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.

Our Brazilian operations have received or been the subject of numerous governmental assessments related to indirect and other taxes. The tax matters 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. Below is a summary of our Brazilian tax contingencies:

The decrease in the unreserved portion of the tax contingency, inclusive of any related interest, was primarily related to closed cases, partially offset by currency and interest. With respect to the unreserved tax contingency, 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 well as, additional surety bonds and letters of credit, which include associated indexation. Generally, any escrowed amounts would be refundable and any liens on assets would be removed to the extent the matters are resolved in our favor. We are also involved in certain disputes with contract and former employees. Exposures related to labor matters are not material to the financial statements as of June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018. 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.

In February 2018, five complaints (the "Fuji Transaction Shareholder Lawsuits"), 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 of New York (the "Court") in connection with the proposed transaction to combine Xerox and Fuji Xerox (the “Fuji Transaction”). 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 Fuji Transaction Shareholder Lawsuits seek injunctive relief preventing

One of the Fuji Transaction Shareholder Lawsuits was brought by Darwin Deason, a Xerox shareholder ("Deason I"). Another complaint was filed by Mr. Deason against Xerox and its directors in the same Court on March 2, 2018 ("Deason II") alleging 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. In Deason II, Mr. Deason sought 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) enjoined 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) enjoined 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) required 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 “Initial Settlement Agreement”) with Mr. Deason and Carl C. Icahn and certain of his affiliates who were also Xerox shareholders (the "Icahn Group"), among others, that would have resolved Deason I, Deason II and the pending proxy contest in connection with Xerox’s 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The Initial Settlement 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.

On May 13, 2018, a second Director Appointment, Nomination and Settlement Agreement (the "Final Settlement Agreement") with respect to Deason I, Deason II and the pending proxy contest in connection with Xerox's 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders that was initiated by the Icahn Group was signed on behalf of Mr. Deason, the Icahn Group and all defendants except Fujifilm, and a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of the putative class case was signed by all defendants except Fujifilm. Pursuant to the settlements, the settling defendants withdrew their appeal and motion to stay in Deason I and Deason II. The settling defendants also withdrew their motion to stay in the putative class case. The Court entered a stipulation of discontinuance as to the settling parties in Deason II on May 14, 2018, and agreed on June 22, 2018 to do the same in Deason I.

On September 21, 2018, putative class plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of a settlement class and a motion to transmit notice of the proposed settlement to the proposed class. On October 17, 2018, derivative plaintiff Carmen Ribbe and Fujifilm filed oppositions to the putative class plaintiffs’ motion to transmit notice to the proposed class. The class has not yet been certified, and preliminary approval has not been granted.

The Appellate Division heard oral argument on September 25, 2018 on Fujifilm’s appeal of the Court’s decision. On October 16, 2018, the Appellate Division entered a decision and order reversing the Court’s rulings, ordering that the claims brought against Fujifilm in the cases by Mr. Deason and the purported class be dismissed, and further ordering that the preliminary injunction of the proposed Fuji Transaction be dissolved (the “Appellate Decision and Order”).

On January 8, 2019, the Court entered an order staying all further proceedings in Deason I and the putative class case until thirty days after exhaustion of appeals, including any appeals to the New York State Court of Appeals, of the Appellate Decision and Order. On January 9, 2019, the Court entered an order denying the putative class plaintiffs’ motion to transmit notice to the proposed class, without prejudice to renewal of their motion at a later time.

On October 31, 2018 and January 3, 2019, respectively, Xerox and the Xerox director defendants in the putative class case filed with the Appellate Division a request and motion seeking an extension, until after any decision regarding approval of settlement of the putative class action, of the deadline by which to perfect their appeal of the Court’s April 27, 2018 decision and order. On May 16, 2019, the Appellate Division entered an order granting the motion and extended the deadline until the October 2019 Term.

On May 3, 2019, putative class plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for approval of the form of a notice to putative class members. On May 6, 2019, putative class plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification and notice of motion to approve class settlement and proposed final approval order. On May 24, 2019, the Court entered an order approving the form notice and proposed manner of its dissemination.

Xerox will vigorously defend these lawsuits to the extent that the proceedings continue as to Xerox. At this time, however, it is premature to make any conclusion regarding the probability of incurring material losses in these lawsuits. 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.

On April 11, 2019, Carmen Ribbe filed a putative derivative and class action stockholder complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County, naming as defendants Xerox, current Board members Gregory Q. Brown, Joseph J. Echevarria, Cheryl Gordon Krongard, Sara Martinez Tucker, Keith Cozza, Giovanni G. Visentin, Jonathan Christodoro, Nicholas Graziano, and A. Scott Letier, and former Board members Jeffrey Jacobson, William Curt Hunter, Robert J. Keegan, Charles Prince, Ann N. Reese, and Stephen H. Rusckowski. Plaintiff previously filed a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit on May 24, 2018 against certain of these defendants, as well as others, in the same court; that lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice on December 6, 2018. The new complaint includes putative derivative claims on behalf of Xerox for breach of fiduciary duty against the members of the Xerox Board who

approved Xerox’s entry into agreements to settle the Deason and In re Xerox Corporation Consolidated Shareholder Litigation (“XCCSL”) actions (described above). Plaintiff alleges that the settlements ceded control of the Board and the Company to Darwin Deason and Carl C. Icahn without a vote by, or compensation to, other Xerox stockholders; improperly provided certain benefits and releases to the resigning and continuing directors; and subjected Xerox to potential breach of contract damages in an action by Fuji relating to Xerox’s termination of the proposed Fuji Transaction. Plaintiff also alleges that the current Board members breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly rejecting plaintiff’s January 14, 2019 shareholder demand on the Board to remedy harms arising from entry into the Deason and XCCSL settlements. The new complaint further includes direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of current Xerox stockholders other than Mr. Deason, Mr. Icahn, and their affiliated entities (the “Ribbe Class”) against the defendants for causing Xerox to enter into the Deason and XCCSL settlements, which plaintiff alleges perpetuated control of Xerox by Mr. Icahn and Mr. Deason and denied the voting franchise of Xerox shareholders. Among other things, plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount for the alleged fiduciary breaches in favor of Xerox against defendants jointly and severally; rescission or reformation of the Deason and XCCSL settlements; restitution of funds paid to the resigning directors under the Deason settlement; an injunction against defendants’ engaging in the alleged wrongful practices and equitable relief affording the putative Ribbe Class the ability to determine the composition of the Board; costs and attorneys’ fees; and other further relief as the Court may deem proper.

Defendants accepted service of the complaint as of May 16, 2019. On June 4, 2019, the Court entered an order setting a briefing schedule for defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. On July 12, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to preclude defendants from referencing in their motions to dismiss the formation of, or work by, the committee of the Board established to investigate plaintiff’s shareholder demand. On July 18, 2019, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion and adjourned sine die the deadline by which defendants must file any motions to dismiss the complaint. 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.

On June 18, 2018, Fujifilm filed a complaint against Xerox in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, relating to the Fuji Transaction agreements. The complaint alleges that Xerox: (1) willfully breached the Fuji Transaction agreements by purporting to terminate them to appease Messrs. Icahn and Deason and using as a pretext issues with Fujifilm’s untimely submitted financials, and by settling Deason I and Deason II without notice to or consent by Fujifilm; (2) willfully breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to support and use best efforts to conclude the Fuji Transaction, thus depriving Fujifilm of the benefit of its bargain; and (3) effected a change in Xerox’s recommendation regarding the Fuji Transaction, entitling Fujifilm to terminate the Fuji Transaction agreements and to receive from Xerox a $183 termination fee. Fujifilm seeks a judgment for damages to be determined at trial in an amount in excess of $1.0 billion plus punitive damages; a declaration regarding the alleged change in recommendation such that Fujifilm may terminate the transaction and Xerox must pay the $183 termination fee and other remedies; costs and attorneys’ fees; and other relief the court may deem appropriate.

Xerox believes the lawsuit is meritless and will vigorously defend it. At this time, however, 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.

the administration of ACS State Healthcare’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 State Healthcare contract. The State alleged 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 sought recovery of actual damages, two times the amount of any overpayments made as a result of alleged unlawful acts, civil penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest and all costs and attorneys’ fees. The State referenced 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 made substantially similar allegations and sought 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. On July 2, 2018, the Court denied the State of Texas’ motion for a determination of the adequacy of its pleadings as to Xerox or in the alternative, seeking leave to amend its petition to bring additional claims against Xerox.

On February 15, 2019, The State filed, without opposition, its Third Amended Petition against 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 (collectively, the “Conduent Entities”) and Xerox Corporation to add claims for breach of contract and negligence. On February 18, 2019, Xerox and the Conduent Entities entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release (“Agreement”) with the State and the HHSC to settle all claims arising from alleged failures by the defendants or Texas Medicaid & Healthcare Partnership to comply with obligations under two contracts between Conduent State Healthcare, LLC and the HHSC entered into in 2003 and 2010. Xerox is not required to make any payment under the Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the Conduent Entities will pay the State $235.9 payable in installments through no later than July 31, 2021. Also pursuant to the Agreement, all proceedings in the lawsuit are suspended, as confirmed by an order issued by the Court on February 19, 2019, and the State and the HHSC will dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and release all of the defendants from all of the State’s claims after the settlement amount has been paid in full. No defendant made any admission of liability or wrongdoing in entering into the Agreement.

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, and the appeal was fully briefed as of November 28, 2018. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on May 31, 2019. On June 6, 2019, the Second Circuit entered a summary order affirming the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint.

We have issued or provided approximately $314 of guarantees as of June 30, 2019 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 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.

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.