Litigation and Contingencies

HP is involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including those identified below, consisting of intellectual property, commercial, securities, employment, employee benefits, regulatory and environmental matters that arise in the ordinary course of business. These litigations or proceedings may be against HP and/or current and former HP executive officers or current and former members of HP’s Board of Directors. HP 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. HP believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any such matters and, as of April 30, 2017, it was not reasonably possible that a material loss had been incurred in excess of the amounts recognized in HP’s financial statements. HP reviews these matters at least quarterly 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. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, HP shares responsibility with Hewlett Packard Enterprise for certain matters, as indicated below, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise has agreed to indemnify HP in whole or in part with respect to certain matters. Based on its experience, HP believes that any damage amounts claimed in the specific matters discussed below are not a meaningful indicator of HP’s potential liability. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. However, HP believes it has valid defenses with respect to legal matters pending against it. Nevertheless, cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of these contingencies.

Litigation, Proceedings and Investigations

Copyright Levies. Proceedings are ongoing or have been concluded involving HP in certain European countries, including litigation in Belgium and other countries, seeking to impose or modify levies upon equipment (such as multifunction devices (“MFDs”) and PCs), alleging that these devices enable the production of private copies of copyrighted materials. The levies are generally based upon the number of products sold and the per-product amounts of the levies, which vary. Some European countries that do not yet have levies on digital devices are expected to implement similar legislation to enable them to extend existing levy schemes, while other European countries have phased out levies or are expected to limit the scope of levy schemes and applicability in the digital hardware environment, particularly with respect to sales to business users. HP, other companies and various industry associations have opposed the extension of levies to the digital environment and have advocated alternative models of compensation to rights holders.

Reprobel, a cooperative society with the authority to collect and distribute the remuneration for reprography to Belgian copyright holders, requested by extrajudicial means that HP amend certain copyright levy declarations submitted for inkjet MFDs sold in Belgium from January 2005 to December 2009 to enable it to collect copyright levies calculated based on the generally higher copying speed when the MFDs are operated in draft print mode rather than when operated in normal print mode. In March 2010, HP filed a lawsuit against Reprobel in the French-speaking chambers of the Court of First Instance of Brussels seeking a declaratory judgment that no copyright levies are payable on sales of MFDs in Belgium or, alternatively, that copyright levies payable on such MFDs must be assessed based on the copying speed when operated in the normal print mode set by default in the device. On November 16, 2012, the court issued a decision holding that Belgium law is not in conformity with European Union (“EU”) law in a number of respects and ordered that, by November 2013, Reprobel substantiate that the amounts claimed by Reprobel are commensurate with the harm resulting from legitimate copying under the reprographic exception. HP subsequently appealed that court decision to the Courts of Appeal in Brussels seeking to confirm that the Belgian law is not in conformity with EU law and that, if Belgian law is interpreted in a manner consistent with EU law, no payments by HP are required or, alternatively, the payments already made by HP are sufficient to comply with its obligations under Belgian law. On October 23, 2013, the Court of Appeal in Brussels stayed the proceedings and referred several questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) relating to whether the Belgian reprographic copyright levies system is in conformity with EU law. The case was heard by the CJEU on January 29, 2015 and on November 12, 2015, the CJEU published its judgment providing that a national legislation such as the Belgian one at issue in the main proceedings is incompatible with EU law on multiple legal points, as argued by HP. The Court of Appeal issued an appealable decision on May 12, 2017 providing that Belgian reprographic copyright levies are due notwithstanding the lack of conformity of the system with EU law in certain aspects. Applicable levies are to be calculated based on the objective speed of each MFD as established by an expert appointed by the Court of Appeal.

Based on industry opposition to the extension of levies to digital products, HP’s assessments of the merits of various proceedings and HP’s estimates of the number of units impacted and the amounts of the levies, HP has accrued amounts that it believes are adequate to address the ongoing disputes.

Hewlett-Packard Company v. Oracle Corporation. On June 15, 2011, HP filed suit against Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County in connection with Oracle’s March 2011 announcement that it was discontinuing software support for HP’s Itanium-based line of mission critical servers. HP asserted, among other things, that Oracle’s actions breached the contract that was signed by the parties as part of the settlement of the litigation relating to Oracle’s hiring of Mark Hurd. The matter eventually progressed to trial, which was bifurcated into two phases. HP prevailed in the first phase of the trial, in which the court ruled that the contract at issue required Oracle to continue to offer its software products on HP’s Itanium-based servers for as long as HP decided to sell such servers. The second phase of the trial was then postponed by Oracle’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of Oracle’s “anti-SLAPP” motion, in which Oracle argued that HP’s damages claim infringed on Oracle’s First Amendment rights. On August 27, 2015, the California Court of Appeals rejected Oracle’s appeal. The matter was remanded to the trial court for the second phase of the trial, which began on May 23, 2016 and was submitted to the jury on June 29, 2016. On June 30, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of HP, awarding HP approximately $3.0 billion in damages, which included approximately $1.7 billion for past lost profits and $1.3 billion for future lost profits. On October 20, 2016, the court entered judgment for HP for this amount with interest accruing until the judgment is paid. Oracle’s motion for a new trial was denied on December 19, 2016, and Oracle filed its notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment on January 17, 2017. On February 2, 2017, HP filed a notice of cross-appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest. The schedule for appellate briefing and argument has not yet been established. HP expects that the appeals process could take several years to complete. Litigation is unpredictable, and there can be no assurance that HP will recover damages, or that any award of damages will be for the amount awarded by the jury’s verdict. The amount ultimately awarded, if any, would be recorded in the period received. No adjustment has been recorded in the financial statements in relation to this potential award. Pursuant to the terms of the separation and distribution agreement, HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise will share equally in any recovery from Oracle once Hewlett Packard Enterprise has been reimbursed for all costs incurred in the prosecution of the action prior to the Separation.

Forsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18, 2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging the defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business and Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective class action under the ADEA comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had their employment terminated pursuant to a workforce reduction (“WFR”) plan on or after May 23, 2012 and who were 40 years of age or older. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after May 23, 2012. Following a partial motion to dismiss, a motion to strike and a motion to compel arbitration that the defendants filed in November 2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. New plaintiffs were added, but the plaintiffs agreed that the class period for the nationwide collective action should be shortened and now starts on December 9, 2014. On January 30, 2017, the defendants filed another partial motion to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration as to several of the plaintiffs. On March 20, 2017, the defendants filed additional motions to compel arbitration as to a number of the opt-in plaintiffs.

India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Proceedings. On April 30 and May 10, 2010, the India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (the “DRI”) issued show cause notices to Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited (“HP India”), a subsidiary of HP, seven HP India employees and one former HP India employee alleging that HP India underpaid customs duties while importing products and spare parts into India and seeking to recover an aggregate of approximately $370 million, plus penalties. Prior to the issuance of the show cause notices, HP India deposited approximately $16 million with the DRI and agreed to post a provisional bond in exchange for the DRI’s agreement to not seize HP India products and spare parts and to not interrupt the transaction of business by HP India.

On April 11, 2012, the Bangalore Commissioner of Customs issued an order on the products-related show cause notice affirming certain duties and penalties against HP India and the named individuals of approximately $386 million, of which HP India had already deposited $9 million. On December 11, 2012, HP India voluntarily deposited an additional $10 million in connection with the products-related show cause notice. The differential duty demand is subject to interest. On April 20, 2012, the Commissioner issued an order on the parts-related show cause notice affirming certain duties and penalties against HP India and certain of the named individuals of approximately $17 million, of which HP India had already deposited $7 million. After the order, HP India deposited an additional $3 million in connection with the parts-related show cause notice so as to avoid certain penalties.

HP India filed appeals of the Commissioner’s orders before the Customs Tribunal along with applications for waiver of the pre-deposit of remaining demand amounts as a condition for hearing the appeals. The Customs Department has also filed cross-appeals before the Customs Tribunal. On January 24, 2013, the Customs Tribunal ordered HP India to deposit an additional $24 million against the products order, which HP India deposited in March 2013. The Customs Tribunal did not order any additional deposit to be made under the parts order. In December 2013, HP India filed applications before the Customs Tribunal seeking early hearing of the appeals as well as an extension of the stay of deposit as to HP India and the individuals already granted until final disposition of the appeals. On February 7, 2014, the application for extension of the stay of deposit was granted by the Customs Tribunal until disposal of the appeals. On October 27, 2014, the Customs Tribunal commenced hearings on the cross-appeals of the Commissioner’s orders. The Customs Tribunal rejected HP India’s request to remand the matter to the Commissioner on procedural grounds. The hearings scheduled to reconvene on April 6, 2015 and again on November 3, 2015 and April 11, 2016 were canceled at the request of the Customs Tribunal. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, Hewlett Packard Enterprise has agreed to indemnify HP in part, based on the extent to which any liability arises from the products and spare parts of Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s businesses.

Russia GPO Anti-Corruption Investigation. The German Public Prosecutor’s Office (“German PPO”) has been conducting an investigation into allegations that current and former employees of HP engaged in bribery, embezzlement and tax evasion relating to a transaction between Hewlett-Packard ISE GmbH in Germany, a former subsidiary of HP, and the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation. The approximately $35 million transaction, which was referred to as the Russia GPO deal, spanned the years 2001 to 2006 and was for the delivery and installation of an IT network. The German PPO issued an indictment of four individuals, including one current and two former HP employees, on charges including bribery, breach of trust and tax evasion. The German PPO also requested that HP be made an associated party to the case, and, if that request is granted, HP would participate in any portion of the court proceedings that could ultimately bear on the question of whether HP should be subject to potential disgorgement of profits based on the conduct of the indicted current and former employees. The Regional Court of Leipzig will determine whether the matter should be admitted to trial.

Class Actions re Authentication of Supplies

Five purported consumer class actions were filed against HP, arising out of the supplies authentication protocol in certain OfficeJet printers. This authentication protocol rejects some third-party ink cartridges that use non-HP security chips. Two of the cases were dismissed, and the remaining cases have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned In re HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation. The remaining plaintiffs’ operative consolidated complaint was filed on March 22, 2017, alleging eleven causes of action: (1) unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (2) fraudulent business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (3) violations of the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.; (4) violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.; (5) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices ‒ Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.01, et seq.; (6) violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 19.86.010, et seq.; (7) violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, New Jersey Statutes Ann. 56:8-1, et seq.; (8) violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, et seq.; (9) violations of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code § 502; (10) Trespass to Chattels; and (11) Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations and/or Prospective Economic Advantage. The plaintiffs seek to certify a primary class of all persons in the United States who purchased or owned the OfficeJet printers in question, and they alternatively seek to certify subclasses of all such printer purchasers or owners in California, Texas, Washington, and/or New Jersey. On April 21, 2017, HP filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. A hearing on HP’s motion is scheduled for July 6, 2017.

Autonomy-Related Legal Matters

Investigations. As a result of the findings of an ongoing investigation, HP has provided information to the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) Serious Fraud Office, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the SEC related to the accounting improprieties, disclosure failures and misrepresentations at Autonomy that occurred prior to and in connection with HP’s acquisition of Autonomy. On January 19, 2015, the U.K. Serious Fraud Office notified HP that it was closing its investigation and had decided to cede jurisdiction of the investigation to the U.S. authorities. On November 14, 2016, the DOJ announced that a federal grand jury indicted Sushovan Hussain, the former CFO of Autonomy, on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and multiple counts of wire fraud. The indictment alleges that Hussain engaged in a scheme to defraud purchasers and sellers of securities of Autonomy and HP about the true performance of Autonomy’s business, its financial condition, and its prospects for growth. On November 15, 2016, the SEC announced that Stouffer Egan, the former CEO of Autonomy’s U.S.-based operations, settled charges relating to his participation in an accounting scheme to meet internal sales targets and analyst revenue expectations. HP is continuing to cooperate with the ongoing enforcement actions.

Litigation. As described below, HP is involved in various stockholder litigation relating to, among other things, its October 2011 acquisition of Autonomy and its November 20, 2012 announcement that it recorded a non-cash charge for the impairment of goodwill and intangible assets within Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s software segment of approximately $8.8 billion in the fourth quarter of its 2012 fiscal year and HP’s statements that, based on HP’s findings from an ongoing investigation, the majority of this impairment charge related to accounting improprieties, misrepresentations to the market and disclosure failures at Autonomy that occurred prior to and in connection with HP’s acquisition of Autonomy and the impact of those improprieties, failures and misrepresentations on the expected future financial performance of the Autonomy business over the long-term. This stockholder litigation was commenced against, among others, certain current and former HP executive officers, certain current and former members of HP’s Board of Directors and certain advisors to HP. The plaintiffs in these litigation matters are seeking to recover certain compensation paid by HP to the defendants and/or other damages. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise share equally the cost and any damages arising from these litigation matters. These matters include the following:

•

In re Hewlett-Packard Shareholder Derivative Litigation (the “Federal Court Derivative Action”) consists of seven consolidated lawsuits filed beginning on November 26, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements related to HP’s acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance of HP’s enterprise services business. The lawsuits also allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched in connection with HP’s acquisition of Autonomy and by causing HP to repurchase its own stock at allegedly inflated prices between August 2011 and October 2012. One lawsuit further alleges that certain individual defendants engaged in or assisted insider trading and thereby breached their fiduciary duties, were unjustly enriched and violated Sections 25402 and 25403 of the California Corporations Code. On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging, among other things, that the defendants concealed material information and made false statements related to HP’s acquisition of Autonomy and Autonomy’s Intelligent Data Operating Layer technology and thereby violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breached their fiduciary duties, engaged in “abuse of control” over HP, corporate waste and were unjustly enriched. The litigation was stayed until June 2014. The lead plaintiff filed a stipulation of proposed settlement on June 30, 2014. The court declined to grant preliminary approval to this settlement, and, on December 19, 2014, also declined to grant preliminary approval to a revised version of the settlement. On January 22, 2015, the lead plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of a further revised version of the settlement. On March 13, 2015, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval to the settlement. On July 24, 2015, the court held a hearing to entertain any remaining objections to the settlement and decide whether to grant final approval of the settlement. On July 30, 2015, the court granted final approval to the settlement and denied all remaining objections to the settlement. Three objectors to the settlement appealed the court’s final approval order to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs-appellants filed their opening briefs on December 30, 2015. HP’s response brief was filed on February 29, 2016, and the reply briefs were filed on May 12, 2016. Oral argument occurred on May 15, 2017.

•

Autonomy Corporation Limited v. Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain. On April 17, 2015, four HP subsidiaries (Autonomy Corporation Limited, Hewlett Packard Vision BV, Autonomy Systems, Limited, and Autonomy, Inc.) initiated civil proceedings in the U.K. High Court of Justice against two members of Autonomy’s former management, Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain. The Particulars of Claim seek damages in excess of $5 billion from Messrs. Lynch and Hussain for breach of their fiduciary duties by causing Autonomy group companies to engage in improper transactions and accounting practices. On October 1, 2015, Messrs. Lynch and Hussain filed their defenses. Mr. Lynch also filed a counterclaim against Autonomy Corporation Limited seeking $160 million in damages, among other things, for alleged misstatements regarding Lynch. The HP subsidiary claimants filed their replies to the defenses and the asserted counter-claim on March 11, 2016. The parties are actively engaged in the disclosure process. A six-month trial is scheduled to begin on January 28, 2019.

•

In re HP ERISA Litigation consists of three consolidated putative class actions filed beginning on December 6, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from August 18, 2011 to November 22, 2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations to HP’s 401(k) Plan and its participants and thereby violated Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by concealing negative information regarding the financial performance of Autonomy and HP’s enterprise services business and by failing to restrict participants from investing in HP stock. On August 16, 2013, HP filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On March 31, 2014, the court granted HP’s motion to dismiss this action with leave to amend. On July 16, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint containing substantially similar allegations and seeking substantially similar relief as the first amended complaint. On June 15, 2015, the court granted HP’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety and denied plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint. On July 2, 2015, plaintiffs appealed the court’s order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument occurred on May 15, 2017.

Environmental

HP’s operations and products are subject to various federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations concerning environmental protection, including laws addressing the discharge of pollutants into the air and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, the cleanup of contaminated sites, the content of HP’s products and the recycling, treatment and disposal of those products. In particular, HP faces increasing complexity in its product design and procurement operations as it adjusts to new and future requirements relating to the chemical and materials composition of its products, their safe use, and the energy consumption associated with those products, including requirements relating to climate change. HP is also subject to legislation in an increasing number of jurisdictions that makes producers of electrical goods, including computers and printers, financially responsible for specified collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of past and future covered products (sometimes referred to as “product take-back legislation”). HP could incur substantial costs, its products could be restricted from entering certain jurisdictions, and it could face other sanctions, if it were to violate or become liable under environmental laws or if its products become noncompliant with environmental laws. HP’s potential exposure includes fines and civil or criminal sanctions, third-party property damage or personal injury claims and clean-up costs. The amount and timing of costs to comply with environmental laws are difficult to predict.

HP is party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by U.S. or state environmental agencies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), known as “Superfund,” or state laws similar to CERCLA, and may become a party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by private parties for contribution towards clean-up costs. HP is also conducting environmental investigations or remediations at several current or former operating sites pursuant to administrative orders or consent agreements with state environmental agencies.

The separation and distribution agreement includes provisions that provide for the allocation of environmental liabilities between HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise including certain remediation obligations; responsibilities arising from the chemical and materials composition of their respective products, their safe use and their energy consumption; obligations under product take back legislation that addresses the collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of products; and other environmental matters. HP will generally be responsible for environmental liabilities related to the properties and other assets, including products, allocated to HP under the separation and distribution agreement and other ancillary agreements. Under these agreements, HP will indemnify Hewlett Packard Enterprise for liabilities for specified ongoing remediation projects, subject to certain limitations, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise has a payment obligation for a specified portion of the cost of those remediation projects. In addition, HP will share with Hewlett Packard Enterprise other environmental liabilities as set forth in the separation and distribution agreement. HP is indemnified in whole or in part by Hewlett Packard Enterprise for liabilities arising from the assets assigned to Hewlett Packard Enterprise and for certain environmental matters as detailed in the separation and distribution agreement.