Note 15: Litigation and Contingencies

HP is involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including those identified below, consisting of IP, commercial, securities, employment, employee benefits and environmental matters that arise in the ordinary course of business. 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 October 31, 2015, 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. As described below, proceedings are ongoing or have been concluded involving HP in certain European Union (“EU”) member countries, including litigation in Germany and Belgium, seeking to impose or modify levies upon equipment (such as multifunction devices (“MFDs”) and PCs alleging that these devices enable producing private copies of copyrighted materials. Descriptions of some of the ongoing proceedings are included below. The levies are generally based upon the number of products sold and the per-product amounts of the levies, which vary. Some EU member 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 some other EU member 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.

In September 2003, VerwertungsGesellschaft Wort (“VG Wort”), a collection agency representing certain copyright holders, filed a lawsuit against Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH (“Fujitsu”) in the Munich Civil Court in Munich, Germany seeking to impose levies on PCs. This is an industry test case in Germany, and HP has agreed not to object to the delay if VG Wort sues HP for such levies on PCs following a final decision against Fujitsu. On December 23, 2004, the Munich Civil Court held that PCs are subject to a levy and that Fujitsu must pay €12 plus compounded interest for each PC sold in Germany since March 2001. Fujitsu appealed this decision in January 2005 to the Munich Court of Appeals. On December 15, 2005, the Munich Court of Appeals affirmed the Munich Civil Court decision. Fujitsu filed an appeal with the German Federal Supreme Court in February 2006. On October 2, 2008, the German Federal Supreme Court issued a judgment that PCs were not photocopiers within the meaning of the German copyright law that was in effect until December 31, 2007 and, therefore, were not subject to the levies on photocopiers established by that law. VG Wort subsequently filed a claim with the German Federal Constitutional Court challenging that ruling. In January 2011, the Constitutional Court published a decision holding that the German Federal Supreme Court decision was inconsistent with the German Constitution and revoking the German Federal Supreme Court decision. The Constitutional Court also remitted the matter to the German Federal Supreme Court for further action. On July 21, 2011, the German Federal Supreme Court stayed the proceedings and referred several questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) with regard to the interpretation of the European Copyright Directive. On June 27, 2013, the CJEU issued its decision responding to those questions. The German Federal Supreme Court subsequently scheduled a joint hearing on that matter with other cases relating to reprographic levies on printers that was held on October 31, 2013. The German Federal Supreme Court issued a decision on July 3, 2014 partially granting the claim of VG Wort. The German Federal Supreme Court decision provides that levies are due for audiovisual copying of standing text and pictures using a PC as the last device in a single reproduction process under the control of the same person, but no levies are due on a PC for reprographic copies made using a “PC-printer” or a “scanner-PC-printer” chain. The case has been remitted to the Munich Court of Appeals to assess the amount to be paid per PC unit. On March 16, 2016, the industry association BITKOM and the collection societies, VG Wort and VG BildKunst signed a settlement agreement defining the levies due on PCs sold in Germany from 2001 through 2007. HP has joined the settlement agreement and payment is due on August 1, 2016.

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 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 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 in multiple legal points, as argued by HP. The Court of Appeal of Brussels now has to rule on the litigation between HP and Reprobel following the answers provided by the CJEU.

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 matters described above. However, the ultimate resolution of these matters and the associated financial impact on HP, including the number of units impacted and the amount of levies imposed, remains uncertain.

Memjet Technology Ltd. v. HP. On August 11, 2015, Memjet Technology Ltd. (“Memjet”) filed a lawsuit against HP in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that HP infringes eight Memjet patents. The products accused of infringement are those that use the HP PageWide Technology, including the OfficeJet Pro X series, OfficeJet Enterprise X series, HP PageWide XL, wide scan printers, and printers using 4.25-inch thermal inkjet printheads, such as HP Web Presses and Photo Kiosks. HP answered Memjet’s complaint and has asserted counter-claims against Memjet for infringement of seven HP patents. The products accused of infringement include various Memjet OEM printers that incorporate Memjet’s printheads and print engines. The patents asserted by both parties generally relate to inkjet printhead and print system technology. Both Memjet’s and HP’s respective complaints seek injunctive relief and monetary damages from the other party for alleged patent infringement. HP has filed a number of petitions at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seeking review of the validity of Memjet’s asserted patents. On November 16, 2015, Memjet was granted an ex parte preliminary injunction in Germany (Regional Court Munich), against HP Deutschland GmbH’s sale and offers for sale of HP PageWide XL printers and printheads. Memjet’s injunction request alleged that HP infringed one European patent. On January 29, 2016, the court lifted the preliminary injunction. In its written judgment dated February 2, 2016 the court ruled that Memjet had not satisfied the requirements for an injunction, as the HP PageWide XL printers do not appear to infringe the Memjet patent at issue and there was a lack of urgency for a preliminary injunction. Memjet appealed to the Appeal Court Munich. On January 28, 2016, HP filed a claim in Ireland for declaratory relief that HP does not infringe the Irish, German and French counterparts of the same patent and for revocation of the patent’s Irish counterpart, and HP also filed a claim in the UK for declaratory relief and revocation of the patent’s UK counterpart. On February 5, 2016, Memjet filed main proceedings in Germany claiming infringement of the same European patent.

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 cancelled 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 and Other Anti-Corruption Investigations. 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. The Polish Central Anti-Corruption Bureau is also investigating potential corrupt actions by a former employee of Hewlett-Packard Polska Sp. z o.o., a former indirect subsidiary of HP, in connection with certain public-sector transactions in Poland. Criminal proceedings are pending before the Regional Court in Warsaw against four individuals, including the former employee of Hewlett-Packard Polska Sp. z o.o, on charges of bribery and bid-rigging. HP is cooperating with these investigating agencies.

Stockholder Litigation. As described below, HP is involved in various stockholder litigation matters commenced against certain current and former HP executive officers and/or certain current and former members of HP’s Board of Directors in which the plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages related to HP’s allegedly inflated stock price, certain compensation paid by HP to the defendants, other damages and/or injunctive relief. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise share equally the cost and any damages arising from the following matters:

A.J. Copeland v. Léo Apotheker, et al. is a lawsuit that was filed on February 10, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that the defendants used their control over HP and its corporate suffrage process in effectuating, directly participating in and/or aiding and abetting violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and breach of the duty of candor. The claims arise out of the circumstances at HP relating to its 2013 and 2014 proxy statements, the departure of Mark Hurd as Chairman of HP’s Board of Directors and HP’s Chief Executive Officer, alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and HP’s acquisition of 3PAR Inc. and Autonomy Corporation plc (“Autonomy”). On February 25, 2014, the court issued an order granting HP’s administrative motion to relate this action to another pending matter filed by plaintiff, Copeland v. Lane, et al. On April 8, 2014, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay the action pending resolution of Copeland v. Lane, et al by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Copeland v. Lane, et al on October 25, 2015. On March 3, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal of the Action (“Dismissal”). On March 4, 2016, the court entered an order approving the Dismissal. HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise have provided notice of the Dismissal in Current Reports on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The action has been dismissed in its entirety.

Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class action filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making statements regarding HP’s Standards of Business Conduct (“SBC”) that were false and misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was serving as HP’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with HP. On February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September 9, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 9, 2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on October 24, 2013. On June 25, 2014, the court issued an order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss and on July 25, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On November 4, 2014, the plaintiff-appellant filed its opening brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. HP filed its answering brief on January 16, 2015 and the plaintiff-appellant’s reply brief was filed on March 2, 2015. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.

Autonomy-Related Legal Matters

Investigations. As a result of the findings of an ongoing investigation, HP has provided information to the 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 November 21, 2012, DOJ representatives advised HP that they had opened an investigation relating to Autonomy. On February 6, 2013, representatives of the U.K. Serious Fraud Office advised HP that they had also opened an investigation relating to 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. HP is cooperating with the DOJ and the SEC, whose investigations are ongoing.

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 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 brief is due on May 12, 2016.

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.

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 have appealed the court’s order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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.