Contingencies and Litigation

Brazil Tax and Labor Contingencies

Our Brazilian operations are involved in various litigation matters and have received or been the subject of numerous governmental assessments related to indirect and other taxes, as well as disputes associated with former employees and contract labor. The tax matters, which comprise a significant portion of the total contingencies, principally relate to claims for taxes on the internal transfer of inventory, municipal service taxes on rentals and gross revenue taxes. We are disputing these tax matters and intend to vigorously defend our position. Based on the opinion of legal counsel and current reserves for those matters deemed probable of loss, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will materially impact our results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

The labor matters principally relate to claims made by former employees and contract labor for the equivalent payment of all social security and other related labor benefits, as well as consequential tax claims, as if they were regular employees. As of September 30, 2012, the total amounts related to the unreserved portion of the tax and labor contingencies, inclusive of any related interest, amounted to approximately $1,050 with the decrease from December 31, 2011 balance of approximately $1,120, primarily related to currency and closed cases partially offset by interest. With respect to the unreserved balance of $1,050, the majority has been assessed by management as being remote as to the likelihood of ultimately resulting in a loss to the company. In connection with the above proceedings, customary local regulations may require us to make escrow cash deposits or post other security of up to half of the total amount in dispute. As of September 30, 2012 we had $215 of escrow cash deposits for matters we are disputing, and there are liens on certain Brazilian assets with a net book value of $14 and additional letters of credit of approximately $237, which include associated indexation. Generally, any escrowed amounts would be refundable and any liens would be removed to the extent the matters are resolved in our favor. We routinely assess all these matters as to probability of ultimately incurring a liability against our Brazilian operations and record our best estimate of the ultimate loss in situations where we assess the likelihood of an ultimate loss as probable.

Legal Matters

As more fully discussed below, we are involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings concerning securities law, intellectual property law, environmental law, employment law and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). We determine whether an estimated loss from a contingency should be accrued by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and can be reasonably estimated. We assess our potential liability by analyzing our litigation and regulatory matters using available information. We develop our views on estimated losses in consultation with outside counsel handling our 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 our 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, they could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period or periods in which such change in determination, judgment or settlement occurs.

Litigation Against the Company

In re Xerox Corporation Securities Litigation: A consolidated securities law action (consisting of 17 cases) is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Defendants are the Company, Barry Romeril, Paul Allaire and G. Richard Thoman. The consolidated action is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased Xerox Corporation common stock during the period October 22, 1998 through October 7, 1999 inclusive (“Class Period”) and who suffered a loss as a result of misrepresentations or omissions by Defendants as alleged by Plaintiffs (the “Class”). The Class alleges that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“1934 Act”), and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the Class Period by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts relating to the defendants’ alleged failure to disclose the material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on the Company’s operations and revenues. The complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme: (i) deceived the investing public regarding the economic capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations and the intrinsic value of the Company’s common stock; (ii) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held common stock of the Company while in possession of materially adverse, non-public information; and (iii) caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class to purchase common stock of the Company at inflated prices. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of defendants’ alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel fees and expert fees. In 2001, the Court denied the defendants’ motion for dismissal of the complaint. The plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was denied by the Court in 2006, without prejudice to refiling. In February 2007, the Court granted the motion of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of Local Union No. 164, Robert W. Roten, Robert Agius (“Agius”) and Georgia Stanley to appoint them as additional lead plaintiffs. In July 2007, the Court denied plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification, without prejudice to renewal after the Court holds a pre-filing conference to identify factual disputes the Court will be required to resolve in ruling on the motion. After that conference and Agius’s withdrawal as lead plaintiff and proposed class representative, in February 2008 plaintiffs filed a second renewed motion for class certification. In April 2008, defendants filed their response and motion to disqualify Milberg LLP as a lead counsel. On September 30, 2008, the Court entered an order certifying the class and denying the appointment of Milberg LLP as class counsel. Subsequently, on April 9, 2009, the Court denied defendants’ motion to disqualify Milberg LLP. On November 6, 2008, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Briefing with respect to the motion is complete. The Court has not yet rendered a decision. The parties also filed motions to exclude the testimony of certain expert witnesses. On April 22, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motions to exclude the testimony of two of defendants’ expert witnesses. On September 30, 2010, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of another of defendants’ expert witnesses. The Court also granted defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of one of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, and granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs’ two remaining expert witnesses. The individual defendants and we deny any wrongdoing and are vigorously defending the action. At this time, we do not believe it is reasonably possible that we will incur additional material losses in excess of the amount we have already accrued for this matter. In the course of litigation, we periodically engage in discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel for possible resolution of this matter. Should developments cause a change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or a settlement for a significant amount, there could be a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period in which such change in determination, judgment or settlement occurs.

Other Contingencies

We have issued or provided the following guarantees as of September 30, 2012:


•	$468 for letters of credit issued to i) guarantee our performance under certain services contracts; ii) support certain insurance programs; and iii) support our obligations related to the Brazil tax and labor contingencies.


•	$752 for outstanding surety bonds. Certain contracts, primarily those involving public sector customers, require us to provide a surety bond as a guarantee of our performance of contractual obligations.

In general, we would only be liable for the amount of these guarantees in the event of default in our performance of our obligations under each contract; the probability of which we believe is remote. We believe that our capacity in the surety markets as well as under various credit arrangements (including our Credit Facility) is sufficient to allow us to respond to future requests for proposals that require such credit support.

We have service arrangements where we service third party student loans in the Federal Family Education Loan program (“FFEL”) on behalf of various financial institutions. We service these loans for investors under outsourcing arrangements and do not acquire any servicing rights that are transferable by us to a third party. At September 30, 2012, we serviced a FFEL portfolio of approximately 3.8 million loans with an outstanding principal balance of approximately $55.1 billion. Some servicing agreements contain provisions that, under certain circumstances, require us to purchase the loans from the investor if the loan guaranty has been permanently terminated as a result of a loan default caused by our servicing error. If defaults caused by us are cured during an initial period, any obligation we may have to purchase these loans expires. Loans that we purchase may be subsequently cured, the guaranty reinstated and the loans repackaged for sale to third parties. We evaluate our exposure under our purchase obligations on defaulted loans and establish a reserve for potential losses, or default liability reserve, through a charge to the provision for loss on defaulted loans purchased. The reserve is evaluated periodically and adjusted based upon management’s analysis of the historical performance of the defaulted loans. As of September 30, 2012, other current liabilities include reserves of approximately $3 for losses on defaulted loans purchased.