Commitment and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Contingencies and Litigation

Contingencies and Litigation

As more fully discussed below, the Company is involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings concerning a variety of matters, including: governmental entity contracting, servicing and procurement law; intellectual property law; employment law; commercial and contracts law; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and other laws and regulations. The Company determines whether an estimated loss from a contingency should be accrued by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company assesses its potential liability by analyzing its litigation and regulatory matters using available information. The Company develops its view on estimated losses in consultation with outside counsel handling its 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 the Company's 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 in excess of any accrual for such matter or matters, this could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period or periods in which such change in determination, judgment or settlement occurs. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any such matters as of June 30, 2022. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters and such outcome in any such matters could be more than any amounts accrued and could be material to the Company's results of operations, cash flows or financial position in any reporting period.

Additionally, guarantees, indemnifications and claims arise during the ordinary course of business from relationships with suppliers, customers and non-consolidated affiliates 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 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 June 30, 2022, the Company had accrued its estimate of liability incurred under its indemnification arrangements and guarantees.

Litigation Against the Company

Employees’ Retirement System of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority et al v. Conduent Inc. et al.: On March 8, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of certain federal securities laws in connection with our statements and alleged omissions regarding our financial guidance and business and operations was filed against us, our former Chief Executive Officer, and our former Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities from February 21, 2018 through November 6, 2018, and also seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. We moved to dismiss the class action complaint in its entirety. In June 2020, the court denied the motion to dismiss and allowed the claims to proceed. The Court granted Class Certification on February 28, 2022. Upon the substantial completion of document discovery, the parties agreed to engage in mediation, and the Court administratively terminated the litigation to permit those efforts to proceed. We intend to continue to defend the litigation vigorously. The Company maintains insurance that may cover any costs arising out of this litigation up to the insurance limits, and subject to meeting certain deductibles and to other terms and conditions thereof. The Company is not yet able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or reasonably provide an estimate or range of estimate of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in excess of currently recorded reserves.

Skyview Capital LLC and Continuum Global Solutions, LLC v. Conduent Business Services, LLC: On February 3, 2020, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New York County, New York. The lawsuit relates to the sale of a portion of Conduent Business Service, LLC's (CBS) select standalone customer care call center business to plaintiffs, which sale closed in February 2019. Under the terms of the sale agreement, CBS received approximately $23 million of notes from plaintiffs (Notes). The lawsuit alleges various causes of action in connection with the acquisition, including: indemnification for breach of representation and warranty; indemnification for breach of contract and fraud. Plaintiffs allege that their obligation to mitigate damages and their contractual right of set-off permits them to withhold and deduct from any amounts that are owed to CBS under the Notes, and plaintiffs seek a judgement that they have no obligation to pay the Notes. On August 20, 2020, Conduent filed a counterclaim against Skyview LLC (Skyview) seeking the outstanding balance on the Notes, the amounts owed for the Jamaica deferred closing, and other transition services agreement and late rent payment obligations. Conduent also moved to dismiss Skyview’s claims in 2020. In May 2021, the court denied the motion and allowed the claims to proceed. Conduent denies all of the plaintiffs' allegations, believes that it has strong defenses to all of plaintiffs’ claims and it intends to defend the litigation vigorously. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or reasonably provide an estimate or range of estimate of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in excess of currently recorded reserves.

Dennis Nasrawi v. Buck Consultants et al.: On October 8, 2009, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County, and on November 24, 2009, the case was removed to the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. Plaintiffs alleged actuarial negligence against Buck Consultants, LLC (Buck), which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Conduent, for the use of faulty actuarial assumptions in connection with the 2007 actuarial valuation for the Stanislaus County Employees Retirement Association (StanCERA). Plaintiffs alleged that the employer contribution rate adopted by StanCERA based on Buck’s valuation was insufficient to fund the benefits promised by the County. On July 13, 2012, the Court entered its ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of all plan participants. The Court also ruled that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded their claim that Buck allegedly aided and abetted StanCERA in breaching its fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs then filed their Fifth Amended Complaint and added StanCERA to the litigation. Buck and StanCERA filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On September 13, 2012, the Court sustained both demurrers with prejudice, completely dismissing the matter and barring plaintiffs from refiling their claims. Plaintiffs appealed, and ultimately the California Court of Appeals (Sixth District) reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case back to the trial court as to Buck only, and only with respect to plaintiff's claim of aiding and abetting StanCERA in breaching its fiduciary duty. This case was stayed pending the outcome of parallel litigation the plaintiffs were pursuing against StanCERA. The parallel litigation was tried before the bench in June 2018, and on January 24, 2019, the Court found in favor of StanCERA, holding that it had not breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs. In August 2018, the Company sold Buck; however, the Company retained this liability after the sale. On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs in the parallel litigation filed an appeal. On December 8, 2021, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, and the judgment became final on January 7, 2022. On January 18, 2022, Plaintiffs in the parallel litigation filed a petition for review to the California Supreme Court. On March 16, 2022, the California Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs’ petition, thereby foreclosing further avenues for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Dismissal, which the Court entered on March 22, 2022. As a result, during the first quarter of 2022, the Company reversed the reserve pertaining to this matter.

Conduent Business Services, LLC v. Cognizant Business Services Corporation: On April 12, 2017, CBS filed a lawsuit against Cognizant Business Services Corporation (Cognizant) in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York. The lawsuit relates to the Amended and Restated Master Outsourcing Services Agreement effective as of October 24, 2012, and the service delivery contracts and work orders thereunder, between CBS and Cognizant, as amended and supplemented (Contract). The Contract contains certain minimum purchase obligations by CBS through the date of expiration. The lawsuit alleges that Cognizant committed multiple breaches of the Contract, including Cognizant’s failure to properly perform its obligations as subcontractor to CBS under CBS’s contract with the New York Department of Health to provide Medicaid Management Information Systems. In the lawsuit, CBS seeks damages in excess of $150 million. During the first quarter of 2018, CBS provided notice to Cognizant that it was terminating the Contract for cause and recorded in the same period certain charges associated with the termination. CBS also alleges that it terminated the Contract for cause, because, among other things, Cognizant violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In its answer, Cognizant asserted two counterclaims for breach of contract seeking recovery of damages in excess of $47 million, which includes amounts alleged not paid to Cognizant under the Contract and an alleged $25 million termination fee. Cognizant's second amended counterclaim increased Cognizant's damages to $89 million. The matter has been proceeding through fact and expert discovery. CBS will continue to vigorously defend itself against the counterclaims but the Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or reasonably provide an estimate or range of estimate of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in excess of currently recorded reserves.

Other Matters

During the first quarter of 2022, the Company entered into settlement agreements with six of its insurers under its 2012–2013 errors and omission insurance policy in which the Company agreed to resolve its claims for insurance coverage in connection with the previously disclosed State of Texas matter that settled in February 2019, as included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020. As a result of the settlement agreements entered with the insurers, the Company received an aggregate sum of $38 million, of which $14 million was recognized as defense costs recovery in Selling, general and administrative and $24 million was recognized in Litigation settlements (recoveries), net.

Since 2014, Xerox Education Services, Inc. (XES) has cooperated with several federal and state agencies regarding a variety of matters, including XES' self-disclosure to the U.S. Department of Education (Department) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that some third-party student loans under outsourcing arrangements for various financial institutions required adjustments. With the exception of one remaining state attorney general inquiry, the Company has resolved all investigations by the CFPB, several state agencies, the Department and the U.S. Department of Justice. The Company cannot provide assurance that the CFPB, another regulator, a financial institution on behalf of which XES serviced third-party student loans, or another party will not ultimately commence a legal action against XES in which fines, penalties or other liabilities are sought from XES. Nor is the Company able to predict the likely outcome of these matters, should any such matter be commenced, or reasonably provide an estimate or range of estimates of any loss in excess of currently recorded reserves. The Company could, in future periods, incur judgments or enter into settlements to resolve these potential matters for amounts in excess of current reserves and there could be a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period in which such change in judgment or settlement occurs.

Other Contingencies

Certain contracts, primarily in the Company's Government Services and Transportation segments, require the Company to provide a surety bond or a letter of credit as a guarantee of performance. As of June 30, 2022, the Company had $547 million of outstanding surety bonds issued to secure its performance of contractual obligations with its clients and $101 million of outstanding letters of credit issued to secure the Company's performance of contractual obligations to its clients as well as other corporate obligations. In general, the Company would only be liable for these guarantees in the event of default in the Company's performance of its obligations under each contract. The Company believes it has sufficient capacity in the surety markets and liquidity from its cash flow and its various credit arrangements to allow it to respond to future requests for proposals that require such credit support.