Contingencies and Litigation

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2021

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 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:

	September 30, 2021		December 31, 2020
Tax contingency - unreserved	$	349	$	355
Escrow cash deposits	33		39
Surety bonds	103		112
Letters of credit	75		78
Liens on Brazilian assets	—		—

The decrease in the unreserved portion of the tax contingency, inclusive of any related interest, was due to closed cases and currency, partially offset by new cases 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 September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020. 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, then-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 ("Ribbe I"). 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 then-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 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. 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 April 7, 2021, plaintiff filed in the previously dismissed Ribbe I and XCCSL actions a motion seeking an award of attorneys’ fees of $1.5 and a service award of $10 thousand for benefits he allegedly obtained for Xerox and its stockholders. On June 4, 2021, the Court granted plaintiff’s fee application, in part, and awarded plaintiff attorneys’ fees in the amount of $125 thousand in the dismissed actions, which Xerox paid in July 2021. The Court denied plaintiff’s request for a service award.

Plaintiff had six months from January 13, 2021 in which to perfect his appeal of the Court’s December 14, 2020 dismissal order. Upon his application to the Appellate Division, plaintiff’s time to perfect the appeal was extended. On September 9, 2021, plaintiff filed a letter with the Appellate Division withdrawing and discontinuing his appeal of the dismissal order. As a result, the case is now concluded.

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 then-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. 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. On July 15, 2021, plaintiff filed its brief in connection with the appeals of the December 14, 2020 dismissal order and the January 15, 2021 discovery order. Briefing on plaintiff's appeal is complete and oral argument took place on October 26, 2021.

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.

Other Litigation

1.Xerox Holdings Corporation v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company and Related Actions:

On March 10, 2021, Xerox Holdings Corporation (“Xerox Holdings”) filed a complaint for breach of contract and declaratory judgment against Factory Mutual Insurance Company in Rhode Island Superior Court, Providence County seeking insurance coverage for business interruption losses resulting from the coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic. The complaint alleges that defendant agreed to provide Xerox Holdings with up to $1 billion in per-occurrence coverage for losses resulting from pandemic-related loss or damage to certain real and other property, including business interruption loss resulting from insured property damage; that the pandemic had inflicted significant physical loss or damage to property of Xerox Holdings and its direct and indirect customers; that Xerox Holdings’ worldwide actual and projected losses through the end of 2020 totaled in excess of $300 (and is still increasing); and that following Xerox Holdings' timely and proper claim in March 2020 for coverage under the “all risk” commercial property insurance policy it had purchased from defendant, defendant improperly denied and rejected coverage for most of the claim. The complaint seeks a jury trial, a declaratory judgment against defendant declaring that Xerox is entitled to full coverage of costs and losses under defendant’s policy and declaring that defendant is required to pay for such costs and losses, subject to any applicable limits; damages in an amount to be determined at trial; consequential damages; attorneys’ fees and costs; pre- and post-judgment interest; and other relief the Court deems just and proper. Also on March 10, 2021, subsidiaries of Xerox Holdings filed similar complaints and related requests for arbitration in Toronto, London, and Amsterdam for Canadian, UK and European losses.

Xerox Holdings consented to defendant’s request for an extension of its time in which to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. On May 6, 2021, FMG filed its answer to the complaint. The parties thereafter agreed to stay all non-U.S. proceedings pending the outcome of the U.S. litigation.

Guarantees

We have issued or provided approximately $295 of guarantees as of September 30, 2021 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.