Contingencies and Litigation

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

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 Contingencies

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:


	March 31, 2020		December 31, 2019
Tax contingency - unreserved	$	349	$	442
Escrow cash deposits	40		51
Surety bonds	103		135
Letters of credit	72		91
Liens on Brazilian assets	—		—

The decrease in the unreserved portion of the tax contingency, inclusive of any related interest, was primarily related to currency. 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 March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019. 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:

1.Ribbe v. Jacobson, et al.:

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 included 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 included 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.

On January 6, 2020, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”). The FAC includes many of plaintiff’s original allegations regarding the 2018 shareholder litigation and settlements, as well as additional allegations, including, among others, that the members of the Special Committee of the Board that investigated plaintiff’s demand lacked independence and wrongfully refused to pursue the claims in the demand; allegations that an agreement announced in November 2019 for, among other things, the sale by Xerox of its interest in Fuji Xerox to Fujifilm and dismissal of Fujifilm’s breach of contract lawsuit against Xerox (the “FX Sale Transaction”), was unfavorable to Xerox; and allegations about a potential acquisition by Xerox of HP similar to those in the Miami Firefighters derivative action described below. In addition to the claims in the April 11, 2019 complaint, the FAC adds as defendants Carl C. Icahn, Icahn Capital LP, and High River Limited Partnership (the “Icahn defendants”) and asserts claims against those defendants and the Board similar to those in Miami Firefighters relating to the Icahn defendants’ purchases of HP stock allegedly with knowledge of material nonpublic information concerning Xerox’s potential acquisition of HP. In addition to the relief sought in Ribbe’s prior complaint, the FAC seeks relief similar to that sought in Miami Firefighters relating to the Icahn defendants’ alleged purchases of HP stock.

On January 21, 2020, plaintiff in the Miami Firefighters action filed a motion seeking to intervene in Ribbe and to have stayed, or alternatively, severed and consolidated with the Miami Firefighters action, any claims first filed in Miami Firefighters and later asserted by Ribbe. At a conference held on February 25, 2020, the Court denied the motion to intervene without prejudice. On March 6, 2020, plaintiff in the Miami Firefighters action renewed its motion. Briefing has not yet concluded.

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.

2.Miami Firefighters’ Relief & Pension Fund v. Icahn, et al.:

On December 13, 2019, alleged shareholder Miami Firefighters’ Relief & Pension Fund (“Miami Firefighters”) filed a purported derivative complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York County on behalf of Xerox Holdings Corporation ("Xerox Holdings") (as nominal defendant) against Carl Icahn and his affiliated entities High River Limited Partnership and Icahn Capital LP (the "Icahn defendants"), Xerox Holdings, and all current Xerox Holdings directors (the "Directors"). Plaintiff made no demand on the Board before bringing the action, but instead alleges that doing so would be futile because the Directors lack independence due to alleged direct or indirect relationships with Icahn. Among other things, the complaint alleges that Icahn controls and dominates Xerox Holdings and therefore owes a fiduciary duty of loyalty to Xerox Holdings, which he breached by acquiring HP stock at a time when he knew that Xerox Holdings was considering an offer to acquire HP or had knowledge of the "obvious merits" of such potential acquisition, and that the Icahn defendants’ holdings of HP common stock have risen in market

value by approximately $128 since disclosure of the offer. The complaint includes four causes of action: breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty against the Icahn defendants; breach of contract against the Icahn defendants (for purchasing HP stock in violation of Icahn’s confidentiality agreement with Xerox Holdings); unjust enrichment against the Icahn defendants; and breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty against the Directors (for any consent to the Icahn defendants’ purchases of HP common stock while Xerox Holdings was considering acquiring HP). The complaint seeks a judgment of breach of fiduciary duties against the Icahn defendants and the Directors; a declaration that Icahn breached his confidentiality agreement with Xerox Holdings; a constructive trust on Icahn Capital and High River's investments in HP securities; disgorgement to Xerox Holdings of profits Icahn Capital and High River earned from trading in HP stock; payment of unspecified damages by the Directors for breaching fiduciary duties; and attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief the Court deems just and proper. On January 15, 2020, the Court entered an order granting plaintiff’s unopposed motion to consolidate with Miami Firefighters a similar action filed on December 26, 2019 by alleged shareholder Steven J. Reynolds against the same parties in the same court, and designating Miami Firefighters’ counsel as lead counsel in the consolidated action. On January 21, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion seeking to intervene in Ribbe v. Jacobson, et al., described above, and to have stayed, or alternatively, severed and consolidated with this action, any claims first filed in this action and later asserted by Ribbe. At a conference held on February 25, 2020, the Court denied the motion to intervene without prejudice. On March 6, 2020, plaintiff in the Miami Firefighters action renewed its motion. Briefing has not yet concluded.

Xerox Holdings 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.

Guarantees

We have issued or provided approximately $294 of guarantees as of March 31, 2020 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.