XML 30 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.1

Contingencies and Litigation | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies and Litigation | 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, regulations and matters. 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 March 31, 2019. 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 condensed consolidated financial position or liquidity. As of March 31, 2019, 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 Conduent State Healthcare LLC (f/k/a Xerox State Healthcare, LLC and ACS State Healthcare) (“CSH”), Conduent Business Services LLC (“CBS”) and Conduent Incorporated (“CI”) (collectively, CSH, CBS and CI are referred to herein as the "Conduent Defendants") and Xerox Corporation (together with the Conduent Defendants called “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 Action”). In February 2019 a settlement agreement and release was reached among the Defendants, the State and HHSC. Pursuant to the terms of the Texas Agreement ("Texas Agreement"), the Conduent Defendants will pay the State of Texas $236 million in full settlement of the claims asserted against the Defendants. This amount was payable in installments and all proceedings in the lawsuit were suspended and the State and the HHSC agreed to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and release the Defendants from all of the State’s claims after all settlement payments are made. In May 2019, the Defendants entered into the First Amendment to Settlement Agreement and Release with the State (the “Amended Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Amended Agreement, the amount paid to the State by the Conduent Defendants in full settlement of the State Action will be paid as follows: (1) $40 million on or before April 15, 2019 (which the Company has already paid); (2) $78 million on or before May 15, 2019 (the “First Payment”); and (3) $118 million on or before January 15, 2020 (the “Second Payment”). In order to secure the Second Payment, the Company will provide bank issued letters of credit to the State in the full amount of the Second Payment (the “LCs”) which the State may present for payment to the issuing banks if the Conduent Defendants do not make the Second Payment. On the 91 st day following receipt of the First Payment and the LCs, the State will file a dismissal with prejudice dismissing the State Action and fully release and discharge the Defendants. As a result of the change in payment terms pursuant to the Amended Agreement, the Company recognized an additional $13 million of expense in the quarter ended March 31, 2019. 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. In the lawsuit, Conduent seeks damages in excess of $150 million. 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 $47 million, which includes amounts alleged not paid to Cognizant under the contract and an alleged $25 million for termination fees. 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 have commenced an action, it may have sought 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 and several state agencies began similar reviews. XES has cooperated and continues to fully cooperate with all regulatory agencies and has resolved the state agency investigations. As a result of these regulatory inquiries, its own reviews of operations and work performed by external auditors, XES identified and remediated certain other operational issues. XES disclosed these additional operational projects to the Department at the end of the second quarter of 2018 and to the CFPB in late 2018. In the third quarter of 2018, the Company exited the Student Loan Services business. In the first quarter of 2019, the Company resolved the CFPB’s investigation. 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. Other Contingencies Certain contracts, primarily in the Company's Government Services and Transportation segments, require the Company to provide a surety bond or a letter of credit as a guarantee of performance. As of March 31, 2019, the Company had $636 million of outstanding surety bonds used to secure its performance of contractual obligations with its clients and $266 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.

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 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration