XML 69 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Litigation and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2013
Litigation and Contingencies | 14. Litigation and contingencies There are various lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings that have been brought or asserted against the company, which arise in the ordinary course of business, including actions with respect to commercial and government contracts, labor and employment, employee benefits, environmental matters, intellectual property, and non-income tax and employment compensation in Brazil. The company records a provision for these matters when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Any provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and are adjusted to reflect the impact and status of settlements, rulings, advice of counsel and other information and events pertinent to a particular matter. The company believes that it has valid defenses with respect to legal matters pending against it. Based on its experience, the company also believes that the damage amounts claimed in the lawsuits disclosed below are not a meaningful indicator of the company’s potential liability. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, however, and it is possible that the company’s results of operations or cash flow could be materially affected in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of the legal matters pending against it. The company had a competitively awarded contract with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) that provided for the establishment of secure information technology environments in airports. The Civil Division of the Department of Justice, working with the Inspector General’s Office of the Department of Homeland Security, has reviewed issues relating to labor categorization and overtime on the TSA contract and cyber-intrusion protection under the TSA and a follow-on contract. The Civil Division concluded its review of these matters and indicated that the company should address them directly with TSA. In December 2013, the company reached a contractual settlement with TSA to resolve these matters. The relevant contracts with TSA have been closed. In April 2007, the Ministry of Justice of Belgium sued Unisys Belgium SA-NV, a Unisys subsidiary (Unisys Belgium), in the Court of First Instance of Brussels. The Belgian government had engaged the company to design and develop software for a computerized system to be used to manage the Belgian court system. The Belgian State terminated the contract and in its lawsuit has alleged that the termination was justified because Unisys Belgium failed to deliver satisfactory software in a timely manner. It claims damages of approximately 28 million Euros. Unisys Belgium filed its defense and counterclaim in April 2008, in the amount of approximately 18.5 million Euros. The company believes it has valid defenses to the claims and contends that the Belgian State’s termination of the contract was unjustified. In December 2007, Lufthansa AG sued Unisys Deutschland GmbH, a Unisys subsidiary (Unisys Germany), in the District Court of Frankfurt, Germany, for allegedly failing to perform properly its obligations during the initial phase of a 2004 software design and development contract relating to a Lufthansa customer loyalty program. Under the contract, either party was free to withdraw from the project at the conclusion of the initial design phase. Rather than withdraw, Lufthansa instead terminated the contract and failed to pay the balance owed to Unisys Germany for the initial phase. Lufthansa’s lawsuit alleges that Unisys Germany breached the contract by failing to deliver a proper design for the new system and seeks approximately 21.4 million Euros in damages. The company believes it has valid defenses and filed its defense and a counterclaim in the amount of approximately 1.5 million Euros. In July 2013, the District Court issued a decision finding Unisys Germany liable for failing to perform its obligations under the initial phase of the contract. It also dismissed Unisys Germany’s counterclaim. The District Court did not conduct the damage phase of the proceeding. Unisys Germany appealed the decision on liability in August 2013. The company and outside counsel believe that the District Court decision is flawed and that there are very good arguments to challenge it. Under German law, the appellate court will review the case de novo without deference to the factual findings or legal conclusions of the District Court. The company’s Brazilian operations, along with those of many other companies doing business in Brazil, are involved in various litigation matters, including numerous governmental assessments related to indirect and other taxes, as well as disputes associated with former employees and contract labor. The tax-related matters pertain to value added taxes, customs, duties, sales and other non-income related tax exposures. The labor-related matters include claims related to compensation matters. The company believes that appropriate accruals have been established for such matters based on information currently available. At December 31, 2013, excluding those matters that have been assessed by management as being remote as to the likelihood of ultimately resulting in a loss, the amount related to unreserved tax-related matters, inclusive of any related interest, is estimated to be up to approximately $133 million. The company has been involved in two matters arising from the sale of its Health Information Management (HIM) business to Molina Information Systems, LLC (Molina) under a 2010 Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). The HIM business provided system solutions and services to state governments, including the states of Maine and Idaho, for administering Medicaid programs. In November 2012, Molina advised the company that Maine has demanded payment of about $32 million from Molina for a six month project delay in the implementation of Maine’s new Medicaid management system. Under the indemnity provision in the APA, the company accepted a partial indemnity obligation and undertook the defense of the matter. In October 2013, Molina informed Unisys that it had decided to cease its pursuit of indemnification from Unisys with respect to the Maine contract. In the second matter, in August 2012, Molina sued the company in Federal District Court in Delaware alleging breaches of contract, negligent misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation with respect to the APA and the Medicaid contract with Idaho. Molina sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, lost profits, indemnification, and declaratory relief. Molina alleged losses of approximately $35 million in the complaint. In June 2013, the District Court granted the company’s motion to dismiss the complaint and allowed Molina to replead certain claims and file an amended complaint. In August 2013, Molina filed an amended complaint. Molina continues to allege losses of approximately $35 million and again seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, lost profits, indemnification and declaratory relief. Unisys has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. With respect to the specific legal proceedings and claims described above, except as otherwise noted, either (i) the amount or range of possible losses in excess of amounts accrued, if any, is not reasonably estimable or (ii) the company believes that the amount or range of possible losses in excess of amounts accrued that are estimable would not be material. Litigation is inherently unpredictable and unfavorable resolutions could occur. Accordingly, it is possible that an adverse outcome from such matters could exceed the amounts accrued in an amount that could be material to the company’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows in any particular reporting period. Notwithstanding that the ultimate results of the lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings that have been brought or asserted against the company are not currently determinable, the company believes that at December 31, 2013, it has adequate provisions for any such matters.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration