XML 41 R28.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments Minimum purchase commitments as of June 30, 2022 were as follows:
Fiscal year |  | Minimum Purchase Commitment
(in millions) |
Remainder of 2023 |  | $ | 614 |
2024 |  | 399 |
2025 |  | 256 |
2026 |  | 246 |
2027 |  | 23 |
Total |  | $ | 1,538 |
Contingencies 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”) and California state law, in connection with workforce reductions that occurred in or after August 2012 in California, and in or after as early as December 2014 in other U.S. locations. Former business units of HPE now owned by the Company, and former business units of the Company now owned by Peraton (formerly Perspecta), may be proportionately liable for any recovery by plaintiffs in this matter. In December 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary certification of the collective action, which Defendants opposed. In April 2021, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary certification and lifted the previously imposed stay of the action. In November 2021, notice was sent to putative members of the ADEA collectives regarding participation in the case. In February 2022, the notice period closed. The litigation is currently in discovery. Oracle America, Inc., et al. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company: On March 22, 2016, Oracle filed a complaint against HPE in the U.S. District Court for 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 HPE’s 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 was then remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. In January 2021, the District Court entered a scheduling order that provided for summary judgment briefing to be completed by May 2021 and a trial date in November 2021. In June 2021, the Court issued a decision denying HPE’s motion for summary judgment and granting Oracle’s motion for summary judgment on various HPE defenses. In November 2021, the court issued an order continuing the trial to May 2022. A jury trial was held in May - June 2022, after which a jury awarded Oracle $30 million in damages. A final judgment has yet to be entered, pending the resolution of certain post-trial motions the parties will be filing in July - November 2022. In re DXC Technology Company Securities Litigation: Previously disclosed securities litigation matters have been dismissed, with one case remaining, in the Superior Court of the State of California. 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. The action asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company’s prospects and expected performance. The putative class of plaintiffs 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. The State of California action had been stayed pending the outcome of the substantially similar federal action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The federal action was dismissed with prejudice in December 2021. Thereafter, the state court lifted the stay and entered an order permitting additional briefing by the parties. In March 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In April 2022, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. A hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss is scheduled for August 2022. The Company believes that the final remaining lawsuit described above is also without merit, and intends to vigorously defend it. Tax Examinations: The Company is under IRS examination in the U.S. on its federal income tax returns for certain fiscal years and is in disagreement with the IRS on certain of our tax positions. For more detail, see Note 14 – “Income Taxes” for further information. SEC Matter: In December 2019, the Company received a request for voluntary production of information in connection with an informal investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The current focus of the investigation is the Company’s historical reporting related to its non-GAAP adjustment for “transaction, separation, and integration-related costs,” including whether the disclosure the Company previously used to describe the non-GAAP adjustment was sufficiently broad to cover certain expenses the Company included as transaction, separation, and integration-related costs. The non-GAAP costs at issue primarily consist of expenses associated with the business combination that formed DXC in 2017. The Company has cooperated fully with the SEC’s informal investigation, and the new management team appointed beginning in September of 2019 has proactively clarified and expanded the disclosure of the Company’s non-GAAP transaction, separation, and integration-related costs. In addition, the new management team significantly reduced the transaction, separation, and integration-related costs. The Company intends to continue its voluntary cooperation with the SEC while seeking to resolve the matter. 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 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