 108 |
Totals |  | $ | 87 |  |  | $ | 281 |  |  | $ | 645 |  |  | $ | 1,013 |
The Company generally indemnifies licensees of its proprietary software products against claims brought by third parties alleging infringement of their intellectual property rights, including rights in patents (with or without geographic limitations), copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. DXC’s indemnification of its licensees relates to costs arising from court awards, negotiated settlements, and the related legal and internal costs of those licensees. The Company maintains the right, at its own cost, to modify or replace software in order to eliminate any infringement. The Company has not incurred any significant costs related to licensee software indemnification. Contingencies Strauch Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action: On July 1, 2014, several plaintiffs filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide collective of CSC system administrators, alleging CSC’s failure to properly classify these employees as non-exempt under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiffs alleged similar state-law Rule 23 class claims pursuant to Connecticut and California statutes. Plaintiffs claimed double overtime damages, liquidated damages, and other amounts and remedies. In 2015 the Court entered an order granting conditional certification under the FLSA of the collective of over 4,000 system administrators. Approximately 1,000 system administrators filed consents with the Court to participate in the FLSA collective. The class/collective action is currently made up of approximately 800 individuals who held the title of associate professional or professional system administrator. In June 2017, the Court granted Rule 23 certification of a Connecticut state-law class and a California state-law class consisting of professional system administrators and associate professional system administrators. Senior professional system administrators were found not to qualify for Rule 23 certification under the state-law claims. CSC sought permission to appeal the Rule 23 decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied. In December 2017, a jury trial was held and a verdict was returned in favor of plaintiffs. On August 6, 2019, the Court issued an order awarding plaintiffs $18.75 million in damages. In September 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking $14.1 million in attorneys’ fees and costs. In July 2020, the Court issued an order awarding Plaintiffs $8.1 million in attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company disagrees with the jury verdict, the damages award, and the fee award, and is appealing the judgment of the Court. In October 2020, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to resolve the matter. The Company is finalizing a settlement agreement, which once executed, will be submitted to the Court for approval. Computer Sciences Corporation v. Eric Pulier, et al.: On May 12, 2015, CSC filed a civil complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Eric Pulier, the former CEO of Service Mesh Inc. ("SMI"), which CSC had acquired in November 2013. The complaint asserted claims for fraud, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, based on allegations that Mr. Pulier had engaged in fraudulent transactions with two employees of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd. (“CBA”). The Court dismissed CSC’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith, but allowed substantially all of the remaining claims to proceed. Mr. Pulier asserted counter-claims for breach of contract, fraud, negligent representation, rescission, and violations of the California Blue Sky securities law, all of which the Court dismissed in whole or in part, except for claims for breach of Mr. Pulier’s retention agreement. In July 2017, the Court granted a motion by the United States for a 90-day stay of discovery pending the completion of a criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. In September 2017, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Mr. Pulier, charging him with conspiracy, securities and wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and other violations of federal law (United States v. Eric Pulier, CR 17-599-AB). The Government sought an extension of the stay which the Delaware Chancery Court granted. In December 2018, the Government filed an application to dismiss the indictment against Mr. Pulier, which was granted, and the indictment was dismissed with prejudice. In March 2019, the Delaware Chancery Court lifted the stay and denied CSC’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction with respect to certain of Mr. Pulier’s assets. In August 2019, the Company entered into an agreement with Mr. Pulier, resolving all claims and counterclaims in the Delaware litigation through the division of amounts previously held in escrow for post-closing disputes. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has filed a complaint against Mr. Pulier alleging various claims, including for fraud and falsifying books and records (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Eric Pulier, Case No. 2:17-cv-07124). The case is scheduled for trial in April 2021. In February 2016, Mr. Pulier filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court seeking advancement of his legal fees and costs in the civil and criminal actions, pursuant to the terms of his agreements with SMI. The Court ruled that CSC Agility Platform - as the successor to SMI - is liable for advancing 80% of Mr. Pulier’s fees and costs in the civil and criminal actions. Pursuant to agreements with SMI, Mr. Pulier is obligated to repay all amounts advanced to him if it should ultimately be determined that he is not entitled to indemnification. The Company remains obligated to advance amounts for Mr. Pulier’s legal fees and costs to defend the SEC action against him. Kemper Corporate Services, Inc. v. Computer Sciences Corporation: In October 2015, Kemper Corporate Services, Inc. (“Kemper”) filed a demand for arbitration against CSC with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), alleging that CSC breached the terms of a 2009 Master Software License and Services Agreement and related Work Orders (the “Agreement”) by failing to complete a software translation and implementation plan by certain contractual deadlines. Kemper claimed breach of contract, seeking approximately $100 million in damages. CSC answered the demand for arbitration denying Kemper’s claims and asserting a counterclaim for unpaid invoices for services rendered by CSC. A single arbitrator conducted an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the claims and counterclaims in April 2017. In October 2017, the arbitrator issued a partial final award, finding for Kemper on its breach of contract theory, awarding Kemper $84.2 million in compensatory damages plus prejudgment interest, denying Kemper’s claim for rescission as moot, and denying CSC’s counterclaim. Kemper moved to confirm the award in federal district court in Texas. CSC moved to vacate the award, and in August 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued its Report and Recommendation denying CSC's vacatur motion. In September 2018, the District Court summarily accepted the Report and Recommendation without further briefing and entered a Final Judgment in the case. The Company promptly filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Following the submission of briefs, oral argument was held on September 5, 2019. On January 10, 2020, the Court of Appeals issued a decision denying the Company’s appeal. On January 24, 2020, the Company filed a Petition for Rehearing, seeking review by the entire en banc Court of Appeals. On February 14, 2020, the Court of Appeals denied the Company's Petition. The Company has been pursuing coverage for the full scope of the award, interest, and legal fees and expenses, under the Company's applicable insurance policies. Certain carriers have accepted coverage while others have denied coverage. On February 21, 2020, the Company paid the balance of the judgment, which net of insurance recovery totalled $60 million. The Company has since recovered an additional $12.5 million from its insurance carriers. The Company continues to pursue recovery with its insurance carriers. Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise: On August 18, 2016, this purported class and collective action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, against HP and HPE alleging violations of 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. Former business units of HPE now owned by the Company may be proportionately liable for any recovery by plaintiffs in this matter. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action under the ADEA comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had their employment terminated pursuant to a work force reduction (“WFR”) plan and who were 40 years of age or older at the time of termination. The class seeks to cover those impacted by WFRs on or after December 2014. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years of age or older employed by defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012. In January 2017, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss and a motion to compel arbitration of claims by certain named and opt-in plaintiffs who had signed release agreements as part of their WFR packages. In September 2017, the Court denied the partial motion to dismiss without prejudice, but granted defendants’ motions to compel arbitration for those named and opt-in plaintiffs. The Court stayed the entire action pending arbitration for these individuals and administratively closed the case. A mediation was held in October 2018 with the 16 named and opt-in plaintiffs who were involved in the case at that time. A settlement was reached, which included seven plaintiffs who were employed by former business units of HPE that are now owned by the Company. In June 2019, a second mediation was held with 145 additional opt-in plaintiffs who were compelled to arbitration pursuant to their release agreements. In December 2019, a settlement was reached with 142 of the opt-in plaintiffs, 35 of whom were employed by former business units of HPE that are now owned by the Company, and for which the Company was liable. In December 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary certification of the collective action, which Defendants intend to oppose. A hearing on the motion has been scheduled for April 15, 2021. Former business units of the Company now owned by Perspecta may be proportionately liable for any recovery by plaintiffs in this matter. Oracle America, Inc., et al. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company: On March 22, 2016, Oracle filed a complaint against HPE in the Northern District of California, alleging copyright infringement, interference with contract, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and unfair competition. The litigation relates in part to former business units of HPE that are now owned by the Company. The Company may be required to indemnify HPE for a portion of any recovery by Oracle in the litigation related to these business units. Oracle’s claims arise primarily out of HPE’s prior relationship with a third-party maintenance provider named Terix Computer Company, Inc. (“Terix”). Oracle claims that Terix infringed its copyrights while acting as HPE’s subcontractor for certain customers of HPE’s multivendor support business. Oracle claims that HPE is liable for vicarious and contributory infringement arising from the alleged actions of Terix and for direct infringement arising from its own alleged conduct. On January 29, 2019, the court granted HPE’s motion for summary judgment and denied Oracle’s motion for summary judgment, resolving the matter in HPE’s favor. Oracle appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In August 2020, the court granted Oracle’s appeal in part. The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. In re DXC Technology Company Securities Litigation: On December 27, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company and two of its current officers. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company’s business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class period of February 8, 2018 to November 6, 2018. The Company moved to dismiss the claims in their entirety, and on June 2, 2020, the court granted the Company’s motion, dismissing all claims and entering judgment in the Company’s favor. On July 1, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appeal remains pending. In March 2019, three related shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for Clark County, against one of the Company’s current officers and a former officer as well as members of the Company’s board of directors, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. By agreement of the parties and order of the court, those lawsuits were consolidated on July 18, 2019, and are presently stayed pending the outcome of the appeal of the Eastern District of Virginia matter. On August 20, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former officer of the Company, among other defendants. On September 16, 2019, a substantially similar purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former officer of the Company, among other defendants. On November 8, 2019, a third purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former officer of the Company, among other defendants. The third lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff and re-filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara on November 26, 2019, and thereafter was consolidated with the earlier-filed action in the same court on December 10, 2019. The California lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and are premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company’s prospects and expected performance. Plaintiff in the federal action filed an amended complaint on January 8, 2020. The putative class of plaintiffs in these cases includes all persons who acquired shares of the Company’s common stock pursuant to the offering documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the April 2017 transaction that formed DXC. On July 15, 2020, the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, denied the Company’s motion to stay the state court case but extended the Company’s deadline to seek dismissal of the state action, until after a decision on the Company’s motion to dismiss the federal action. The Company has since moved to dismiss the state action, and the court has continued the motion until after the outcome of the federal action. On July 27, 2020, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the federal action. The Court’s order permitted plaintiffs to amend and refile their complaint within 60 days, and on September 25, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On November 12, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for April 29, 2021. On October 2, 2019, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for Clark County, asserting various claims, including for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and challenging certain sales of securities by officers under Rule 10b5-1 plans. The shareholder filed this action after making a demand on the board of directors, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and disclosure violations, and demanding that the Board take certain actions to evaluate the allegations and respond. The Company’s board of directors analyzed the demand, and has determined to defer its decision on the demand pending developments in the securities and derivative lawsuits described above. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the Board’s decision to defer action was not a refusal of the demand and was within its discretion. The Company’s motion to dismiss was denied on January 22, 2020. By agreement of the parties and order of the court, the case is presently stayed, pending the outcome of the appeal of the Eastern District of Virginia matter. On March 31, 2020, a group of individual shareholders filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting non-class claims based on allegations substantially similar to those at issue in the earlier-filed putative class action complaints pending in the Northern District of California and Eastern District of Virginia. The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. On April 29, 2020, the court granted an administrative motion to relate the case with the earlier-filed putative class action pending in the Northern District of California. And on May 13, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation requesting to stay the case subject to resolution of the motions to dismiss in the Northern District of California and Eastern District of Virginia class actions. The Company believes that the lawsuits described above are without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend them. Voluntary Disclosure of Certain Possible Sanctions Law Violations: On February 2, 2017, CSC submitted an initial notification of voluntary disclosure to the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") regarding certain possible violations of U.S. sanctions laws pertaining to insurance premium data and claims data processed by two partially-owned joint ventures of Xchanging, which CSC acquired during the first quarter of fiscal 2017. A copy of the disclosure was also provided to Her Majesty’s Treasury Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in the United Kingdom. The Company has substantially completed its internal investigation. The Company provided supplemental information to OFAC on January 31, 2020 and continues to work with OFAC on these issues. Perspecta Arbitration: In October 2019, Perspecta Inc. (“Perspecta”) submitted a demand for arbitration claiming that in June 2018 DXC breached certain obligations under the Separation and Distribution Agreement ("SDA") between Perspecta and DXC and seeking at least $120 million in alleged damages. During the course of discovery, Perspecta increased the amount of its alleged damages, first to $500 million and then to over $800 million. Perspecta has since increased its damages calculations to include interest, bringing its total claim to $990 million. The Company believes there is no valid basis for Perspecta's claims for these amounts. In its arbitration demand, Perspecta also challenges $39 million in invoices issued by DXC in June 2019 under its IT Services Agreement with Perspecta ("ITSA"). Perspecta subsequently challenged an additional $31 million sought by DXC in August 2020 under the ITSA. DXC believes the invoices were properly issued and the amounts are owed by Perspecta. In October 2020, a hearing was held before an arbitration panel, during which the Company and Perspecta each presented evidence on the claims at issue. In December 2020, the parties presented closing arguments and the case was submitted. The parties are awaiting a decision from the arbitration panel. In addition to the matters noted above, the Company is currently subject in the normal course of business to various claims and contingencies arising from, among other things, disputes with customers, vendors, employees, contract counterparties and other parties, as well as securities matters, environmental matters, matters concerning the licensing and use of intellectual property, and inquiries and investigations by regulatory authorities and government agencies. Some of these disputes involve or may involve litigation. The financial statements reflect the treatment of claims and contingencies based on management's view of the expected outcome. DXC consults with outside legal counsel on issues related to litigation and regulatory compliance and seeks input from other experts and advisors with respect to matters in the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of these and other matters cannot be predicted with certainty, and the impact of the final resolution of these and other matters on the Company’s results of operations in a particular subsequent reporting period could be material and adverse, management does not believe based on information currently available to the Company, that the resolution of any of the matters currently pending against the Company will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company or the ability of the Company to meet its financial obligations as they become due. Unless otherwise noted, the Company is unable to determine at this time a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range of losses associated with the foregoing disclosed contingent matters.

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 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration