Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Contingencies
Contingencies	14. Contingencies: As a company with a substantial employee population and with clients in more than 175 countries, IBM is involved, either as plaintiff or defendant, in a variety of ongoing claims, demands, suits, investigations, tax matters and proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business. The company is a leader in the information technology industry and, as such, has been and will continue to be subject to claims challenging its IP rights and associated products and offerings, including claims of copyright and patent infringement and violations of trade secrets and other IP rights. In addition, the company enforces its own IP against infringement, through license negotiations, lawsuits or otherwise. Also, as is typical for companies of IBM’s scope and scale, the company is party to actions and proceedings in various jurisdictions involving a wide range of labor and employment issues (including matters related to contested employment decisions, country-specific labor and employment laws, and the company’s pension, retirement and other benefit plans), as well as actions with respect to contracts, product liability, securities, foreign operations, competition law and environmental matters. These actions may be commenced by a number of different parties, including competitors, clients, current or former employees, government and regulatory agencies, stockholders and representatives of the locations in which the company does business. Some of the actions to which the company is party may involve particularly complex technical issues, and some actions may raise novel questions under the laws of the various jurisdictions in which these matters arise. The company records a provision with respect to a claim, suit, investigation or proceeding when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Any recorded liabilities, including any changes to such liabilities for the quarter ended June 30, 2019 were not material to the Consolidated Financial Statements. In accordance with the relevant accounting guidance, the company provides disclosures of matters for which the likelihood of material loss is at least reasonably possible. In addition, the company also discloses matters based on its consideration of other matters and qualitative factors, including the experience of other companies in the industry, and investor, customer and employee relations considerations. With respect to certain of the claims, suits, investigations and proceedings discussed herein, the company believes at this time that the likelihood of any material loss is remote, given, for example, the procedural status, court rulings, and/or the strength of the company’s defenses in those matters. With respect to the remaining claims, suits, investigations and proceedings discussed in this note, except as specifically discussed herein, the company is unable to provide estimates of reasonably possible losses or range of losses, including losses in excess of amounts accrued, if any, for the following reasons. Claims, suits, investigations and proceedings are inherently uncertain, and it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. It is the company’s experience that damage amounts claimed in litigation against it are unreliable and unrelated to possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of the company’s potential liability. Further, the company is unable to provide such an estimate due to a number of other factors with respect to these claims, suits, investigations and proceedings, including considerations of the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and/or the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matters. The company reviews claims, suits, investigations and proceedings at least quarterly, and decisions are made with respect to recording or adjusting provisions and disclosing reasonably possible losses or range of losses (individually or in the aggregate), to reflect the impact and status of settlement discussions, discovery, procedural and substantive rulings, reviews by counsel and other information pertinent to a particular matter. Whether any losses, damages or remedies finally determined in any claim, suit, investigation or proceeding could reasonably have a material effect on the company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows will depend on a number of variables, including: the timing and amount of such losses or damages; the structure and type of any such remedies; the significance of the impact any such losses, damages or remedies may have in the Consolidated Financial Statements; and the unique facts and circumstances of the particular matter that may give rise to additional factors. While the company will continue to defend itself vigorously, it is possible that the company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be affected in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of these matters. The following is a summary of the more significant legal matters involving the company. The company is a defendant in an action filed on March 6, 2003 in state court in Salt Lake City, Utah by the SCO Group (SCO v. IBM). The company removed the case to Federal Court in Utah. Plaintiff is an alleged successor in interest to some of AT&T’s UNIX IP rights, and alleges copyright infringement, unfair competition, interference with contract and breach of contract with regard to the company’s distribution of AIX and Dynix and contribution of code to Linux and the company has asserted counterclaims. On September 14, 2007, plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection, and all proceedings in this case were stayed. The court in another suit, the SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., held a trial in March 2010. The jury found that Novell is the owner of UNIX and UnixWare copyrights; the judge subsequently ruled that SCO is obligated to recognize Novell’s waiver of SCO’s claims against IBM and Sequent for breach of UNIX license agreements. On August 30, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling and denied SCO’s appeal of this matter. In June 2013, the Federal Court in Utah granted SCO’s motion to reopen the SCO v. IBM case. In February 2016, the Federal Court ruled in favor of IBM on all of SCO’s remaining claims, and SCO appealed. On October 30, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all but one of SCO’s remaining claims, which was remanded to the Federal Court in Utah. On May 13, 2010, IBM and the State of Indiana (acting on behalf of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration) sued one another in a dispute over a 2006 contract regarding the modernization of social service program processing in Indiana. After six weeks of trial, on July 18, 2012, the Indiana Superior Court in Marion County rejected the State’s claims in their entirety and awarded IBM $52 million plus interest and costs. On February 13, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed portions of the trial judge’s findings, found IBM in material breach, and ordered the case remanded to the trial judge to determine the State’s damages, if any. The Indiana Court of Appeals also affirmed approximately $50 million of the trial court’s award of damages to IBM. On March 22, 2016, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the outcome of the Indiana Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Indiana Superior Court. On August 7, 2017, the Indiana Superior Court awarded the State $128 million, which it then offset against IBM’s previously affirmed award of $50 million, resulting in a $78 million award to the State, plus interest. On September 28, 2018, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court’s $78 million award to the State, but reversed the Superior Court by awarding IBM interest on its previously affirmed $50 million award. On June 26, 2019, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the Indiana Court of Appeals’ award of interest to IBM, but otherwise affirmed the Superior Court’s and the Court of Appeals’ awards. IBM has petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for rehearing. The matter remains pending. On March 9, 2017, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry sued IBM in Pennsylvania state court regarding a 2006 contract for the development of a custom software system to manage the Commonwealth’s unemployment insurance benefits programs. The matter is pending in a Pennsylvania court. Following the 2017 final judgment of the Appeal Court in London holding that IBM UK acted lawfully in 2010 in closing its UK defined benefit plans to future accruals for most participants and in implementing a new retirement policy, the Employment Tribunal in Southampton UK is expected to address approximately 290 individual actions alleging constructive dismissal and age discrimination brought against IBM UK in 2010 by employees who left the company at that time. The individual actions were previously stayed. In May 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the company’s October 2014 announcement that it was divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology business, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Management’s Retirement Plans Committee and three current or former IBM executives are named as defendants. On September 29, 2017, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On December 10, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court order. On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States granted defendants’ request to hear the case. The company is party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by U.S. federal or state environmental agencies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), known as “Superfund,” or laws similar to CERCLA. Such statutes require potentially responsible parties to participate in remediation activities regardless of fault or ownership of sites. The company is also conducting environmental investigations, assessments or remediations at or in the vicinity of several current or former operating sites globally pursuant to permits, administrative orders or agreements with country, state or local environmental agencies, and is involved in lawsuits and claims concerning certain current or former operating sites. The company is also subject to ongoing tax examinations and governmental assessments in various jurisdictions. Along with many other U.S. companies doing business in Brazil, the company is involved in various challenges with Brazilian tax authorities regarding non-income tax assessments and non-income tax litigation matters. The total potential amount related to all these matters for all applicable years is approximately $950 million. The company believes it will prevail on these matters and that this amount is not a meaningful indicator of liability.

Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

14. Contingencies:

As a company with a substantial employee population and with clients in more than 175 countries, IBM is involved, either as plaintiff or defendant, in a variety of ongoing claims, demands, suits, investigations, tax matters and proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business. The company is a leader in the information technology industry and, as such, has been and will continue to be subject to claims challenging its IP rights and associated products and offerings, including claims of copyright and patent infringement and violations of trade secrets and other IP rights. In addition, the company enforces its own IP against infringement, through license negotiations, lawsuits or otherwise. Also, as is typical for companies of IBM’s scope and scale, the company is party to actions and proceedings in various jurisdictions involving a wide range of labor and employment issues (including matters related to contested employment decisions, country-specific labor and employment laws, and the company’s pension, retirement and other benefit plans), as well as actions with respect to contracts, product liability, securities, foreign operations, competition law and environmental matters. These actions may be commenced by a number of different parties, including competitors, clients, current or former employees, government and regulatory agencies, stockholders and representatives of the locations in which the company does business. Some of the actions to which the company is party may involve particularly complex technical issues, and some actions may raise novel questions under the laws of the various jurisdictions in which these matters arise.

The company records a provision with respect to a claim, suit, investigation or proceeding when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Any recorded liabilities, including any changes to such liabilities for the quarter ended June 30, 2019 were not material to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

In accordance with the relevant accounting guidance, the company provides disclosures of matters for which the likelihood of material loss is at least reasonably possible. In addition, the company also discloses matters based on its consideration of other matters and qualitative factors, including the experience of other companies in the industry, and investor, customer and employee relations considerations.

With respect to certain of the claims, suits, investigations and proceedings discussed herein, the company believes at this time that the likelihood of any material loss is remote, given, for example, the procedural status, court rulings, and/or the strength of the company’s defenses in those matters. With respect to the remaining claims, suits, investigations and proceedings discussed in this note, except as specifically discussed herein, the company is unable to provide estimates of reasonably possible losses or range of losses, including losses in excess of amounts accrued, if any, for the following reasons. Claims, suits, investigations and proceedings are inherently uncertain, and it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. It is the company’s experience that damage amounts claimed in litigation against it are unreliable and unrelated to possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of the company’s potential liability. Further, the company is unable to provide such an estimate due to a number of other factors with respect to these claims, suits, investigations and proceedings, including considerations of the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and/or the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matters. The company reviews claims, suits, investigations and proceedings at least quarterly, and decisions are made with respect to recording or adjusting provisions and disclosing reasonably possible losses or range of losses (individually or in the aggregate), to reflect the impact and status of settlement discussions, discovery, procedural and substantive rulings, reviews by counsel and other information pertinent to a particular matter.

Whether any losses, damages or remedies finally determined in any claim, suit, investigation or proceeding could reasonably have a material effect on the company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows will depend on a number of variables, including: the timing and amount of such losses or damages; the structure and type of any such remedies; the significance of the impact any such losses, damages or remedies may have in the Consolidated Financial Statements; and the unique facts and circumstances of the particular matter that may give rise to additional factors. While the company will continue to defend itself vigorously, it is possible that the company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be affected in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of these matters.

The following is a summary of the more significant legal matters involving the company.

The company is a defendant in an action filed on March 6, 2003 in state court in Salt Lake City, Utah by the SCO Group (SCO v. IBM). The company removed the case to Federal Court in Utah. Plaintiff is an alleged successor in interest to some of AT&T’s UNIX IP rights, and alleges copyright infringement, unfair competition, interference with contract and breach of contract with regard to the company’s distribution of AIX and Dynix and contribution of code to Linux and the company has asserted counterclaims. On September 14, 2007, plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection, and all proceedings in this case were stayed. The court in another suit, the SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., held a trial in March 2010. The jury found that Novell is the owner of UNIX and UnixWare copyrights; the judge subsequently ruled that SCO is obligated to recognize Novell’s waiver of SCO’s claims against IBM and Sequent for breach of UNIX license agreements. On August 30, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling and denied SCO’s appeal of this matter. In June 2013, the Federal Court in Utah granted SCO’s motion to reopen the SCO v. IBM case. In February 2016, the Federal Court ruled in favor of IBM on all of SCO’s remaining claims, and SCO appealed. On October 30, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all but one of SCO’s remaining claims, which was remanded to the Federal Court in Utah.

On May 13, 2010, IBM and the State of Indiana (acting on behalf of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration) sued one another in a dispute over a 2006 contract regarding the modernization of social service program processing in Indiana. After six weeks of trial, on July 18, 2012, the Indiana Superior Court in Marion County rejected the State’s claims in their entirety and awarded IBM $52 million plus interest and costs. On February 13, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed portions of the trial judge’s findings, found IBM in material breach, and ordered the case remanded to the trial judge to determine the State’s damages, if any. The Indiana Court of Appeals also affirmed approximately $50 million of the trial court’s award of damages to IBM. On March 22, 2016, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the outcome of the Indiana Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Indiana Superior Court. On August 7, 2017, the Indiana Superior Court awarded the State $128 million, which it then offset against IBM’s previously affirmed award of $50 million, resulting in a $78 million award to the State, plus interest. On September 28, 2018, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court’s $78 million award to the State, but reversed the Superior Court by awarding IBM interest on its previously affirmed $50 million award. On June 26, 2019, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the Indiana Court of Appeals’ award of interest to IBM, but otherwise affirmed the Superior Court’s and the Court of Appeals’ awards. IBM has petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for rehearing. The matter remains pending.

On March 9, 2017, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry sued IBM in Pennsylvania state court regarding a 2006 contract for the development of a custom software system to manage the Commonwealth’s unemployment insurance benefits programs. The matter is pending in a Pennsylvania court.

Following the 2017 final judgment of the Appeal Court in London holding that IBM UK acted lawfully in 2010 in closing its UK defined benefit plans to future accruals for most participants and in implementing a new retirement policy, the Employment Tribunal in Southampton UK is expected to address approximately 290 individual actions alleging constructive dismissal and age discrimination brought against IBM UK in 2010 by employees who left the company at that time. The individual actions were previously stayed.

In May 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the company’s October 2014 announcement that it was divesting its global commercial

semiconductor technology business, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Management’s Retirement Plans Committee and three current or former IBM executives are named as defendants. On September 29, 2017, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On December 10, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court order. On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States granted defendants’ request to hear the case.

The company is party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by U.S. federal or state environmental agencies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), known as “Superfund,” or laws similar to CERCLA. Such statutes require potentially responsible parties to participate in remediation activities regardless of fault or ownership of sites. The company is also conducting environmental investigations, assessments or remediations at or in the vicinity of several current or former operating sites globally pursuant to permits, administrative orders or agreements with country, state or local environmental agencies, and is involved in lawsuits and claims concerning certain current or former operating sites.

The company is also subject to ongoing tax examinations and governmental assessments in various jurisdictions. Along with many other U.S. companies doing business in Brazil, the company is involved in various challenges with Brazilian tax authorities regarding non-income tax assessments and non-income tax litigation matters. The total potential amount related to all these matters for all applicable years is approximately $950 million. The company believes it will prevail on these matters and that this amount is not a meaningful indicator of liability.