Contingencies and Litigation

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

As more fully discussed below, 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.

Additionally, guarantees, indemnifications and claims arise during the ordinary course of business from relationships with suppliers, customers and nonconsolidated affiliates, as well as through divestitures and sales of businesses, when the Company undertakes an obligation to guarantee the performance of others if specified triggering events occur. Nonperformance under a contract could trigger an obligation of the Company. These potential claims include actions based upon alleged exposures to products, real estate, intellectual property such as patents, environmental matters, and other indemnifications. The ultimate effect on future financial results is not subject to reasonable estimation because considerable uncertainty exists as to the final outcome of these claims. However, while the ultimate liabilities resulting from such claims may be significant to results of operations in the period recognized, management does not anticipate they will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or liquidity. As of December 31, 2020, we have accrued our estimate of liability incurred under our indemnification arrangements and guarantees.

Brazil Contingencies

Our Brazilian operations have received or been the subject of numerous governmental assessments related to indirect and other taxes. These 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:


	December 31, 2020		December 31, 2019
Tax contingency - unreserved	$	355	$	442
Escrow cash deposits	39		51
Surety bonds	112		135
Letters of credit	78		91
Liens on Brazilian assets	—		—

The decrease in the unreserved portion of the tax contingency, inclusive of any related interest, was primarily related to closed cases. 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 December 31, 2020. 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.

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 Joseph J. Echevarria, Cheryl Gordon Krongard, 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, Stephen H. Rusckowski, Gregory Q. Brown, and Sara Martinez Tucker. 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 then members of the Xerox Board who approved Xerox’s entry into agreements to settle shareholder actions filed in 2018 in the same court against Xerox, its then directors, and FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation (“Fujifilm”) in connection with a proposed transaction announced in January 2018 to combine Xerox and Fuji Xerox (the “Fuji Transaction”), including a consolidated putative class action, In re Xerox Corporation Consolidated Shareholder Litigation (“XCCSL”), and actions filed by Darwin Deason, Deason v. Fujifilm Holdings Corp., et al. and Deason v. Xerox Corporation, et al., against the same defendants as well as, in the first Deason action, former Xerox Chief Executive Officer Ursula M. Burns (the "Fuji Transaction Shareholder Lawsuits"). Plaintiff alleged 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 alleged 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 alleged perpetuated control of Xerox by Mr. Icahn and Mr. Deason and denied the voting franchise of Xerox shareholders. Among other things, plaintiff sought 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 included 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 added as defendants Carl C. Icahn, Icahn Capital LP, and High River Limited Partnership (the “Icahn defendants”) and asserted 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 sought 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. On July 23, 2020, after hearing oral argument, the Court issued an order denying the motion and setting certain case deadlines.

Discovery commenced. On August 7, 2020, Xerox, the director defendants, and the Icahn defendants filed separate motions to dismiss. On October 1, 2020, plaintiff filed a cross-motion seeking, among other relief, joinder of Xerox Holdings Corporation as a nominal defendant. Briefing on the motions to dismiss and plaintiff’s cross-motion was completed on October 16, 2020. On December 14, 2020, following oral argument, the Court issued a decision and order denying plaintiff’s cross-motion and granting defendants’ motions, dismissing the action in its entirety as to all defendants. Dismissal as to the Icahn defendants was conditioned on the filing of an affidavit, which the Icahn defendants filed on December 16, 2020, indicating whether defendant Icahn gained a profit or incurred a loss on purchases of HP stock during the relevant time period.

On January 13, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the December 14, 2020 dismissal order to the Appellate Division, First Department.

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 alleged 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 alleged that Icahn controlled and dominated Xerox Holdings and therefore owed 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 had risen in market value by approximately $128 since disclosure of the offer. The complaint included 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 sought 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. On July 23, 2020, after hearing oral argument, the Court issued an order denying the motion and setting certain case deadlines.

Discovery commenced. On August 10, 2020, the Xerox defendants and the Icahn defendants filed separate motions to dismiss. Briefing on the motions was completed on October 21, 2020. On December 14, 2020, following oral argument, the Court issued a decision and order granting defendants’ motions and dismissing the action in its entirety as to all defendants. Dismissal as to the Icahn defendants was conditioned on the filing of an affidavit, which the Icahn defendants filed on December 16, 2020, indicating whether defendant Icahn gained a profit or incurred a loss on purchases of HP stock during the relevant time period.

On December 23, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion seeking discovery related to the Icahn defendants’ losses resulting from their investment in HP. The motion was fully briefed on January 7, 2021. On January 15, 2021, the Court issued a decision and order denying the motion.

Also on January 15, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the December 14, 2020 dismissal order to the Appellate Division, First Department. On January 20, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the January 15, 2021 order denying its motion for discovery to the Appellate Division, First Department.

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, Indemnifications and Warranty Liabilities

Indemnifications Provided as Part of Contracts and Agreements

Acquisitions/Divestitures:

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. In addition, we customarily agree to hold the other party harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations and covenants, including such matters as adequate title to assets sold, intellectual property rights, specified environmental matters and certain income taxes arising prior to the date of acquisition. Where appropriate, an obligation for such indemnifications is recorded as a liability at the time of the acquisition or divestiture. 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.

Other Agreements:

We are also party to the following types of agreements pursuant to which we may be obligated to indemnify the other party with respect to certain matters:

•Guarantees on behalf of our subsidiaries with respect to real estate leases. These lease guarantees may remain in effect subsequent to the sale of the subsidiary.

•Agreements to indemnify various service providers, trustees and bank agents from any third-party claims related to their performance on our behalf, with the exception of claims that result from a third-party's own willful misconduct or gross negligence.

•Guarantees of our performance in certain sales and services contracts to our customers and indirectly the performance of third parties with whom we have subcontracted for their services. This includes indemnifications to customers for losses that may be sustained as a result of the use of our equipment at a customer's location.

In each of these circumstances, our payment is conditioned on the other party making a claim pursuant to the procedures specified in the particular contract and such procedures also typically allow us to challenge the other party's claims. In the case of lease guarantees, we may contest the liabilities asserted under the lease. Further, our obligations under these agreements and guarantees may be limited in terms of time and/or amount, and in some instances, we may have recourse against third parties for certain payments we made.

Patent Indemnifications

In most sales transactions to resellers of our products, we indemnify against possible claims of patent infringement caused by our products or solutions. In addition, we indemnify certain software providers against claims that may arise as a result of our use or our subsidiaries', customers' or resellers' use of their software in our products and solutions. These indemnities usually do not include limits on the claims, provided the claim is made pursuant to the procedures required in the sales contract.

Indemnification of Officers and Directors

The corporate by-laws of Xerox Holdings Corporation and Xerox Corporation require that, except to the extent expressly prohibited by law, we must indemnify Xerox Holdings Corporation's and Xerox Corporation's officers and directors, respectively, against judgments, fines, penalties and amounts paid in settlement, including legal fees and

all appeals, incurred in connection with civil or criminal action or proceedings, as it relates to their services to Xerox Holdings Corporation and/or Xerox Corporation and their subsidiaries. Although the by-laws provide no limit on the amount of indemnification, Xerox Holdings Corporation or Xerox Corporation may have recourse against our insurance carriers for certain payments made by Xerox Holdings Corporation or Xerox Corporation. However, certain indemnification payments (such as those related to "clawback" provisions in certain compensation arrangements) may not be covered under Xerox Holdings Corporation's and Xerox Corporation's directors' and officers' insurance coverage. Xerox Holdings Corporation and Xerox Corporation also indemnify certain fiduciaries of our employee benefit plans for liabilities incurred in their service as fiduciary whether or not they are officers of Xerox Holdings Corporation or Xerox Corporation. Finally, in connection with Xerox Holdings Corporation's and/or Xerox Corporation's acquisition of businesses, we may become contractually obligated to indemnify certain former and current directors, officers and employees of those businesses in accordance with pre-acquisition by-laws and/or indemnification agreements and/or applicable state law.

Product Warranty Liabilities

In connection with our normal sales of equipment, including those under sales-type leases, we generally do not issue product warranties. Our arrangements typically involve a separate full service maintenance agreement with the customer. The agreements generally extend over a period equivalent to the lease term or the expected useful life of the equipment under a cash sale. The service agreements involve the payment of fees in return for our performance of repairs and maintenance. As a consequence, we do not have any significant product warranty obligations, including any obligations under customer satisfaction programs. In a few circumstances, particularly in certain cash sales, we may issue a limited product warranty if negotiated by the customer. We also issue warranties for certain of our entry level products, where full service maintenance agreements are not available. In these instances, we record warranty obligations at the time of the sale. Aggregate product warranty liability expenses for the three years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018 were $8, $12 and $14, respectively. Total product warranty liabilities as of December 31, 2020 and 2019 were $6 and $7, respectively.

Guarantees

We have issued or provided approximately $303 of guarantees as of December 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 tax and labor contingencies (see 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.