Contingencies

The Company has a contract with the NHS to develop and deploy an integrated patient records system as a part of the U.K. Government's NHS IT program. On August 31, 2012, the Company and NHS entered into a binding interim agreement contract change note, or IACCN, which amended the terms of the then current contract and formed the basis on which the parties finalized a full restatement of the contract. On March 28, 2013, the Company and the NHS signed a letter agreement that modified certain terms of the IACCN. On October 4, 2013, the Company and NHS finalized a full restatement of the contract through a revised project agreement (RPA). The RPA embodies and incorporates the principal terms of the IACCN and such letter agreement, makes certain other changes with respect the Company’s non-Lorenzo product deployments and consolidates the three regional contracts which comprised the Company's NHS contract into a single agreement. See Note 18 for further information relating to the foregoing matters.

As previously disclosed, the Company initiated an investigation into out of period adjustments resulting from certain accounting errors in its former 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 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, 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 former 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 retained forensic accountants to assist with 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.

The Audit Committee’s investigation was expanded to encompass (i) the Company’s operations in Australia, (ii) certain aspects of the Company’s accounting practices within its Americas Outsourcing operation, and (iii) certain of the Company’s accounting practices that involve the percentage-of-completion accounting method, including the Company’s contract with the NHS. In the course of the Audit Committee's expanded investigation, accounting errors and irregularities were identified. As a result, certain personnel have been reprimanded, suspended, terminated and/or have resigned. The Audit Committee determined in August 2012 that its independent investigation was complete. The Audit Committee instructed its independent counsel to cooperate with the SEC's Division of Enforcement by completing production of documents and providing any further information requested by the SEC's Division of Enforcement.

In addition to the matters noted above, the SEC's Division of Enforcement is continuing its investigation involving its concerns with certain of the Company's prior disclosures and accounting determinations with respect to the Company's contract with the NHS and the possible impact of such matters on the Company's financial statements for years prior to the Company's current fiscal year. The Company and the Audit Committee and its independent counsel are continuing to respond to SEC questions and to cooperate with the SEC's Division of Enforcement in its investigation of prior disclosures and accounting determinations with respect to the Company's contract with the NHS. The SEC's investigative activities are ongoing.

In addition, the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance has issued comment letters to the Company's periodic filings 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 the 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 SEC's Division of Corporation Finance's comment letter process is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to cooperate with that process.

The investigation being conducted by the SEC's Division of Enforcement and the review of the Company's financial disclosures by the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance are continuing and could identify other accounting errors, irregularities or other areas of review. As a result, we have incurred and may continue to incur significant legal and accounting expenditures. As the Company previously disclosed, certain of its non-U.S. employees and certain of its former employees, including certain former executives in the United States, have received Wells notices from the SEC’s Division of Enforcement in connection with its ongoing investigation of the Company. The Company received a Wells notice from the SEC’s Division of Enforcement on December 11, 2013. A Wells notice is not a formal allegation or a finding of wrongdoing; it is a preliminary determination by the SEC Enforcement Staff to recommend that the SEC file a civil enforcement action or administrative proceeding against the recipient. Under SEC procedures, a recipient of a Wells notice has an opportunity to respond in the form of a Wells submission that seeks to persuade the SEC that such an action should not be brought. The Company has been availing itself of the Wells process by making a Wells submission to explain its views concerning such matters, which are aided by the Audit Committee's independent investigation and certain expert opinions of outside professionals. The Company made such a submission on January 14, 2014 and a supplemental submission on April 9, 2014. The Company, through outside counsel, has been in continuing discussions with the SEC Enforcement staff concerning a potential resolution of the staff’s investigation involving the Company, as previously disclosed. The SEC's staff is of the view that losses associated with the NHS contract should have been recognized prior to fiscal 2012 and continues to disagree with the Company's historical accounting and disclosures with respect to the NHS contract. Discussions are still ongoing but to date, those discussions have not resulted in a resolution. The Company is unable to estimate with confidence or certainty how long the SEC process will last or its ultimate outcome, including whether the Company will reach a settlement with the SEC and, if so, the amount of any related monetary fine and other possible remedies. In addition, the Company is unable to predict the timing of the completion of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance's review of its financial disclosures or the outcome of such review. Publicity surrounding the foregoing, or any SEC enforcement action or settlement as a result of the SEC's investigation, even if ultimately resolved favorably for CSC, could have an adverse impact on the Company's reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company is unable to estimate with confidence or certainty any possible loss or range of loss associated with these matters at this time. See Note 5 for further information.

On March 1, 2012, the Company was competitively awarded the Maryland Medicaid Enterprise Restructuring Project (“MERP”) contract by the State of Maryland (the State) to modernize the Medicaid Management Information System ("MMIS"), a database of Medicaid recipients and providers used to manage Medicaid reimbursement claims. The MERP contract is predominately fixed price. Also, since awarded, federal government-mandated Medicaid information technology standards have been in considerable flux. The State has directed the Company to include additional functionality in the design to incorporate new federal mandates and guidance promulgated after the base scope of the Contract was finalized. Further, the State has declined to approve contract modifications to compensate the Company for the additional work.

As a result of the State’s refusal to amend the MERP contract and equitably adjust the compensation to be paid to the Company and, in accordance with prescribed State statutes and regulations, the Company timely filed a certified contract claim with the State in the total estimated amount of approximately $61 million on September 27, 2013 (Contract Claim #1). On February 14, 2014, the Company filed Contract Claim #1A, which amends Contract Claim #1, to a claim of approximately $34 million. The Company believes it has valid and reasonable factual and legal bases for Contract Claims #1 and 1A and that the circumstances that have led or will lead to the Company’s additional costs set forth in Contract Claims #1 and 1A were unforeseen as of the operative proposal submission dates and are not the result of deficiencies in CSC’s performance. However, the Company’s position is subject to the ongoing evaluation of new facts and information which may come to the Company’s attention should an appeal of the State's denial of Contract Claims #1 and 1A be litigated before the Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals (the Board).

On February 19, 2014, the State provided a recommended decision denying Contract Claims #1 and 1A to the Company. The February 19, 2014 recommended decision was not a final agency determination on the claims. On April 29, 2014, the State provided a final decision, dated April 25, 2014, denying the claims to the Company. On May 28, 2014, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal with the Board, which has exclusive initial jurisdiction of State contract claims concerning breach, performance, modification, or termination of contracts procured under Title II of Maryland's General Procurement Law. The appeal is currently pending before the Board.

On August 22, 2014, the State unilaterally suspended performance under the Contract for 90 days. On September 12, 2014, the State modified its August 22nd suspension of the Contract and authorized CSC, during the remainder of the 90-day suspension, to assign up to nine full-time-equivalent staff to perform various analyses of cost and schedule.

As the result of the 90-day suspension and other actions and inactions by the State in performance of its obligations under and management of the Contract, the Company filed a second set of Claims with the Board (Claims #2A-D). Claim #2A, in the amount of $77 million, asserts that the Company's contractual undertaking did not include an agreement to receive reduced and delayed payments, and the State's unilateral imposition of such reductions and delays, together with the other factors are a cardinal change to the Contract entitling the Company to compensation for all costs incurred to date, including all liabilities incurred, and fee, as well as expected profit under the full contract. Alternatively, Claim #2B, in the amount of $65 million, asserts that the Maryland General Assembly's reduction to the appropriations for the MERP Project for fiscal 2015 effectively cancels the MERP Contract, entitling the Company to recover all costs incurred to date including all liabilities incurred, and a reasonable allowance for profit on costs and liabilities. Similarly, Claims #2C, also in the amount of $65 million, asserts that the State's actions, inactions, and decisions amount to a constructive termination for convenience entitling the Company to recover all costs incurred to date including, all liabilities incurred, and reasonable allowance for profit on costs and liabilities. Claim #2D is a claim for suspension costs during the 90-day period of $3 million, including labor costs, facilities costs and other costs needed to remain ready to re-start program. Due to the new claims, management conducted an additional assessment of any asset impairments if the contract terminates.

On October 27, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York unsealed a qui tam complaint that had been filed under seal over two years prior in a case entitled United States of America and State of New York ex rel. Vincent Forcier v. Computer Sciences Corporation and The City of New York, Case No. 1:12-cv-01750-DAB. The original complaint was brought by Vincent Forcier, a former employee of Computer Sciences Corporation, as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the United States and the State of New York. The relator’s amended complaint, dated November 15, 2012, which remained under seal until October 27, 2014, alleged civil violations of the federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., and New York State’s False Claims Act, NY. Finance L, Art. 13, § 187 et seq., arising out of certain coding methods employed with respect to claims submitted by the Company to Medicaid for reimbursements as fiscal agent on behalf of its client, New York City’s Early Intervention Program (“EIP”). EIP is a federal program promulgated by the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (“IDEA”), that provides early intervention services for infants and toddlers who have, or are likely to have, developmental delays.

Prior to the unsealing of the complaint on October 27, 2014, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York investigated the allegations in the qui tam relator’s complaint. That investigation included requests for information to the Company concerning the Company’s databases, software programs, and related documents regarding EIP claims submitted by the Company on behalf of New York City. The Company produced documents and information that the government requested and cooperated fully with the government’s investigation regarding this matter at all times. In addition, the Company conducted its own investigation of the matter, and openly shared its findings and worked constructively with all parties to resolve the matter. At the conclusion of its investigation, the Company concluded that it had not violated the law in any respect.

On October 27, 2014, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Attorney General for the State of New York filed complaints-in-intervention on behalf of the United States and the State of New York, respectively. The complaints allege that, from 2008 to 2012, the Company and New York City used the automatic defaulting capabilities of a computerized billing system that the Company developed for New York City’s EIP in order to orchestrate a billing fraud against Medicaid. The New York Attorney General’s complaint also alleges that the Company did not comply with Medicaid requirements regarding submission of claims to private insurance and failed to reimburse Medicaid in certain instances where insurance had paid a portion of the claim. The lawsuits seek damages under the False Claims Act and common law theories in an amount equal to three times the sum of an unspecified amount of damages the United States and New York State allegedly sustained, plus civil penalties together with attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

Publicity surrounding the foregoing could have an adverse impact on the Company’s reputation, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company is unable to estimate with confidence or certainty any possible loss or range of loss associated with these matters at this time.

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 accrues a liability when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated under ASC 450. The Company believes it has appropriately recognized liabilities for any such matters. Regarding other matters that may involve actual or threatened disputes or litigation, the Company, in accordance with the applicable reporting requirements, provides disclosure of such matters for which the likelihood of material loss is at least reasonably possible.

The Company also considered the requirements regarding estimates used in the disclosure of contingencies under ASC Subtopic 275-10, Risks and Uncertainties. Based on that guidance, the Company determined that supplemental accrual and disclosure was not required for a change in estimate that involve contingencies because the Company determined that it was not reasonably possible that a change in estimate will occur in the near term. The Company reviews contingencies during each interim period and adjusts its accruals to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case.