Legal Proceedings

3 Months Ended

May 03, 2013

Legal Proceedings

Note 9—Legal Proceedings:

Timekeeping Contract with City of New York

In March 2012, the Company reached a settlement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the City of New York (City) relating to investigations being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the City with respect to the Company’s contract to develop and implement an automated time and attendance and workforce management system (CityTime) for certain agencies of the City. As part of this settlement, the Company entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, under which the Company paid approximately $500 million and the U.S. Attorney’s Office deferred prosecution of a single criminal count against the Company, which alleged that the Company, through the conduct of certain managerial employees and others, caused the City to significantly overpay for the CityTime system. If the Company complies with the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, the U.S Attorney will dismiss the criminal count at the end of a three-year period. In August 2012, the Company entered into an administrative agreement with the U.S. Army, on behalf of all agencies of the U.S. Government that confirms the Company’s continuing eligibility to enter into and perform contracts with all agencies of the U.S. Government following the CityTime settlement. The Army has determined that the U.S. Government will have adequate assurances under the terms of the administrative agreement that initiation of suspension or debarment is not necessary to protect the U.S. Government’s interests following the CityTime settlement. Under the terms of the administrative agreement, the Company has agreed, among other things, to maintain a contractor responsibility program having the specific elements described in the administrative agreement, including retaining a monitor and providing certain reports to the U.S. Army. The administrative agreement will continue in effect for five years, provided that the Company may request earlier termination after three years.

Data Privacy Litigation

The Company is a defendant in a putative class action, In Re: Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation, a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The MDL action consolidates for pretrial proceedings the following seven individual putative class action lawsuits filed against the Company from October 2011 through March 2012: (1) Richardson, et al. v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; (2) Arellano, et al. v. SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas; (3) Biggerman, et al. v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; (4) Moskowitz, et al. v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; (5) Palmer, et al. v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al., in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; (6) Losack, et al. v. SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California; and (7) Deatrick v. Science Applications International Corporation in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits were filed following the theft of computer backup tapes from a vehicle of a Company employee. The employee was transporting the backup tapes between federal facilities under an IT services contract the Company was performing in support of TRICARE, the health care program for members of the military, retirees and their families. The tapes contained personally identifiable and protected health information of approximately five million military clinic and hospital patients. There is no evidence that any of the data on the backup tapes has actually been accessed or viewed by an unauthorized person. In order for an unauthorized person to access or view the data on the backup tapes, it would require knowledge of and access to specific hardware and software and knowledge of the system and data structure. The Company has notified potentially impacted persons by letter and has offered one year of credit monitoring services to those who request these services and in certain circumstances, one year of identity restoration services.

In October 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the MDL action, which supersedes all previously filed complaints in the individual lawsuits. The consolidated amended complaint includes allegations of negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied-in-fact contract, invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts and statutory violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California data breach notification requirements, the California Unfair Competition Law, various state consumer protection or deceptive practices statutes, state privacy statutes, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Privacy Act of 1974. The consolidated amended complaint seeks monetary relief, including unspecified actual damages, punitive damages, statutory damages of $1,000 for each class member and attorneys’ fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims made in the class action lawsuits. In November 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims against the Company alleged in the consolidated amended complaint and all substantive briefing on the motion has concluded. The Company has insurance coverage against judgments or settlements relating to the claims being brought in these lawsuits, with a $10 million deductible. The insurance coverage also covers the Company’s defense costs, subject to the same deductible. As of May 3, 2013, the Company has recorded a loss provision of $10 million related to these lawsuits, representing the low end of the Company’s estimated gross loss. The Company believes that, if any loss is experienced by the Company in excess of its estimate, such a loss would not exceed the Company’s insurance coverage. As these lawsuits progress, many factors will affect the amount of the ultimate loss resulting from these claims being brought against the Company, including the outcome of any motions to dismiss, the results of any discovery, the outcome of any pretrial motions and the courts’ rulings on certain legal issues.

The Company has been informed that the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is investigating matters related to the incident. OCR is the division of HHS charged with enforcement of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (HIPAA) and the privacy, security and data breach rules which implement HIPAA. OCR may, among other things, require a corrective action plan and impose civil monetary penalties against the data owner (Department of Defense) and, in certain situations, against the data owners’ contractors, such as the Company. The Company is cooperating with TRICARE in responding to the OCR investigation.

Derivative and Securities Litigation

Between February and April 2012, six stockholder derivative lawsuits were filed, each purportedly on the Company’s behalf. Two cases have been withdrawn and the four remaining cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Derivative Litigation. The consolidated derivative complaint asserts claims against the Company’s directors and current and former officers, including the chief executive officer, two former chief executive officers, the chief financial officer, a former group president, the former program manager of the CityTime program, and the former chief systems engineer of the CityTime program. The consolidated derivative complaint claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company with respect to the CityTime contract for various reasons, including failure to supervise the adequacy of the Company’s internal controls, allowing the Company to issue misleading financial statements, and failure to exercise their oversight responsibilities to ensure that the Company complied with applicable laws, rules and regulations. The complaint further claims that the defendants are liable to the Company under theories of unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, and violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint because the respective plaintiffs did not serve a pre-suit demand before filing the derivative complaints. The Company has also received two stockholder demand letters related to CityTime (one of which is also related to the TRICARE matter described above), which an independent committee of the Company’s board of directors reviewed. The Company’s lead director has notified both stockholders’ attorneys, on behalf of the board of directors, that the Company has decided not to pursue the claims outlined in their demand letters.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint names as defendants the Company, its chief financial officer, two former chief executive officers, a former group president, and the former program manager on the CityTime program, and was filed purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of SAIC’s common stock from April 11, 2007 through September 1, 2011. The consolidated securities complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company and individual defendants made misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s revenues, operating income, and internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly incurred by buying SAIC’s stock at an inflated price. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims and has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities complaint.

The Company currently believes that a loss relating to the above-described stockholder matters is reasonably possible, but the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss in light of the fact that these matters are in their early stages.

Greek Government Contract

Background and Arbitration. In May 2003, the Company entered into a firm-fixed-price contract with the Hellenic Republic of Greece (the Customer) to provide a Command, Control, Communications, Coordination and Integration System (the System) to support the 2004 Athens Summer Olympic Games (the Olympics) and to serve as the security system for the Customer’s public order departments following completion of the Olympics.

In November 2008, the Customer accepted the System in writing pursuant to the requirements of the contract. At the time, the Customer determined that the System substantially complied with the terms of the contract and accepted the System with certain alleged minor omissions and deviations. Upon System acceptance, the Company invoiced the Customer for approximately $18 million, representing the undisputed portion of the contract balance owed to the Company. The Customer has not paid this final invoice.

In June 2009, the Company initiated arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce against the Customer seeking damages for breaches of contract by the Customer. The Company seeks (i) aggregate damages in excess of $91 million for payment of amounts owed and other claims and damages, (ii) recovery of advance payment and performance bond amounts totaling $25 million and (iii) costs and expenses associated with the arbitration. The Customer filed an answer to the complaint denying liability on various grounds and a supplementary answer asserting set-off claims against amounts sought by the Company. The arbitration hearing was held in May 2012, and the Company filed a final brief in July 2012. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, the outcome of the arbitration is uncertain.

Financial Status and Contingencies. As a result of the significant uncertainties on this contract, the Company converted to the completed-contract method of accounting and ceased recognizing revenues for the System development portion of this contract in fiscal 2006. No profits or losses were recorded on the Greek contract during the three months ended May 3, 2013 and April 30, 2012. As of May 3, 2013, the Company has recorded $123 million of losses under the Greek contract, reflecting the Company’s estimated total cost to complete the System, assuming the Greek contract value was limited to the cash received to date. Based on the complex nature of this contractual situation and the difficulties encountered to date, significant uncertainties exist and the Company is unable to reliably estimate the ultimate outcome. The Company may reverse a portion of the losses from the Greek contract if it receives future payments as required under the modified Greek contract.

As of May 3, 2013, the Company has $15 million of receivables relating to value added tax (VAT) that the Company has paid and believes it is entitled to recover either as a refund from the taxing authorities or as a payment under the Greek contract. The Company has invoiced the Customer for $33 million for VAT and the Customer has failed to make payment. If the Customer fails to pay the outstanding VAT amounts or the Company is unable to recover the amount as a refund from the taxing authorities, the Company’s total losses on the Greek contract could increase.

The Company has met certain advance payment and performance bonding requirements through the issuance of euro-denominated standby letters of credit. As of May 3, 2013, there were $3 million in standby letters of credit outstanding relating to the support and maintenance of the System. The Company is seeking recovery of amounts drawn by the Customer in fiscal 2011 on the standby letters of credit in the ongoing arbitration. The principal subcontractor has provided to the Company euro-denominated standby letters of credit in the amount of $21 million as of May 3, 2013, of which $19 million relates to the delivery of the System. The Company may draw on the subcontractor’s standby letters of credit under certain circumstances by providing a statement to the responsible bank that the subcontractor has not fulfilled its obligations under the subcontract.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the Company in September 2004 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging civil False Claims Act violations and breach of contract by the Company on two contracts that the Company had with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The complaint alleges that the Company’s performance of several subcontracts on separate U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) programs, the participation of a Company employee in an industry trade association, and certain other alleged relationships created organizational conflicts of interest under the two NRC contracts. The Company disputes that the work performed on the DOE programs and the alleged relationships raised by the government created organizational conflicts of interest. In July 2008, the jury found in favor of the government on the breach of contract and two False Claims Act counts. The jury awarded a nominal amount of $78 in damages for breach of contract and $2 million in damages for the False Claims Act claims. The judge entered the judgment in October 2008, trebling the False Claims Act damages and awarding a total of $585,000 in civil penalties. The Company appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In December 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s judgment as to both liability and damages of $78 on the breach of contract count and rescinded the judgment on the False Claims Act counts, including the aggregate damages and penalties. The Court of Appeals sent the False Claims Act counts back to the District Court for further proceedings. The Company has recorded a liability for an immaterial amount related to this matter as of May 3, 2013 based on its assessment of the likely outcome of this matter.

Other

The Company is also involved in various claims and lawsuits arising in the normal conduct of its business, none of which, in the opinion of the Company’s management, based upon current information, will likely have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Science Applications International Corporation

Legal Proceedings

Note 9—Legal Proceedings:

Timekeeping Contract with City of New York

In March 2012, the Company reached a settlement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the City of New York (City) relating to investigations being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the City with respect to the Company’s contract to develop and implement an automated time and attendance and workforce management system (CityTime) for certain agencies of the City. As part of this settlement, the Company entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, under which the Company paid approximately $500 million and the U.S. Attorney’s Office deferred prosecution of a single criminal count against the Company, which alleged that the Company, through the conduct of certain managerial employees and others, caused the City to significantly overpay for the CityTime system. If the Company complies with the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, the U.S Attorney will dismiss the criminal count at the end of a three-year period. In August 2012, the Company entered into an administrative agreement with the U.S. Army, on behalf of all agencies of the U.S. Government that confirms the Company’s continuing eligibility to enter into and perform contracts with all agencies of the U.S. Government following the CityTime settlement. The Army has determined that the U.S. Government will have adequate assurances under the terms of the administrative agreement that initiation of suspension or debarment is not necessary to protect the U.S. Government’s interests following the CityTime settlement. Under the terms of the administrative agreement, the Company has agreed, among other things, to maintain a contractor responsibility program having the specific elements described in the administrative agreement, including retaining a monitor and providing certain reports to the U.S. Army. The administrative agreement will continue in effect for five years, provided that the Company may request earlier termination after three years.

Data Privacy Litigation

The Company is a defendant in a putative class action, In Re: Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation, a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The MDL action consolidates for pretrial proceedings the following seven individual putative class action lawsuits filed against the Company from October 2011 through March 2012: (1) Richardson, et al. v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; (2) Arellano, et al. v. SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas; (3) Biggerman, et al. v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; (4) Moskowitz, et al. v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; (5) Palmer, et al. v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al., in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; (6) Losack, et al. v. SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California; and (7) Deatrick v. Science Applications International Corporation in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits were filed following the theft of computer backup tapes from a vehicle of a Company employee. The employee was transporting the backup tapes between federal facilities under an IT services contract the Company was performing in support of TRICARE, the health care program for members of the military, retirees and their families. The tapes contained personally identifiable and protected health information of approximately five million military clinic and hospital patients. There is no evidence that any of the data on the backup tapes has actually been accessed or viewed by an unauthorized person. In order for an unauthorized person to access or view the data on the backup tapes, it would require knowledge of and access to specific hardware and software and knowledge of the system and data structure. The Company has notified potentially impacted persons by letter and has offered one year of credit monitoring services to those who request these services and in certain circumstances, one year of identity restoration services.

In October 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the MDL action, which supersedes all previously filed complaints in the individual lawsuits. The consolidated amended complaint includes allegations of negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied-in-fact contract, invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts and statutory violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California data breach notification requirements, the California Unfair Competition Law, various state consumer protection or deceptive practices statutes, state privacy statutes, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Privacy Act of 1974. The consolidated amended complaint seeks monetary relief, including unspecified actual damages, punitive damages, statutory damages of $1,000 for each class member and attorneys’ fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims made in the class action lawsuits. In November 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims against the Company alleged in the consolidated amended complaint and all substantive briefing on the motion has concluded. The Company has insurance coverage against judgments or settlements relating to the claims being brought in these lawsuits, with a $10 million deductible. The insurance coverage also covers the Company’s defense costs, subject to the same deductible. As of May 3, 2013, the Company has recorded a loss provision of $10 million related to these lawsuits, representing the low end of the Company’s estimated gross loss. The Company believes that, if any loss is experienced by the Company in excess of its estimate, such a loss would not exceed the Company’s insurance coverage. As these lawsuits progress, many factors will affect the amount of the ultimate loss resulting from these claims being brought against the Company, including the outcome of any motions to dismiss, the results of any discovery, the outcome of any pretrial motions and the courts’ rulings on certain legal issues.

The Company has been informed that the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is investigating matters related to the incident. OCR is the division of HHS charged with enforcement of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (HIPAA) and the privacy, security and data breach rules which implement HIPAA. OCR may, among other things, require a corrective action plan and impose civil monetary penalties against the data owner (Department of Defense) and, in certain situations, against the data owners’ contractors, such as the Company. The Company is cooperating with TRICARE in responding to the OCR investigation.

Derivative and Securities Litigation

Between February and April 2012, six stockholder derivative lawsuits were filed, each purportedly on the Company’s behalf. Two cases have been withdrawn and the four remaining cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Derivative Litigation. The consolidated derivative complaint asserts claims against the Company’s directors and current and former officers, including the chief executive officer, two former chief executive officers, the chief financial officer, a former group president, the former program manager of the CityTime program, and the former chief systems engineer of the CityTime program. The consolidated derivative complaint claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company with respect to the CityTime contract for various reasons, including failure to supervise the adequacy of the Company’s internal controls, allowing the Company to issue misleading financial statements, and failure to exercise their oversight responsibilities to ensure that the Company complied with applicable laws, rules and regulations. The complaint further claims that the defendants are liable to the Company under theories of unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, and violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint because the respective plaintiffs did not serve a pre-suit demand before filing the derivative complaints. The Company has also received two stockholder demand letters related to CityTime (one of which is also related to the TRICARE matter described above), which an independent committee of the Company’s board of directors reviewed. The Company’s lead director has notified both stockholders’ attorneys, on behalf of the board of directors, that the Company has decided not to pursue the claims outlined in their demand letters.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint names as defendants the Company, its chief financial officer, two former chief executive officers, a former group president, and the former program manager on the CityTime program, and was filed purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of SAIC’s common stock from April 11, 2007 through September 1, 2011. The consolidated securities complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company and individual defendants made misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s revenues, operating income, and internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly incurred by buying SAIC’s stock at an inflated price. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims and has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities complaint.

The Company currently believes that a loss relating to the above-described stockholder matters is reasonably possible, but the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss in light of the fact that these matters are in their early stages.

Greek Government Contract

Background and Arbitration. In May 2003, the Company entered into a firm-fixed-price contract with the Hellenic Republic of Greece (the Customer) to provide a Command, Control, Communications, Coordination and Integration System (the System) to support the 2004 Athens Summer Olympic Games (the Olympics) and to serve as the security system for the Customer’s public order departments following completion of the Olympics.

In November 2008, the Customer accepted the System in writing pursuant to the requirements of the contract. At the time, the Customer determined that the System substantially complied with the terms of the contract and accepted the System with certain alleged minor omissions and deviations. Upon System acceptance, the Company invoiced the Customer for approximately $18 million, representing the undisputed portion of the contract balance owed to the Company. The Customer has not paid this final invoice.

In June 2009, the Company initiated arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce against the Customer seeking damages for breaches of contract by the Customer. The Company seeks (i) aggregate damages in excess of $91 million for payment of amounts owed and other claims and damages, (ii) recovery of advance payment and performance bond amounts totaling $25 million and (iii) costs and expenses associated with the arbitration. The Customer filed an answer to the complaint denying liability on various grounds and a supplementary answer asserting set-off claims against amounts sought by the Company. The arbitration hearing was held in May 2012, and the Company filed a final brief in July 2012. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, the outcome of the arbitration is uncertain.

Financial Status and Contingencies. As a result of the significant uncertainties on this contract, the Company converted to the completed-contract method of accounting and ceased recognizing revenues for the System development portion of this contract in fiscal 2006. No profits or losses were recorded on the Greek contract during the three months ended May 3, 2013 and April 30, 2012. As of May 3, 2013, the Company has recorded $123 million of losses under the Greek contract, reflecting the Company’s estimated total cost to complete the System, assuming the Greek contract value was limited to the cash received to date. Based on the complex nature of this contractual situation and the difficulties encountered to date, significant uncertainties exist and the Company is unable to reliably estimate the ultimate outcome. The Company may reverse a portion of the losses from the Greek contract if it receives future payments as required under the modified Greek contract.

As of May 3, 2013, the Company has $15 million of receivables relating to value added tax (VAT) that the Company has paid and believes it is entitled to recover either as a refund from the taxing authorities or as a payment under the Greek contract. The Company has invoiced the Customer for $33 million for VAT and the Customer has failed to make payment. If the Customer fails to pay the outstanding VAT amounts or the Company is unable to recover the amount as a refund from the taxing authorities, the Company’s total losses on the Greek contract could increase.

The Company has met certain advance payment and performance bonding requirements through the issuance of euro-denominated standby letters of credit. As of May 3, 2013, there were $3 million in standby letters of credit outstanding relating to the support and maintenance of the System. The Company is seeking recovery of amounts drawn by the Customer in fiscal 2011 on the standby letters of credit in the ongoing arbitration. The principal subcontractor has provided to the Company euro-denominated standby letters of credit in the amount of $21 million as of May 3, 2013, of which $19 million relates to the delivery of the System. The Company may draw on the subcontractor’s standby letters of credit under certain circumstances by providing a statement to the responsible bank that the subcontractor has not fulfilled its obligations under the subcontract.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the Company in September 2004 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging civil False Claims Act violations and breach of contract by the Company on two contracts that the Company had with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The complaint alleges that the Company’s performance of several subcontracts on separate U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) programs, the participation of a Company employee in an industry trade association, and certain other alleged relationships created organizational conflicts of interest under the two NRC contracts. The Company disputes that the work performed on the DOE programs and the alleged relationships raised by the government created organizational conflicts of interest. In July 2008, the jury found in favor of the government on the breach of contract and two False Claims Act counts. The jury awarded a nominal amount of $78 in damages for breach of contract and $2 million in damages for the False Claims Act claims. The judge entered the judgment in October 2008, trebling the False Claims Act damages and awarding a total of $585,000 in civil penalties. The Company appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In December 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s judgment as to both liability and damages of $78 on the breach of contract count and rescinded the judgment on the False Claims Act counts, including the aggregate damages and penalties. The Court of Appeals sent the False Claims Act counts back to the District Court for further proceedings. The Company has recorded a liability for an immaterial amount related to this matter as of May 3, 2013 based on its assessment of the likely outcome of this matter.

Other

The Company is also involved in various claims and lawsuits arising in the normal conduct of its business, none of which, in the opinion of the Company’s management, based upon current information, will likely have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.