Contingencies and Litigation

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2022

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:


	June 30, 2022		December 31, 2021
Tax contingency - unreserved	$	343	$	292
Escrow cash deposits	36		32
Surety bonds	62		96
Letters of credit	81		74
Liens on Brazilian assets	—		—

The increase in the unreserved portion of the tax contingency, inclusive of any related interest, was primarily due to 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, 2022 and December 31, 2021. 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

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. The Court subsequently granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to consolidate 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.

Defendants moved to dismiss in August 2020, and the Court granted defendants’ motions and dismissed the action in its entirety, on December 14, 2020. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case to the Appellate Division, First Department. On November 18, 2021, the Appellate Division issued its decision and reversed the lower court’s ruling to the extent that it dismissed the claims asserted against the Icahn defendants. The claims asserted against the Directors remain dismissed.

On December 8, 2021, the Xerox Board approved the formation of a Special Litigation Committee to investigate and evaluate the claims and allegations asserted in the Miami Firefighters’ case and determine the course of action that would be in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. The Court subsequently stayed all discovery until February 28, 2022, except as related to the issue of the alleged damages sustained by Xerox. On March 18, 2022, following the conclusion of its investigation, the Special Litigation Committee filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds that the derivative claims are without merit and pursuing the claims would not be in the best interest of Xerox or its shareholders. One week later the Icahn Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims against them. On April 4, 2022, Miami Firefighters filed papers in opposition to the pending motions and cross-moved to, among other things, seek discovery regarding the Special Litigation Committee’s investigation. Miami Firefighters also cross-moved seeking an order granting partial summary judgment against the Icahn Defendants for disgorgement of alleged unrealized profits in the amount of $18.12. Oral argument on all pending motions took place on July 5, 2022. After hearing from all parties on the various motions, the Court denied without prejudice the Special Litigation Committee's motion to dismiss, the Icahn defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The Court also granted the plaintiffs limited discovery to be completed within 60 days.

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 $258 of guarantees as of June 30, 2022 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.