From time to time, the Company enters into certain types of contracts that require it to indemnify parties against third-party claims. These contracts primarily relate to agreements under which the Company assumes indemnity obligations for intellectual property infringement, as well as other obligations from time to time depending on arrangements negotiated with customers and other third parties. The conditions of these obligations vary. Thus, the overall maximum amount of the Company’s indemnification obligations cannot be reasonably estimated. Historically, the Company has not been obligated to make significant payments for these obligations and does not currently expect to incur any material obligations in the future. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded an indemnification liability on its Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2023 or December 31, 2022.

The following table shows future minimum payments related to noncancelable purchase agreements with initial terms of greater than one year and anticipated payments related to the mandatory deemed repatriation transition tax resulting from the U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“Transition Tax”) based on the expected due dates of the various installments as of December 31, 2023 (in thousands):


Year	Purchase Obligations		Transition Tax
2024	$	22,003	$	7,379
2025		31,633		9,223
2026		57,132		0
2027		25,000		0
2028		0		0
Thereafter		0		0
	$	135,768	$	16,602

Following an internal review initiated in 2018, the Company believes that its Brazilian subsidiary failed or likely failed to comply with local procurement regulations in conducting business with certain Brazilian government entities.

On February 6, 2020, the Company learned that a Brazilian court authorized the Brazilian Federal Police to use certain investigative measures in its investigation into alleged corruption and procurement fraud involving certain government officials, pertaining to a particular transaction. The transaction at issue is part of the basis of the previously reported failure or likely failure of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary to comply with local procurement regulations. The Company is not aware of any allegations that any former employee or the Company made any payments to Brazilian government officials. The Brazilian Federal Police expanded the investigation to include other possible cases of procurement fraud involving Brazilian government entities. Criminal penalties may be imposed against individuals; however, neither employees of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary nor the subsidiary itself have been targets of the Federal Police investigation.

The Company has also learned that Brazil’s Federal Comptroller General filed an administrative action against the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary with respect to the alleged procurement violations. These matters remain the subject of investigation by Brazilian authorities. The Company is taking measures to attempt to resolve these matters.

On January 18, 2023, Brazil’s General Superintendence of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (“SG/CADE”) launched an administrative proceeding to investigate potentially anticompetitive conduct, naming various individuals and companies as defendants including the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary. The proceeding involves conduct relating to transactions with certain Brazilian public and private entities that is part of the basis of the foregoing failure or likely failure of the Brazilian subsidiary to comply with local procurement regulations. The proceeding was precipitated by the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary’s voluntary disclosure of information to SG/CADE that arose out of the internal review initiated in 2018, and the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary has secured a leniency agreement with SG/CADE. If at the end of the proceeding, CADE’s Tribunal confirms that the leniency agreement obligations have been fulfilled, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary will receive full immunity from fines.

The Company believes that a loss is probable in connection with these Brazilian matters. The Company has estimated a minimum loss of $1.2 million in respect of these matters. Given the stage of these matters, as of December 31, 2023, the Company remains unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss beyond such minimum loss. The aggregate accrued amount for these matters is included as a component of “Accounts payable, accrued expenses, and operating lease liabilities” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2023. No amounts were accrued as of December 31, 2022, as the minimum loss was not estimable at such date. The final outcome of these matters may result in a loss that is significantly greater than this accrued amount. Any loss associated with the final outcome of these matters may result in a material impact on the Company’s earnings and financial results for the period in which any such additional

liability is accrued. However, the Company believes that any loss associated with the final outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position.

As previously reported, on November 4, 2020, a complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by a patent assertion entity called Daedalus Blue, LLC (“Daedalus”). In its complaint, Daedalus alleges that the Company has infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,341,172 (the “’172 Patent”) and 9,032,076 (the “’076 Patent”) based on specific functionality in the MicroStrategy platform. The ’172 Patent relates to a method for providing aggregate data access in response to a query, whereas the ’076 Patent relates to a role-based access control system.

On January 5, 2024, Daedalus and the Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) pursuant to which the parties agreed to settle the matter. Under the MOU, the Company received a fully paid-up license to all patents owned by Daedalus as of January 5, 2024, including the ’172 Patent and the ’076 Patent. The court cancelled the trial scheduled to begin on January 8, 2024 and suspended all case deadlines. On January 29, 2024, the parties executed a formal settlement agreement memorializing the terms set forth in the MOU and agreed to file a stipulation of dismissal with the court by February 27, 2024.

On August 31, 2022, the District of Columbia (the “District”), through its Office of the Attorney General, filed a civil complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia naming as defendants (i) Michael J. Saylor, the Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors and the Company’s Executive Chairman, in his personal capacity, and (ii) the Company. The District sought, among other relief, monetary damages under the District’s False Claims Act for the alleged failure of Mr. Saylor to pay personal income taxes to the District over a number of years together with penalties, interest, and treble damages. The complaint alleged that the amount of personal income taxes purportedly involved was more than $25 million. The complaint also alleged in the sole claim against the Company that it violated the District’s False Claims Act by conspiring to assist Mr. Saylor’s alleged failure to pay personal income taxes. On October 26, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the District’s complaint. On February 28, 2023, the court ruled on the motion to dismiss, dismissing the sole claim against the Company as well as a claim against Mr. Saylor alleging that Mr. Saylor violated the District’s False Claims Act. The court did not dismiss claims against Mr. Saylor alleging that Mr. Saylor failed to pay personal income taxes, interest and penalties due. On April 13, 2023, the District, through its Office of the Attorney General, filed a motion to amend its complaint to attempt to restore claims under the False Claims Act against both Mr. Saylor and the Company. On May 10, 2023, the court granted the District’s motion to amend its complaint, reinstating the Company as a defendant in the case. The amended complaint alleges that the Company violated the District’s False Claims Act by making and using false records and statements in the form of false withholding filings with the District Office of Tax and Revenue. The amended complaint also alleges that Mr. Saylor violated the District’s False Claims Act by making and using false records and statements and by causing the Company to make and use false records and statements. On June 7, 2023, Mr. Saylor and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the District’s amended complaint with prejudice. On July 5, 2023, the District filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss made by Mr. Saylor and the Company. On July 19, 2023, Mr. Saylor and the Company filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. On July 31, 2023, the court denied Mr. Saylor’s and the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 22, 2023, the Company and Mr. Saylor filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its July 31 decision or, in the alternative, to certify for interlocutory review two case-dispositive issues relating to the validity of tax-related amendments to the District’s False Claims Act and authority of the Office of the Attorney General to sue for allegedly unpaid taxes. On October 31, 2023, the court denied Mr. Saylor’s and the Company’s motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification for interlocutory review. The final outcome of this matter is not presently determinable.

The Company is also involved in various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcomes of these legal proceedings are inherently difficult to predict, management does not expect the resolution of these legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.