Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

We are involved in various claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We accrue a liability when a loss is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. When a material loss contingency is reasonably possible but not probable, we do not record a liability, but instead disclose the nature and the amount of the claim, and an estimate of the loss or range of loss, if such an estimate can be made. Legal fees are expensed as incurred. While we do not expect that the ultimate resolution of any existing claims and proceedings (other than the specific matters described below, if decided adversely), individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, an unfavorable outcome in some or all of these proceedings could have a material adverse impact on results of operations or cash flows for a particular period. This assessment is based on our current understanding of relevant facts and circumstances. As such, our view of these matters is subject to inherent uncertainties and may change in the future.

On February 28, 2019, a ruling of the Supreme Court of India interpreting certain statutory defined contribution obligations of employees and employers (the “India Defined Contribution Obligation”) altered historical understandings of such obligations, extending them to cover additional portions of the employee’s income. As a result, the contributions of our employees and the Company in future periods are required to be increased. We have accrued $117 million with respect to prior periods, assuming retroactive application of the Supreme Court’s ruling. There is significant uncertainty as to how the liability should be calculated as it is impacted by multiple variables, including the period of assessment, the application with respect to certain current and former employees and whether interest and penalties may be assessed. Since the ruling, a variety of trade associations and industry

groups have advocated to the Indian government, highlighting the harm to the information technology sector, other industries and job growth in India that would result from a retroactive application of the ruling. We anticipate the Indian government will review the matter and believe there is a substantial question as to whether the Indian government will apply the Supreme Court’s ruling on a retroactive basis. As such, the ultimate amount of our obligation may be materially different from the amount accrued.

In February 2019, we completed our previously disclosed internal investigation focused on whether certain payments relating to Company-owned facilities in India were made improperly and in violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") and other applicable laws. We also announced a resolution of the previously disclosed investigations by the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") and United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") into the matters that were the subject of our internal investigation. In connection with this resolution, in February 2019 we paid approximately $28 million to the DOJ and SEC, an amount consistent with our December 31, 2018 accrual for this matter. The DOJ also issued a declination letter, declining to take any additional action against the Company.

In 2016, three putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming us and certain of our current and former officers as defendants. These complaints were consolidated into a single action and on April 7, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased our common stock during the period between February 27, 2015 and September 29, 2016, naming us and certain of our current and former officers as defendants and alleging violations of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false or misleading statements related to potential violations of the FCPA, our business, prospects and operations, and the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting and our disclosure controls and procedures. The lead plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory damages, among other relief, and their reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on June 6, 2017. On August 8, 2018, the Court issued an order which granted the motion to dismiss in part, including dismissal of all claims against current officers of the Company, and denied them in part. On September 7, 2018, we filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to certify the August 8, 2018 order for immediate appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). On October 18, 2018, the District Court issued an order granting our motion, and staying the action pending the outcome of our appeal petition to the Third Circuit. On October 29, 2018, we filed a petition for permission to appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On March 6, 2019, the Third Circuit denied our petition without prejudice. In an order dated March 19, 2019, the District Court directed the lead plaintiffs to provide the defendants with a proposed amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint and the defendants must file a motion to dismiss the complaint on or before June 10, 2019.

In 2016, three putative shareholder derivative complaints were filed in New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County, naming us, all of our then current directors and certain of our current and former officers as defendants. These actions were consolidated in an order dated January 24, 2017. The complaints assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, mismanagement, and/or insider selling by defendants. On March 16, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation deferring all further proceedings pending a final, non-appealable ruling on the then anticipated motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class action. On April 26, 2017, in lieu of ordering the stipulation filed by the parties, the New Jersey Superior Court deferred further proceedings by dismissing the consolidated putative shareholder derivative litigation without prejudice but permitting the parties to file a motion to vacate the dismissal in the future.

In 2017, three additional putative shareholder derivative complaints alleging similar claims were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming us and certain of our current and former directors and officers as defendants. These complaints asserted claims similar to those in the previously-filed putative shareholder derivative actions. In an order dated June 20, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey consolidated these actions into a single action, appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and stayed all further proceedings pending a final, non-appealable ruling on the motions to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class action. On October 30, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated verified derivative complaint.

On March 11, 2019, a seventh putative shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming us, certain of our current and former directors, and certain of our current and former officers as defendants. The complaint in that action asserts claims similar to those in the previously-filed putative shareholder derivative actions.

We are presently unable to predict the duration, scope or result of the consolidated putative securities class action, the putative shareholder derivative actions or any other lawsuits. As such, we are presently unable to develop a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range of losses, if any, and thus have not recorded any accruals related to these matters. While the Company intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously, these lawsuits and any other related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost of such litigation will depend upon many unknown factors and the outcome of the litigation is necessarily uncertain.

We have indemnification and expense advancement obligations pursuant to our bylaws and indemnification agreements with respect to certain current and former members of senior management and the Company’s directors. In connection with the matters that were the subject of our previously disclosed internal investigation, the DOJ and SEC investigations and the related litigation, we have received and expect to continue to receive requests under such indemnification agreements and our bylaws to provide funds for legal fees and other expenses. We have expensed such costs incurred through March 31, 2019.

We have maintained directors and officers insurance, from which a portion of the indemnification expenses and costs related to the putative securities class action complaints may be recoverable, and have recorded an insurance receivable of $6 million as of March 31, 2019. We are unable to make a reliable estimate of the eventual cash flows by period related to the indemnification and expense advancement obligations described here.

See Note 9 for information relating to the ITD Dispute.

Many of our engagements involve projects that are critical to the operations of our customers’ business and provide benefits that are difficult to quantify. Any failure in a customer’s systems or our failure to meet our contractual obligations to our customers, including any breach involving a customer’s confidential information or sensitive data, or our obligations under applicable laws or regulations could result in a claim for substantial damages against us, regardless of our responsibility for such failure. Although we attempt to contractually limit our liability for damages arising from negligent acts, errors, mistakes, or omissions in rendering our services, there can be no assurance that the limitations of liability set forth in our contracts will be enforceable in all instances or will otherwise protect us from liability for damages. Although we have general liability insurance coverage, including coverage for errors or omissions, there can be no assurance that such coverage will cover all types of claims, continue to be available on reasonable terms or will be available in sufficient amounts to cover one or more large claims, or that the insurer will not disclaim coverage as to any future claim. The successful assertion of one or more large claims against us that exceed or are not covered by our insurance coverage or changes in our insurance policies, including premium increases or the imposition of large deductible or co-insurance requirements, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position and cash flows for a particular period.

In the normal course of business and in conjunction with certain customer engagements, we have entered into contractual arrangements through which we may be obligated to indemnify customers or other parties with whom we conduct business with respect to certain matters. These arrangements can include provisions whereby we agree to hold the indemnified party and certain of their affiliated entities harmless with respect to third-party claims related to such matters as our breach of certain representations or covenants, our intellectual property infringement, our gross negligence or willful misconduct or certain other claims made against certain parties. Payments by us under any of these arrangements are generally conditioned on the customer making a claim and providing us with full control over the defense and settlement of such claim. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential liability under these indemnification agreements due to the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, we have not made payments under these indemnification agreements and therefore they have not had any impact on our operating results, financial position, or cash flows. However, if events arise requiring us to make payment for indemnification claims under our indemnification obligations in contracts we have entered, such payments could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position and cash flows for a particular period.