Note 16-Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

In the normal course of business, the Company may provide certain clients, principally governmental entities, with financial performance guarantees, which are generally backed by stand-by letters of credit or surety bonds. In general, the Company would only be liable for the amounts of these guarantees in the event that nonperformance by the Company permits termination of the related contract by the Company's client. As of December 30, 2011, the Company had $254 million of outstanding letters of credit and surety bonds relating to these performance guarantees. The Company believes it is in compliance with its performance obligations under all service contracts for which there is a financial performance guarantee, and the ultimate liability, if any, incurred in connection with these guarantees will not have a material adverse affect on its consolidated results of operations or financial position.

The Company also uses stand-by letters of credit, in lieu of cash, to support various risk management insurance policies. These letters of credit represent a contingent liability and the Company would only be liable if it defaults on its payment obligations towards these policies. As of December 30, 2011, the Company had $71 million of outstanding stand-by letters of credit. The Company also guarantees working capital lines of credit for certain of its non-U.S. business units with local financial institutions. Generally, such guarantees have a one-year term and are renewed annually.

The following table summarizes the expiration of the Company's financial guarantees and stand-by letters of credit outstanding as of December 30, 2011:

(Amounts in millions)	Fiscal 2012		Fiscal 2013		Fiscal 2014 and thereafter		Total

Performance guarantees:
Surety bonds	$	1	$	30	$	-	$	31
Letters of credit		179		30		14		223
Stand-by letters of credit		11		50		10		71
Foreign subsidiary debt guarantees		-		786		-		786
Total	$	191	$	896	$	24	$	1,111

The Company generally indemnifies licensees of its proprietary software products against claims brought by third parties alleging infringement of their intellectual property rights (including rights in patents (with or without geographic limitations), copyright, trademarks and trade secrets). CSC's indemnification of its licensees relates to costs arising from court awards, negotiated settlements and the related legal and internal costs of those licensees. The Company maintains the right, at its own costs, to modify or replace software in order to eliminate any infringement. Historically, CSC has not incurred any significant costs related to licensee software indemnification.

Contingencies

The Company has a contract with the U.K.'s National Health Service (NHS) to develop and deploy an integrated patient records system as a part of the U.K. Government's NHS IT program. The Company has been in discussions with the NHS regarding proposals to significantly reduce the scope and value of the contract. See Note 15 for the status of the negotiations and the contingencies associated with the NHS contract.

During the second quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company reached a definitive settlement agreement with the U.S. Government in connection with its contract claims asserted under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA) (see Note 17).

On May 29, 2009, a class action lawsuit entitled Shirley Morefield vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al., Case # A-09-591338-C, was brought in state court in Clark County, Nevada, against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors asserting claims for declarative and injunctive relief related to stock option backdating. The alleged factual basis for the claims is the same as that which was alleged in a prior derivative case, In re CSC Shareholder Derivative Litigation, CV 06-5288, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, which was dismissed on August 9, 2007, by such court. This dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit, which judgment is final. The defendants in the Morefield case deny the allegations in the complaint. On June 30, 2009, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Case No. 2:09-cv-1176-KJD-GWF. On motion made by the plaintiffs, the District Court remanded the case to state court on February 18, 2010. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 30, 2010, and plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 14, 2010. A hearing took place on August 18, 2010. A decision is pending. It is not possible to make reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from this matter at this time.

As previously disclosed in fiscal 2011, the Company initiated an investigation into certain accounting errors in our MSS segment, primarily involving accounting irregularities in the Nordic region. Initially, the investigation was conducted by Company personnel, but outside Company counsel and forensic accountants retained by such counsel later assisted in the Company's investigation. On January 28, 2011, the Company was notified by the SEC's Division of Enforcement that it had commenced a formal civil investigation relating to these matters, which investigation has subsequently been expanded to other matters subsequently identified by the SEC, including matters specified in subpoenas issued to the Company from time to time by the SEC's Division of Enforcement as well as matters under investigation by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, as further described below. The Company is cooperating in the SEC's investigation.

On May 2, 2011, the Audit Committee commenced an independent investigation into the matters relating to the MSS segment and the Nordic region, matters identified by subpoenas issued by the SEC's Division of Enforcement, and certain other accounting matters identified by the Audit Committee and retained independent counsel to represent CSC on behalf of, and under the exclusive direction of, the Audit Committee in connection with such independent investigation. Independent counsel has retained forensic accountants to assist their work. Independent counsel also represents CSC on behalf of and under the exclusive direction of the Audit Committee in connection with the investigation by the SEC's Division of Enforcement.

Each of the Audit Committee's and the SEC's separate investigations have been expanded to encompass the Company's operations in Australia, and in the course of that investigation, accounting errors and irregularities have been identified. As a result, certain personnel in Australia have been reprimanded, suspended and/or terminated. These investigative activities are ongoing.

Each of the Audit Committee's and the SEC's separate investigations also have been expanded to encompass a review of (i) certain aspects of the Company's accounting practices within its Americas Outsourcing operation, and (ii) certain of the Company's contracts and related disclosures that involve the percentage of completion accounting method, including the Company's contract with NHS. These investigative activities are ongoing.

In the course of the review of the Americas Outsourcing accounting practices, accounting conventions used by the Company relating to intraperiod cost allocations were identified which have been determined to be unintentional accounting errors. The errors did not have an impact on a fiscal year basis. As a result of this review, the Company assessed other operating units for similar practices which existed in certain units but there was no material impact outside of a fiscal year.

In addition, the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance has issued comment letters to the Company requesting, among other things, additional information regarding its previously disclosed adjustments in connection with the above-referenced accounting errors, the Company's conclusions relating to materiality of such adjustments, and the Company's analysis of the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures and its internal control over financial reporting. The Division of Corporation Finance's comment letter process is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to cooperate with that process.

The investigations being conducted by the Division of Enforcement and the Audit Committee as well as the review of our financial disclosures by the Division of Corporation Finance are continuing and could identify other accounting errors, irregularities and other areas of review. As a result, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant legal and accounting expenditures, and a significant amount of time of our senior management has been focused on these matters. We are unable to predict how long the Division of Enforcement's and Audit Committee's investigations will continue or whether, at the conclusion of its investigation, the SEC will seek to impose fines or take other actions against us. In addition, we are unable to predict the timing of the completion of the Division of Corporation Finance's review of our financial disclosures or the outcome of such review. Publicity surrounding the foregoing or any enforcement action as a result of the SEC's investigation, even if ultimately resolved favorably for us, could have an adverse impact on our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations.

Between June 3, 2011, and July 21, 2011, four putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, entitled City of Roseville Employee's Retirement System v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00610-TSE-IDD), Murphy v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00636-TSE-IDD), Kramer v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00751-TSE-IDD) and Goldman v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-777-TSE-IDD). On August 29, 2011, the four actions were consolidated as In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities Litigation (No. 1:11-cv-610-TSE-IDD) and Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board was appointed lead plaintiff. A consolidated class action complaint was filed by plaintiff on September 26, 2011, and names as defendants CSC, Michael W. Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso and Donald G. DeBuck. A corrected complaint was filed on October 19, 2011. The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding the business and operations of the Company. Specifically, the allegations arise from the Company's disclosure of the Company's investigation into certain accounting irregularities in the Nordic region and its disclosure regarding the status of the Company's agreement with NHS. Among other things, the plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification with the court on September 22, 2011, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 18, 2011. Both motions are fully briefed, a hearing was held on November 4, 2011, and the motions are now pending before the court. The defendants deny the allegations and intend to defend their position vigorously. It is not possible to make reasonable estimates of the amounts or range of losses that could result from this matter at this time.

On September 13, 2011, a shareholder derivative action entitled Che Wu Hung v. Michael W. Laphen, et al. (CL 20110013376) was filed in Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, against Michael W. Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso, the members of the Audit Committee and the Company as a nominal defendant asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty and contribution and indemnification relating to alleged failure by the defendants to disclose accounting and financial irregularities in the MSS segment, primarily in the Nordic region, and the Company's performance under the NHS agreement and alleged failure to maintain effective internal controls. The plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief and attorneys fees and costs. On October 24, 2011, the defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On November 23, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court. Argument was held on December 15, 2011. During argument the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his complaint without prejudice to refiling the action in state court. The Court granted the plaintiff's request, dismissed the complaint without prejudice and denied the motion to remand as moot. On December 22, 2011, the plaintiff refiled his complaint in Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, in a shareholder derivative action entitled Che Wu Hung v. Michael W. Laphen, et al. (CL 2011 18046). Named as defendants are Michael W. Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso, the members of the Audit Committee and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty relating to alleged failure by the defendants to disclose accounting and financial irregularities in the MSS segment, primarily in the Nordic region, and the Company's performance under the NHS agreement and alleged failure to maintain effective internal controls and (ii) corporate waste. The plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief and attorneys fees and costs.

In addition to the matters noted above, the Company is currently party to a number of disputes which involve or may involve litigation. The Company consults with legal counsel on those issues related to litigation and seeks input from other experts and advisors with respect to such matters in the ordinary course of business. Whether any losses, damages or remedies ultimately resulting from such matters could reasonably have a material effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operation, or cash flows will depend on a number of variables, including, for example, the timing and amount of such losses or damages (if any) and the structure and type of any such remedies. For these reasons, it is not possible to make reasonable estimates of the amount or range of loss that could result from these other matters at this time. Company management does not, however, presently expect any of such other matters to have a material impact on the Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements of the Company.