Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

In accordance with ASC 460, Guarantees, the Company recognizes the fair value for guarantee and indemnification arrangements it issues or modifies if these arrangements are within the scope of the interpretation. In addition, the Company must continue to monitor the conditions that are subject to the guarantees and indemnifications, as required under the previously existing generally accepted accounting principles, to identify if a loss has occurred. If the Company determines it is probable a loss has occurred, then any estimable loss would be recognized under those guarantees and indemnifications. Under its customer agreements, the Company may agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless its customers from and against certain losses, damages, and costs arising from claims alleging that the use of its software infringes the intellectual property of a third-party. Historically, the Company has not been required to pay material amounts in connection with claims asserted under these provisions, and accordingly, the Company has not recorded a liability relating to such provisions.

Under its customer agreements, the Company also may represent and warrant to customers that its software will operate substantially in conformance with its documentation, and that the services the Company performs will be performed in a workmanlike manner by personnel reasonably qualified by experience and expertise to perform their assigned tasks. Historically, only minimal costs have been incurred relating to the satisfaction of warranty claims. In addition, from time to time, the Company may guarantee the performance of a contract on behalf of one or more of its subsidiaries, or a subsidiary may guarantee the performance of a contract on behalf of another subsidiary.

Other guarantees include promises to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Company’s executive officers, directors, and certain other key officers. The Company’s certificate of incorporation provides that it will indemnify and advance expenses to its directors and officers to the maximum extent permitted by Delaware law. The indemnification covers any expenses and liabilities reasonably incurred by a person, by reason of the fact that such person is, was, or has agreed to be a director or officer, in connection with the investigation, defense, and settlement of any threatened, pending, or completed action, suit, proceeding, or claim. The Company’s certificate of incorporation authorizes the use of indemnification agreements, and the Company enters into such agreements with its directors and certain officers from time to time. These indemnification agreements typically provide for a broader scope of the Company’s obligation to indemnify the directors and officers than set forth in the certificate of incorporation. The Company’s contractual indemnification obligations under these agreements are in addition to the respective directors’ and officers’ rights under the certificate of incorporation or under Delaware law.

Legal Proceedings

On September 23, 2015, a jury verdict was returned against ACI Worldwide Corp. (“ACI Corp.”), a subsidiary of the Company, for $43.8 million in connection with counterclaims brought by Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, Inc. (“BHMI”) in the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska. On September 21, 2012, ACI Corp. sued BHMI for misappropriation of ACI Corp.’s trade secrets. The jury found that ACI Corp. had not met its burden of proof regarding these claims. On March 6, 2013, BHMI asserted counterclaims alleged to arise out of ACI Corp.’s filing of its lawsuit. The court entered a judgment against ACI Corp. for $43.8 million for damages and $2.7 million for attorney fees and costs. ACI Corp. disagreed with the verdicts and judgment, and, after the trial court denied ACI Corp.’s post-judgment motions, ACI Corp. perfected an appeal of the dismissal of its claims against BHMI and the judgment in favor of BHMI. On June 9, 2017, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the District Court judgment. The Company recorded expense of $48.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2017, of which $46.7 million is included in general and

administrative expense and $1.4 million is included in interest expense in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations. The Company paid the judgment, including interest, during the year ended December 31, 2017.