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 Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2021 or December 31, 2020.

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 Tax Act (“Transition Tax”) based on the expected due dates of the various installments as of December 31, 2021 (in thousands):

Year	Purchase Obligations		Transition Tax
2022	$	11,506	$	2,953
2023		9,646		5,534
2024		972		7,379
2025		671		9,223
2026		685		0
Thereafter		230		0
	$	23,710	$	25,089

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. Pursuant to this court authorization, numerous entities and individuals across Brazil were subject to the freezing of assets and other measures, including a former reseller and former employees of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary. On February 6, 2020, the bank accounts of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary were also frozen up to an amount of BRL 10.0 million. On May 22, 2020, these bank accounts of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary were unfrozen based on a court decision that found the evidence provided to support the alleged illicit origin of the relevant funds was insufficient. On October 19, 2021, an appeals court upheld the decision to unfreeze the accounts (which had remained unfrozen while the appeal was pending). This decision is final. The transaction at issue is part of the basis of the previously reported failure or likely failure of the 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.

While the Company believes that it is probable that the resolution of these Brazilian matters will result in a loss, the amount or range of loss is not reasonably estimable at this time. Given the stage of these matters, the outcome may result in a material impact on the Company’s earnings and financial results for the period in which any such liability is accrued. However, the Company believes that the outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position.

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 March 1, 2021, Daedalus provided its formal infringement contentions which included additional accused functionality as part of its infringement allegations from the complaint, materially expanding the scope of its case. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, asking the court to rule that the asserted claims are invalid as being directed to patent ineligible matter. This matter is in the latter stage of factual discovery and the parties filed claim construction briefs with the court requesting the court construe the asserted claim terms of the patent. The court conducted a claim construction hearing on July 15, 2021. On August 17, 2021, the case was stayed by the court pending the appointment of a special master to provide assistance to the court with its claim construction order and other outstanding matters including the Company’s motion to dismiss. The special master was appointed on October 28, 2021 and was directed by the court to submit a Report and Recommendation as to the issue of claim construction and the pending motion to dismiss by February 1, 2022. On January 21, 2022, the special master issued two separate Reports and Recommendations. The first Report and Recommendation recommended constructions of certain patent claim terms and the second Report and Recommendation recommended, without reaching the merits, dismissing the Company’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to re-filing after discovery ends. The parties filed their respective objections to the special master’s Reports and Recommendations on February 4, 2022, and have until February 18, 2022 to file responses to the other party’s objections. The 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.

The Company has contingent liabilities that, in management’s judgment, are not probable of assertion. If such unasserted contingent liabilities were to be asserted, or become probable of assertion, the Company may be required to record significant expenses and liabilities in the period in which these liabilities are asserted or become probable of assertion.