Commitments

The Company has operating leases for the use of certain real estate and equipment. Substantially all operating leases are non-cancelable or cancelable only through payment of penalties. Lease payments are typically based upon the period of the lease but may include payments for insurance, maintenance and property taxes. There are no purchase options on operating leases at favorable terms. Most real estate leases have one or more renewal options. Certain leases on real estate are subject to annual escalations for increases in utilities and property taxes. Lease rental expense amounted to $152 million, $139 million, and $194 million, for the years ended April 1, 2016, April 3, 2015, and March 28, 2014, respectively. In addition, the Company also has $18 million of sublease income to be received through fiscal 2021.

Minimum fixed rentals required for the next five years and thereafter under operating leases in effect at April 1, 2016, were as follows:



Fiscal Year
(Amounts in millions)	Real Estate		Equipment
2017	$	114	$	27
2018	87		16
2019	73		7
2020	53		3
2021	19		1
Thereafter	54		—
	$	400	$	54

The Company signed long-term purchase agreements with certain software, hardware, telecommunication and other service providers to obtain favorable pricing and terms for services and products that are necessary for the operations of business activities. Under the terms of these agreements, the Company is contractually committed to purchase specified minimums over periods ranging from one to four years. If the Company does not meet the specified minimums, the Company would have an obligation to pay the service provider all or a portion of the shortfall. Minimum purchase commitments as of April 1, 2016 were $294 million for fiscal 2017, $177 million for fiscal 2018, $1 million for fiscal 2019, and less than $1 million thereafter.

In the normal course of business, the Company may provide certain clients 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 April 1, 2016, the Company had $71 million of outstanding letters of credit and $19 million of 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 effect 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 on these policies. As of April 1, 2016, the Company had $48 million of outstanding stand-by letters of credit. 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 April 1, 2016:



(Amounts in millions)	Fiscal 2017		Fiscal 2018		Fiscal 2019 and thereafter		Total
Surety bonds	$	19	$	—	$	—	$	19
Letters of credit	36		2		33		71
Stand-by letters of credit	31		—		17		48
Total	$	86	$	2	$	50	$	138

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

SEC Investigation

As previously disclosed, on January 28, 2011, the Company was notified by the Division of Enforcement of the SEC that it had commenced a formal civil investigation. That investigation covered a range of matters as previously disclosed by the Company, including certain of the Company’s prior disclosures and accounting determinations. During the first quarter of fiscal 2016, the Company’s previously agreed-upon settlement with the SEC was formally approved by the SEC and became effective on June 5, 2015. For additional information, see Note 2.

Unless otherwise noted, the Company is unable to develop a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range of losses associated with the following contingent matters at this time.

Vincent Forcier v. Computer Sciences Corporation and The City of New York

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, and failed to comply with Medicaid requirements regarding submission of claims to private insurance. The New York Attorney General’s complaint also alleges that the Company failed to reimburse Medicaid in certain instances where insurance had paid a portion of the claim. The lawsuits seek damages under the federal False Claims Act, the New York 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. On January 26, 2015, the Company and the City of New York filed motions to dismiss Forcier’s amended complaint and the federal and state complaints-in-intervention. On April 28, 2016, the Court issued a decision on the motions. The Court dismissed Forcier’s amended complaint, some claims related to allegations of fraudulent defaulting practices, and the claims related to the alleged failure to reimburse Medicaid. The Court denied the motions to dismiss claims based on other allegations of fraudulent defaulting practices and the alleged noncompliance with Medicaid requirements to bill private insurance, as well as the claims seeking damages under the common law. The Company believes that the remaining allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

CSC v. Eric Pulier

On May 12, 2015, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, ServiceMesh Inc. (SMI), filed a civil complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Eric Pulier (C.A. No. 11011-VCP). The Company acquired SMI on November 15, 2013. The purchase consideration included a cash payment at closing, as well as additional contingent consideration based on a contractually defined multiple of SMI’s revenues during a specified period ending January 31, 2014 (the Earnout Payment), all as set forth in the purchase agreement governing the acquisition. Before the acquisition, Mr. Pulier was the chief executive officer, chairman and one of the largest equity holders of SMI. Following the acquisition, Mr. Pulier became employed by the Company, at which time he executed a retention agreement pursuant to which he received a grant of restricted stock units of the Company and agreed to be bound by the Company’s rules and policies, including the Company’s Code of Business Conduct.

In March 2015, the Company became aware of, and began its own investigation into the circumstances surrounding, the arrests of two former employees of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd. (CBA) in connection with payments allegedly received by them, either directly or indirectly, from Mr. Pulier. SMI and CBA had entered into several contracts with each other, including contracts that contributed to the Earnout Payment. In April 2015, the Company was contacted by the Australian Federal Police regarding the alleged payments. The Company is cooperating with and assisting the Australian and U.S. authorities in their investigations of the conduct of various individuals involved in SMI transactions during the earnout period.

The Company’s and SMI’s original complaint against Mr. Pulier asserted claims for (i) breach of the purchase agreement, (ii) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the purchase agreement, (iii) fraud, (iv) fraud by omission, (v) breach of his retention agreement, (vi) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in his retention agreement and (vii) breach of fiduciary duty.

Mr. Pulier filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 28, 2015, and an opening brief in support of such motion on July 7, 2015.

The Company and SMI filed a First Amended Complaint on August 6, 2015, adding as defendants TechAdvisors, LLC (TechAdvisors), an entity controlled by Mr. Pulier, and Shareholder Representative Services LLC (SRS). In addition to the claims asserted against Mr. Pulier, the First Amended Complaint asserted claims against TechAdvisors for (i) breach of the purchase agreement, (ii) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the purchase agreement and (iii) fraud. The amended complaint added claims against SRS in its capacity as attorney-in-fact and representative of Mr. Pulier and TechAdvisors for breach of their indemnification obligations in the purchase agreement.

Mr. Pulier, SRS, and TechAdvisors filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on August 20, August 31, and September 8, respectively.

On October 7, 2015, the Company filed its Second Amended Complaint against Mr. Pulier, TechAdvisors, and SRS. In addition to the claims asserted against Mr. Pulier, TechAdvisors, and SRS in the First Amended Complaint, the Second Amended Complaint asserts claims against SRS in its capacity as attorney-in-fact and representative of the former equityholders of ServiceMesh who are not current employees of CSC for breach of their indemnification obligations in the purchase agreement. The Second Amended Complaint seeks recovery of payments made to Mr. Pulier and TechAdvisors under the purchase agreement, the value of Mr. Pulier’s vested restricted stock units of the Company granted to him under his retention agreement and the full amount of the Earnout Payment, which was approximately $98 million.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on November 6, 2015.

On December 17, 2015, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the majority of the former equityholders of ServiceMesh, as well as SRS acting in its capacity as the agent and attorney-in-fact for the settling equityholders. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company received $16.5 million, which amount was equal to the settling equityholders’ pro rata share of the funds remaining in escrow from the transaction, which was recorded as an offset to selling, general, and administrative costs in our Consolidated Statements of Operations for the fiscal year ended April 1, 2016. The Company also moved to dismiss its claims against the settling equityholders and SRS, in its representative capacity for those equityholders. The Court granted the motion to dismiss on January 11, 2016.

On April 29, 2016, the Court orally ruled on Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. It entered an Order granting the same relief on May 9, 2016. The Court largely denied Defendants’ motions and will allow the majority of the Company’s claims against Mr. Pulier, TechAdvisors, and SRS to proceed. The Court dismissed the Company’s claim against Mr. Pulier for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in his retention agreement, one alternative factual basis for the Company’s claims for breach of the purchase agreement and fraud, and another alternative factual basis for the Company’s claim against Mr. Pulier for fraud.

On May 23, 2016, SRS filed its Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. On June 3, 2016, Mr. Pulier and TechAdvisors filed an Answer and Mr. Pulier filed a Counterclaim against the Company. Mr. Pulier asserts counter-claims for (i) breach of the purchase agreement, (ii) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the purchase agreement, (iii) fraud, (iv) negligent representation, (v) rescission of the purchase agreement and (vi) breach of his retention agreement.

Additionally, on February 17, 2016, Mr. Pulier filed a complaint against the Company and its subsidiary-CSC Agility Platform, Inc., formerly known as SMI-seeking advancement of his legal fees and costs in the case described above. The summary proceeding is in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (C.A. No. 12005-CB). On May 12, 2016, the Court ruled that the Company is not liable to advance legal fees to Mr. Pulier because he was not an officer or director of the Company, but that its subsidiary-as the successor to SMI-is liable for advancing 80% of Mr. Pulier’s fees in the underlying action. The Court entered an Order granting the same relief on May 27, 2016.

Strauch et al. Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action

On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed Strauch and Colby v. Computer Sciences Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, a putative nationwide class action alleging that CSC violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) with respect to system administrators who worked for CSC at any time from June 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that CSC improperly classified its system administrators as exempt from the FLSA and that CSC therefore owes them overtime wages and associated relief available under the FLSA and various statutes, including the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, California Labor Code, California Wage Order No. 4-2001, and the California Private Attorneys General Act. The relief sought by plaintiffs includes unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, damages in the amount of twice the unpaid overtime wages due, and civil penalties.

CSC’s position is that its system administrators have the job duties, responsibilities, and salaries of exempt employees and are properly classified as exempt from overtime compensation requirements. CSC’s Motion to Transfer Venue was denied in February 2015.

On June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of the class of system administrators. The Strauch putative class includes more than 4,000 system administrators. Courts typically undertake a two-stage review in determining whether a suit may proceed as a class action under the FLSA. In its order, the Court noted that, as a first step, the Court examines pleadings and affidavits, and if it finds that proposed class members are similarly situated, the class is conditionally certified. Potential class members are then notified and given an opportunity to opt-in to the action. The second step of the class certification analysis occurs upon completion of discovery. At that point, the Court will examine all evidence then in the record to determine whether there is a sufficient basis to conclude that the proposed class members are similarly situated. If it is determined that they are, the case will proceed to trial; if it is determined they are not, the class is decertified and only the individual claims of the purported class representatives proceed.

The Company’s position in this litigation continues to be that the employees identified as belonging to the conditional class were paid in accordance with the FLSA.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add additional plaintiffs and allege violations under Missouri and North Carolina wage and hour laws. We do not believe these additional claims differ materially from those in the original complaint. On June 3, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion for Rule 23 class certification of California, Connecticut and North Carolina state-law classes.

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 assessed reasonably possible losses for all other such pending legal or other proceedings in the aggregate and concluded that the range of potential loss is not material.

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 involves 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 matter.