Contingencies and Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Litigation	Contingencies and Litigation Legal Matters We are involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings concerning: securities law; governmental entity contracting; servicing and procurement law; intellectual property law; environmental law; employment law; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and other laws and regulations. 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. 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 positions. 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 March 31, 2018, the total amounts related to the unreserved portion of the tax and labor contingencies, inclusive of any related interest, amounted to approximately $585, with the decrease from our December 31, 2017 balance of approximately $600, primarily related to closed cases, partially offset by interest. With respect to the unreserved balance of $585, 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 March 31, 2018, we had $72 of escrow cash deposits for matters we are disputing and additional letters of credit and surety bonds of approximately $131 and $107, respectively, which include associated indexation. There were no liens on any of our Brazilian assets as of March 31, 2018. 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 the 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. Litigation Against the Company Pending LItigation Relating to the Fuji Transaction: In February 2018, five complaints, including four putative class actions (which have been consolidated), were filed by Xerox shareholders in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County ("Court") in connection with the proposed transaction to combine Xerox and Fuji Xerox (“Fuji Transaction”) (refer to Note 20 - Fuji Xerox Transaction and Recent Developments). All of the complaints name as defendants Xerox, its directors, and FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation (“Fujifilm”). The complaint in one of the actions also names as a defendant Ursula M. Burns, the former Chief Executive Officer of Xerox. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Xerox's directors breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating, approving, and purportedly making false and misleading disclosures about the Fuji Transaction, and that Fujifilm aided and abetted those breaches. The complaint in one of the actions further alleges that Xerox and the director defendants engaged in common law fraud by purportedly failing to disclose information about the joint venture agreements between Xerox and Fujifilm. The lawsuits seek injunctive relief preventing the proposed transactions, and/or additional disclosures by Xerox’s directors, unspecified damages from Xerox’s directors, costs and attorneys’ fees, as well as other relief. Another complaint filed by Darwin Deason, a Xerox shareholder, against Xerox and its directors in the same Court on March 2, 2018 alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by refusing Mr. Deason’s request for a waiver of the deadline for nomination of a new slate of Xerox directors, and seeks to enjoin Xerox and its directors from enforcing Xerox’s advance notice by-laws, thereby allowing Mr. Deason to proceed with the nominations, as well as costs, fees, and other relief. On April 27, 2018, the Court issued decisions and orders granting plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motions, which (i) enjoin Xerox from “taking any further action to consummate the change of control transaction between Xerox and Fuji that was announced on January 31, 2018 pending a final determination of the claims asserted in the underlying action;” (ii) enjoin Xerox from enforcing its advance notice bylaw provision requiring shareholders to nominate directors for election at the 2018 annual shareholder meeting by December 11, 2017; and (iii) require Xerox to waive such advance notice bylaw provision to permit the noticing of a slate of director nominees for election at the 2018 annual shareholder meeting, and denying defendants’ motions to dismiss. On May 1, 2018, Xerox entered into a Director Appointment, Nomination and Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Carl Icahn and Darwin Deason, among others, that would have resolved the pending proxy contest in connection with Xerox’s 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, as well as the ongoing litigation brought by Mr. Deason against Xerox and its directors related to the proposed Fuji Transaction. The agreement expired by its terms on May 3, 2018 without becoming effective. On May 7, 2018, defendants filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, notices of appeal of, and motions to stay pending appeal, the lower Court’s decision and order. Defendants also moved the appellate court for interim relief ordering that the appeal be heard on an expedited basis. At a hearing before the appellate court on May 7, 2018, the appellate court ruled that the appeals would be heard on an expedited basis and granted a partial interim stay allowing Xerox and Fujifilm to take steps to seek regulatory approvals related to the Fuji Transaction pending a ruling from the appellate court on defendants’ motions to stay pending appeal. Xerox believes the lawsuits are meritless and will vigorously defend them. At this time, however, it is premature to make any conclusion regarding the probability of incurring material losses in these litigations. Should developments cause a change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or settlement, 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, including an inability to close the proposed transactions. State of Texas v. Xerox Corporation, Xerox State Healthcare, LLC, and ACS State Healthcare, LLC: 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 Defendants”) violated the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act in the administration of ACS’s contract with the Texas Department of Health and Human Services (“HHSC”). Xerox Corporation provided a guaranty of contractual performance with respect to the ACS contract. The State alleges that the 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 actual damages, two times the amount of any overpayments made as a result of unlawful acts, civil penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest and all costs and attorneys’ fees. The State references the amount in controversy as exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars. The Defendants filed their Answer in June 2014 denying all allegations. In August 2017, the State of Texas filed a Second Amended Petition, which makes substantially similar allegations and seeks similar remedies as the original lawsuit. On October 23, 2017, Xerox Corporation filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking judgment in Xerox's favor on all claims against it. The Defendants will continue to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. This matter is a “Conduent Liability”, as defined in the Separation and Distribution Agreement dated as of December 31, 2016 between Xerox Corporation and Conduent Incorporated, for which Conduent is required to indemnify Xerox. Conduent is entitled to direct the defense of this matter. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Xerox Corporation, Ursula M. Burns, Luca Maestri, Kathryn A. Mikells, Lynn R. Blodgett, Robert K. Zapfel, David H. Bywater and Mary Scanlon: On October 21, 2016, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System (“plaintiff”) filed a purported securities class action complaint against Xerox Corporation, Ursula Burns, Luca Maestri, Kathryn Mikells, Lynn Blodgett and Robert Zapfel (collectively, “defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the plaintiff and certain purchasers or acquirers of Xerox common stock. The complaint alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, relating to the operations and prospects of Xerox’s Health Enterprise business. Plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. Other, similar lawsuits may follow. On December 28, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated order setting out a schedule for amendment of the complaint and for defendants’ response to that complaint following the Court’s appointment of lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On February 28, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order appointing the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System ("APERS") as lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2017, APERS filed an amended complaint, alleging substantially similar claims and seeking substantially similar relief, but adding David Bywater and Mary Scanlon as defendants. On June 30, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and the motions were fully briefed on October 13, 2017. On March 20, 2018, the Court entered an opinion and order granting the motions, and on March 23, 2018, the Court entered a judgment of dismissal and closed the case. On April 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Xerox will vigorously defend against this matter. At this time, it is premature to make any conclusion regarding the probability of incurring material losses in this litigation. Should developments cause a change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or settlement, 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 approximately $366 of guarantees as of March 31, 2018 in the form of letters of credit or surety bonds issued to i) support certain insurance programs; ii) support our obligations related to the Brazil tax and labor contingencies; and iii) support certain contracts, primarily with public sector customers, which 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 we defaulted in performing 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. Indemnifications 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. Where appropriate, an obligation for such indemnifications is recorded as a liability. Since the obligated amounts of these types of indemnifications are often not explicitly stated and/or are contingent on the occurrence of future events, the overall maximum 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 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.

Contingencies and Litigation

Legal Matters

We are involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings concerning: securities law; governmental entity contracting; servicing and procurement law; intellectual property law; environmental law; employment law; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and other laws and regulations. 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.

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 positions. 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 March 31, 2018, the total amounts related to the unreserved portion of the tax and labor contingencies, inclusive of any related interest, amounted to approximately $585, with the decrease from our December 31, 2017 balance of approximately $600, primarily related to closed cases, partially offset by interest. With respect to the unreserved balance of $585, 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 March 31, 2018, we had $72 of escrow cash deposits for matters we are disputing and additional letters of credit and surety bonds of approximately $131 and $107, respectively, which include associated indexation. There were no liens on any of our Brazilian assets as of March 31, 2018. 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 the 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.

Litigation Against the Company

Pending LItigation Relating to the Fuji Transaction: In February 2018, five complaints, including four putative class actions (which have been consolidated), were filed by Xerox shareholders in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County ("Court") in connection with the proposed transaction to combine Xerox and Fuji Xerox (“Fuji Transaction”) (refer to Note 20 - Fuji Xerox Transaction and Recent Developments). All of the complaints name as defendants Xerox, its directors, and FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation (“Fujifilm”). The complaint in one of the actions also names as a defendant Ursula M. Burns, the former Chief Executive Officer of Xerox. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Xerox's directors breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating, approving, and purportedly making false and misleading disclosures about the Fuji Transaction, and that Fujifilm aided and abetted those breaches. The complaint in one of the actions further alleges that Xerox and the director defendants engaged in common law fraud by purportedly failing to disclose information about the joint venture agreements between Xerox and Fujifilm. The lawsuits seek injunctive relief preventing the proposed transactions, and/or additional disclosures by Xerox’s directors, unspecified damages from Xerox’s directors, costs and attorneys’ fees, as well as other relief.

Another complaint filed by Darwin Deason, a Xerox shareholder, against Xerox and its directors in the same Court on March 2, 2018 alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by refusing Mr. Deason’s request for a waiver of the deadline for nomination of a new slate of Xerox directors, and seeks to enjoin Xerox and its directors from enforcing Xerox’s advance notice by-laws, thereby allowing Mr. Deason to proceed with the nominations, as well as costs, fees, and other relief.

On April 27, 2018, the Court issued decisions and orders granting plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motions, which (i) enjoin Xerox from “taking any further action to consummate the change of control transaction between Xerox and Fuji that was announced on January 31, 2018 pending a final determination of the claims asserted in the underlying action;” (ii) enjoin Xerox from enforcing its advance notice bylaw provision requiring shareholders to nominate directors for election at the 2018 annual shareholder meeting by December 11, 2017; and (iii) require Xerox to waive such advance notice bylaw provision to permit the noticing of a slate of director nominees for election at the 2018 annual shareholder meeting, and denying defendants’ motions to dismiss.

On May 1, 2018, Xerox entered into a Director Appointment, Nomination and Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Carl Icahn and Darwin Deason, among others, that would have resolved the pending proxy contest in connection with Xerox’s 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, as well as the ongoing litigation brought by Mr. Deason against Xerox and its directors related to the proposed Fuji Transaction. The agreement expired by its terms on May 3, 2018 without becoming effective.

On May 7, 2018, defendants filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, notices of appeal of, and motions to stay pending appeal, the lower Court’s decision and order. Defendants also moved the appellate court for interim relief ordering that the appeal be heard on an expedited basis. At a hearing before the appellate court on May 7, 2018, the appellate court ruled that the appeals would be heard on an expedited basis and granted a partial interim stay allowing Xerox and Fujifilm to take steps to seek regulatory approvals related to the Fuji Transaction pending a ruling from the appellate court on defendants’ motions to stay pending appeal.

Xerox believes the lawsuits are meritless and will vigorously defend them. At this time, however, it is premature to make any conclusion regarding the probability of incurring material losses in these litigations. Should developments cause a change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or settlement, 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, including an inability to close the proposed transactions.

State of Texas v. Xerox Corporation, Xerox State Healthcare, LLC, and ACS State Healthcare, LLC: 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 Defendants”) violated the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act in the administration of ACS’s contract with the Texas Department of Health and Human Services (“HHSC”). Xerox Corporation provided a guaranty of contractual performance with respect to the ACS contract. The State alleges that the 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 actual damages, two times the amount of any overpayments made as a result of unlawful acts, civil penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest and all costs and attorneys’ fees. The State references the amount in controversy as exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars. The Defendants filed their Answer in June 2014 denying all allegations. In August 2017, the State of Texas filed a Second Amended Petition, which makes substantially similar allegations and seeks similar remedies as the original lawsuit. On October 23, 2017, Xerox Corporation filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking judgment in Xerox's favor on all claims against it. The Defendants will continue to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. This matter is a “Conduent Liability”, as defined in the Separation and Distribution Agreement dated as of December 31, 2016 between Xerox Corporation and Conduent Incorporated, for which Conduent is required to indemnify Xerox. Conduent is entitled to direct the defense of this matter.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Xerox Corporation, Ursula M. Burns, Luca Maestri, Kathryn A. Mikells, Lynn R. Blodgett, Robert K. Zapfel, David H. Bywater and Mary Scanlon: On October 21, 2016, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System (“plaintiff”) filed a purported securities class action complaint against Xerox Corporation, Ursula Burns, Luca Maestri, Kathryn Mikells, Lynn Blodgett and Robert Zapfel (collectively, “defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the plaintiff and certain purchasers or acquirers of Xerox common stock. The complaint alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, relating to the operations and prospects of Xerox’s Health Enterprise business. Plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. Other, similar lawsuits may follow. On December 28, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated order setting out a schedule for amendment of the complaint and for defendants’ response to that complaint following the Court’s appointment of lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On February 28, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order appointing the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System ("APERS") as lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2017, APERS filed an amended complaint, alleging substantially similar claims and seeking substantially similar relief, but adding David Bywater and Mary Scanlon as defendants. On June 30, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and the motions were fully briefed on October 13, 2017. On March 20, 2018, the Court entered an opinion and order granting the motions, and on March 23, 2018, the Court entered a judgment of dismissal and closed the case. On April 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Xerox will vigorously defend against this matter. At this time, it is premature to make any conclusion regarding the probability of incurring material losses in this litigation. Should developments cause a change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or settlement, 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 approximately $366 of guarantees as of March 31, 2018 in the form of letters of credit or surety bonds issued to i) support certain insurance programs; ii) support our obligations related to the Brazil tax and labor contingencies; and iii) support certain contracts, primarily with public sector customers, which 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 we defaulted in performing 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.

Indemnifications

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. Where appropriate, an obligation for such indemnifications is recorded as a liability. Since the obligated amounts of these types of indemnifications are often not explicitly stated and/or are contingent on the occurrence of future events, the overall maximum 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 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.