Contingencies and Litigation

As more fully discussed below, the Company is involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings concerning: governmental entity contracting, servicing and procurement law; intellectual property law; employment law; commercial and contracts law; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and other laws and regulations. The Company determines whether an estimated loss from a contingency should be accrued by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company assesses its potential liability by analyzing its litigation and regulatory matters using available information. The Company develops its view on estimated losses in consultation with outside counsel handling its defense in these matters, which involves an analysis of potential results, assuming a combination of litigation and settlement strategies. Should developments in any of these matters cause a change in the Company's determination as to an unfavorable outcome and result in the need to recognize a material accrual, or should any of these matters result in a final adverse judgment or be settled for significant amounts in excess of any accrual for such matter or matters, this could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period or periods in which such change in determination, judgment or settlement occurs. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any such matters as of December 31, 2018. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters and such outcome in any such matters could be in excess of any amounts accrued and could be material to the Company's results of operations, cash flows or financial position in any reporting period.

Additionally, guarantees, indemnifications and claims arise during the ordinary course of business from relationships with suppliers, customers and non-consolidated affiliates when the Company undertakes an obligation to guarantee the performance of others if specified triggering events occur. Nonperformance under a contract could trigger an obligation of the Company. These potential claims include actions based upon alleged exposures to products, real estate, intellectual property such as patents, environmental matters and other indemnifications. The ultimate effect on future financial results is not subject to reasonable estimation because considerable uncertainty exists as to the final outcome of these claims. However, while the ultimate liabilities resulting from such claims may be significant to results of operations in the period recognized, management does not anticipate they will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or liquidity. As of December 31, 2018, the Company had accrued its estimate of liability incurred under its indemnification arrangements and guarantees.

Litigation Against the Company

State of Texas v. Xerox Corporation, Conduent Business Services, LLC (f/k/a Xerox Business Services, LLC), Conduent State Healthcare, LLC (f/k/a Xerox State Healthcare, LLC, f/k/a ACS State Healthcare, LLC) and Conduent Incorporated: On May 9, 2014, the State of Texas, via the Texas Office of Attorney General (the “State”), filed a lawsuit in the 53rd Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas. The lawsuit alleges that Xerox Corporation, Xerox State Healthcare, LLC and ACS State Healthcare (collectively, the "Xerox Defendants") violated the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act in the administration of its contract with the Texas Department of Health and Human Services (“HHSC”). The State alleges that the Xerox Defendants made false representations of material facts regarding the processes, procedures, implementation and results regarding the prior authorization of orthodontic claims. The State seeks recovery of amounts paid for orthodontic treatment under the Texas Medicaid program for the period from approximately 2004 to 2012, three times the amount of the payments made as a result of the alleged unlawful acts, civil penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest and all costs and attorneys’ fees. The Xerox Defendants filed their Answer in June, 2014 denying all allegations. A trial date was originally scheduled for November, 2018. During the first quarter of 2018, the State notified the Xerox Defendants in the litigation discovery process that its claim is in excess of two billion dollars based primarily on the assertion of treble damages and civil penalties per illegal act for almost two hundred thousand purported illegal acts. During the second quarter of 2018, the trial date was rescheduled for May, 2019. During October of 2018, discussions with the State were undertaken to determine if a mutually acceptable settlement might be reached. Those discussions were not productive. In the wake of those discussions, we recorded an additional $72 million reserve during the third quarter of 2018, increasing our aggregate reserve for this matter as of September 30, 2018, to $110 million. During December 2018, we re-engaged with the State in discussions to settle the matter. In February 2019, those discussions culminated in a settlement agreement and release among the Xerox Defendants, the State and HHSC. Pursuant to the terms of the Texas Agreement ("Texas Agreement"), the Company will pay the State of Texas $236 million in full settlement of the claims asserted against the Xerox Defendants. This amount is payable in installments of: (1) $20 million within 10 days of execution of the settlement agreement; (2) $20 million by April 15, 2019; (3) $38 million by July 31, 2019; (4) $79 million by July 31, 2020; and (5) $79 million by July 31, 2021. The Agreement does not prevent the Company from prepaying the foregoing amounts and the Company is currently considering whether to do so. The Company does not intend to make further disclosure regarding a possible prepayment unless it actually prepays such amounts in whole or in part. As part of the settlement, all proceedings in the lawsuit are suspended and the State and the HHSC will dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and release the Xerox Defendants from all of the State’s claims after all settlement payments are made. As a result of entering into the Texas Agreement, the Company recorded an additional reserve of $113 million in the quarter ended December 31, 2018 which is net of a $13 million discount to reflect the fair value of the liability. The Defendants’ have not made any admission of liability or wrongdoing in entering into the Texas Agreement.

Dennis Nasrawi v. Buck Consultants et al.: On October 8, 2009, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County, and on November 24, 2009, the case was removed to the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. Plaintiffs allege actuarial negligence against Buck Consultants, LLC (“Buck”), which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Conduent, for the use of faulty actuarial assumptions in connection with the 2007 actuarial valuation for the Stanislaus County Employees Retirement Association (“StanCERA”). Plaintiffs allege that the employer contribution rate adopted by StanCERA based on Buck’s valuation was insufficient to fund the benefits promised by the County. On July 13, 2012, the Court entered its ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of all plan participants. The Court also ruled that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded their claim that Buck allegedly aided and abetted StanCERA in breaching its fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs then filed their Fifth Amended Complaint and added StanCERA to the litigation. Buck and StanCERA filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On September 13, 2012, the Court sustained both demurrers with prejudice, completely dismissing the matter and barring plaintiffs from refiling their claims. Plaintiffs appealed, and ultimately the California Court of Appeals (Sixth District) reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case back to the trial court as to Buck only, and only with respect to Plaintiff’s claim of aiding and abetting StanCERA in breaching its fiduciary duty. This case has been stayed pending the outcome of parallel litigation the plaintiffs are pursuing against StanCERA. The parallel litigation was tried before the bench in June 2018, and on January 24, 2019, the court found in favor of StanCERA, holding that it had not breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in the parallel litigation have the right to file an appeal, which we expect. Nasrawi remains stayed until the parallel litigation is finally concluded. Absent the court finding that StanCERA breached its fiduciary duty, plaintiffs’ claim against Buck for aiding and abetting said breach would not appear viable. Buck will continue to aggressively defend these lawsuits. In August 2018, Conduent sold Buck Consultants, LLC; however, the Company retained this liability after the sale. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or reasonably provide an estimate or range of estimate of the possible outcome or loss, if any.

Conduent Business Services, LLC v. Cognizant Business Services, LLC: On April 12, 2017, Conduent Business Services LLC (“Conduent”) filed a lawsuit against Cognizant Business Services Corporation (“Cognizant”) in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York. The lawsuit relates to the Amended and Restated Master Outsourcing Services Agreement effective as of October 24, 2012, and the service delivery contracts and work orders thereunder, between Conduent and Cognizant, as amended and supplemented (the “Contract”). The Contract contains certain minimum purchase obligations by Conduent through the date of expiration. The lawsuit alleges that Cognizant committed multiple breaches of the Contract, including Cognizant’s failure to properly perform its obligations as subcontractor to Conduent under Conduent’s contract with the New York Department of Health to provide a Medicaid Management Information Systems (the “NY MMIS Contract”). In the lawsuit, Conduent seeks damages in excess of one hundred fifty million dollars. During the first quarter of 2018, Conduent provided notice to Cognizant that it was terminating the Contract for cause and recorded in the same period certain charges associated with the termination. Cognizant asserted two counterclaims for breach of contract seeking recovery of damages in excess of forty-seven million dollars, which includes amounts alleged not paid to Cognizant under the contract and an alleged twenty-five million dollars of termination fee. Conduent has responded to Cognizant’s counterclaims by denying the allegations. Conduent will continue to vigorously defend itself against the counterclaims but the Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or reasonably provide an estimate or range of estimate of the possible outcome.

Other Matters:

On January 5, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "CFPB") notified Xerox Education Services, Inc. (XES) that, in accordance with the CFPB’s discretionary Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise (NORA) process, the CFPB’s Office of Enforcement is considering recommending that the CFPB take legal action against XES, alleging that XES violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition of unfair practices. Should the CFPB commence an action, it may seek restitution, civil monetary penalties, injunctive relief, or other corrective action. The purpose of a NORA letter is to provide a party being investigated an opportunity to present its position to the CFPB before an enforcement action is recommended or commenced. XES submitted its response to the NORA. The CFPB’s NORA stems from an inquiry that commenced in 2014 when XES received and responded to a CFPB Civil Investigative Demand containing a broad request for information. During this process, XES self-disclosed to the U.S. Department of Education (the "Department") and the CFPB certain adjustments of which it had become aware that had not been timely made relating to its servicing of a small percentage of third-party student loans under outsourcing arrangements for various financial institutions. The CFPB, the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Justice, the New York Office of the Attorney General, the New York Department of Financial Services and the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General began similar reviews. XES has cooperated and continues to fully cooperate with all regulatory agencies. It resolved the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General investigation in November 2016 and the investigations by both the New York agencies in January 2019. Both as a result of these inquiries, its own reviews of operations and work performed by external auditors, XES has identified certain other operational issues requiring remediation, and this remediation work has commenced. XES disclosed these additional operational projects to the Department at the end of the second quarter of 2018 and is working to complete these projects. In the third quarter of 2018, the Company exited the Student Loan Services business. The Company cannot provide assurance that the CFPB, another regulator, a financial institution on behalf of which the Company serviced third-party student loans, or another party will not ultimately commence a legal action against XES in which fines, penalties or other liabilities are sought from XES. Nor is the Company able to predict the likely outcome of these matters, should any such matter be commenced, or reasonably provide an estimate or range of estimates of any loss in excess of current reserves. The Company could in future periods incur judgments or enter into settlements to resolve these potential matters for amounts in excess of current reserves and there could be a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period in which such change in judgment or settlement occurs.

Guarantees and Indemnifications

Indemnifications Provided as Part of Contracts and Agreements

Acquisitions/Divestitures:

We have indemnified, subject to certain deductibles and limits, the purchasers of businesses or divested assets for the occurrence of specified events under certain of our divestiture agreements. In addition, we customarily agree to hold the other party harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations and covenants, including such matters as adequate title to assets sold, intellectual property rights and certain income taxes arising prior to the date of acquisition. Where appropriate, an obligation for such indemnifications is recorded as a liability at the time of the acquisition or divestiture. Since the obligated amounts of these types of indemnifications are often not explicitly stated or are contingent on the occurrence of future events, the overall maximum amount, or range of amount of the obligation under such indemnifications cannot be reasonably estimated. Other than obligations recorded as liabilities at the time of divestiture, we have not historically made significant payments for these indemnifications. Additionally, under certain of our acquisition agreements, we have provided for additional consideration to be paid to the sellers if established financial targets are achieved within specific timeframes post-closing. We have recognized liabilities for these contingent obligations based on an estimate of the fair value of these contingencies at the time of acquisition. Contingent obligations related to indemnifications arising from our divestitures and contingent consideration provided for by our acquisitions are not expected to be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Other Agreements:

We are also party to the following types of agreements pursuant to which we may be obligated to indemnify the other party with respect to certain matters:


•	Guarantees on behalf of our subsidiaries with respect to real estate leases. These lease guarantees may remain in effect subsequent to the sale of the subsidiary.


•	Agreements to indemnify various service providers, trustees and bank agents from any third-party claims related to their performance on our behalf, with the exception of claims that result from the third-party's own willful misconduct or gross negligence.


•	Guarantees of our performance in certain services contracts to our customers and indirectly the performance of third parties with whom we have subcontracted for their services. This includes indemnifications to customers for losses that may be sustained as a result of our performance of services at a customer's location.

In each of these circumstances, our payment is conditioned on the other party making a claim pursuant to the procedures specified in the particular contract and such procedures also typically allow us to challenge the other party's claims. In the case of lease guarantees, we may contest the liabilities asserted under the lease. Further, our obligations under these agreements and guarantees may be limited in terms of time and/or amount, and in some instances, we may have recourse against third parties for certain payments we made.

Intellectual Property Indemnifications

We do not own most of the software that we use to run our business. Instead, we license this software from a small number of primary vendors. We indemnify certain software providers against claims that may arise as a result of our use or our subsidiaries', customers' or resellers' use of their software in our services and solutions. These indemnities usually do not include limits on the claims, provided the claim is made pursuant to the procedures required in the services contract.

Indemnification of Officers and Directors

Our corporate by-laws require that, except to the extent expressly prohibited by law, we must indemnify our officers and directors against judgments, fines, penalties and amounts paid in settlement and reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred in connection with civil or criminal action or proceedings or any appeal, as it relates to their services to our Company and our subsidiaries. Although the by-laws provide no limit on the amount of indemnification, we may have recourse against our insurance carriers for certain payments made by us. However, certain indemnification payments (such as those related to "clawback" provisions in certain compensation arrangements) may not be covered under our directors' and officers' insurance coverage. We also indemnify certain fiduciaries of our employee benefit plans for liabilities incurred in their service as fiduciary whether or not they are officers of the Company. Finally, in connection with our acquisition of businesses, we may become contractually obligated to indemnify certain former and current directors, officers and employees of those businesses in accordance with pre-acquisition by-laws or indemnification agreements or applicable state law.

Other Contingencies

Certain contracts, primarily in the Company's Public Sector segment, require the Company to provide a surety bond or a letter of credit as a guarantee of performance. As of December 31, 2018, the Company had $646 million of outstanding surety bonds used to secure its performance of contractual obligations with its clients and $344 million of outstanding letters of credit issued to secure the Company's performance of contractual obligations to its clients as well as other corporate obligations. In general, the Company would only be liable for the amount of these guarantees in the event of default in the Company's performance of its obligations under each contract. The Company believes it has sufficient capacity in the surety markets and liquidity from its cash flow and its various credit arrangements (including its Credit Facility) to allow it to respond to future requests for proposals that require such credit support.