Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments and Contingencies

Indirect Tax Contingencies

The Company accrues for indirect tax matters when management believes that a loss is probable and the amounts can be reasonably estimated, while contingent gains are recognized only when realized. In the event any losses are sustained in excess of accruals, they are charged against income. In evaluating indirect tax matters, management takes into consideration factors such as historical experience with matters of similar nature, specific facts and circumstances and the likelihood of prevailing. Management evaluates and updates accruals as matters progress over time. It is reasonably possible that some of the matters for which accruals have not been established could be decided unfavorably to the Company and could require recognizing future expenditures. Also, statutes of limitations could expire without the Company paying the taxes for matters for which accruals have been established, which could result in the recognition of future gains upon reversal of accruals at that time.

At March 31, 2021, the Company was a party to several routine indirect tax claims from various taxing authorities globally that were incurred in the normal course of business, which neither individually nor in the aggregate are considered material by management in relation to the Company’s financial position or results of operations. In management’s opinion, the condensed consolidated financial statements would not be materially affected by the outcome of these indirect tax claims and/or proceedings or asserted claims.

A loss contingency is reasonably possible if it has a more than remote but less than probable chance of occurring. Although management believes the Company has valid defenses with respect to its indirect tax positions, it is reasonably possible that a loss could occur in excess of the estimated liabilities. The Company estimated the aggregate risk at March 31, 2021 to be up to $74.0 for its material indirect tax matters. The aggregate risk related to indirect taxes is adjusted as the applicable statutes of limitations expire.

Legal Contingencies

At March 31, 2021, the Company was a party to several lawsuits that were incurred in the normal course of business, which neither individually nor in the aggregate were considered material by management in relation to the Company’s financial position or results of operations. In management’s opinion, the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements would not be materially affected by the outcome of these legal proceedings or asserted claims.

In addition to these normal course of business litigation matters, the Company is a party to the proceedings described below:

In July and August 2019, shareholders filed putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of Ohio. The lawsuits collectively assert that the Company and three former officers (collectively, Defendants) made material misstatements regarding the Company’s business and operations, causing the Company’s common stock to be overvalued from February 14, 2017 to August 1, 2018. The lawsuits were consolidated before a single judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and lead plaintiff appointed. In March 2021, the judge granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and in April 2021

judgment was rendered in the Defendants’ favor. Plaintiff can appeal but has not done so at this time. Given the Company’s success in the litigation thus far, management remains confident that it has valid defenses to these claims. As with any pending litigation, the Company is unable to predict the final outcome of this matter.

In January 2020, the Company’s Board of Directors received a demand letter from alleged shareholders to investigate and pursue claims for breach of fiduciary duty against certain current and former directors and officers based on the Company’s statements regarding its business and operations, which are substantially similar to those challenged in the federal securities litigation. The Board has determined to defer consideration of the demand while the federal securities litigation remains pending.

Diebold Nixdorf Holding Germany GmbH, formerly Diebold Nixdorf Holding Germany Inc. & Co. KGaA (Diebold KGaA), is a party to two separate appraisal proceedings (Spruchverfahren) in connection with the purchase of all shares in its former listed subsidiary, Diebold Nixdorf AG. Both proceedings are pending at the same Chamber for Commercial Matters (Kammer für Handelssachen) at the District Court (Landgericht) of Dortmund (Germany). The first appraisal proceeding relates to the Domination and Profit Transfer Loss Agreement (DPLTA) entered into by Diebold KGaA and former Diebold Nixdorf AG, which became effective on February 17, 2017. The DPLTA appraisal proceeding was filed by minority shareholders of Diebold Nixdorf AG challenging the adequacy of both the cash exit compensation of €55.02 per Diebold Nixdorf AG share (of which 6.9 million shares were then outstanding) and the annual recurring compensation of €2.82 per Diebold Nixdorf AG share offered in connection with the DPLTA.

The second appraisal proceeding relates to the cash merger squeeze-out of minority shareholders of Diebold Nixdorf AG in 2019. The squeeze-out appraisal proceeding was filed by minority shareholders of Diebold Nixdorf AG challenging the adequacy of the cash exit compensation of €54.80 per Diebold Nixdorf AG share (of which 1.4 million shares were then outstanding) in connection with the merger squeeze-out.

In both appraisal proceedings, a court ruling would apply to all Diebold Nixdorf AG shares outstanding at the time when the DPLTA or the merger squeeze-out, respectively, became effective. Any cash compensation received by former Diebold Nixdorf AG shareholders in connection with the merger squeeze-out would be netted with any higher cash compensation such shareholder may still claim in connection with the DPLTA appraisal proceeding. While the Company believes that the compensation offered in connection with the DPLTA and the merger squeeze-out was in both cases fair, it notes that German courts often adjudicate increases of the cash compensation to plaintiffs in varying amounts in connection with German appraisal proceedings. Therefore, the Company cannot rule out that the first instance court or an appellate court may increase the cash compensation also in these appraisal proceedings. The Company, however, is convinced that its defense in both appraisal proceedings, which are still at preliminary stages, is supported by strong sets of facts and the Company will continue to vigorously defend itself in these matters.