Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

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 January 15, 2015, Syntel sued TriZetto and Cognizant in the USDC-SDNY. Syntel’s complaint alleged breach of contract against TriZetto, and tortious interference and misappropriation of trade secrets against Cognizant and TriZetto, stemming from Cognizant’s hiring of certain former Syntel employees. Cognizant and TriZetto countersued on March 23, 2015, for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference, based on Syntel’s misuse of TriZetto confidential information and abandonment of contractual obligations. Cognizant and TriZetto subsequently added federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and copyright infringement claims for Syntel’s misuse of TriZetto’s proprietary technology. The parties’ claims were narrowed by the court and the case was tried before a jury, which on October 27, 2020 returned a verdict in favor of Cognizant in the amount of $855 million, including $570 million in punitive damages. On April 20, 2021, the USDC-SDNY issued a post-trial order that, among other things, affirmed the jury’s award of $285 million in actual damages, but reduced the award of punitive damages from $570 million to $285 million, thereby reducing the overall damages award from $855 million to $570 million. The USDC-SDNY subsequently issued a final judgment consistent with the April 20th order. On May 26, 2021, Syntel filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on June 3, 2021 the USDC-SDNY stayed execution of judgment pending appeal. We will not record the gain in our financial statements until it becomes realizable.

On February 28, 2019, a ruling of the SCI interpreting the India Defined Contribution Obligation altered historical understandings of the obligation, extending it to cover additional portions of the employee’s income. As a result, the ongoing contributions of our affected employees and the Company were required to be increased. In the first quarter of 2019, we accrued $117 million with respect to prior periods, assuming retroactive application of the Supreme Court’s ruling, in "Selling, general and administrative expenses" in our unaudited consolidated statement of operations. 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. It is possible the Indian government will review the matter and there is a substantial question as to whether the Indian government will apply the SCI’s ruling on a retroactive basis. As such, the ultimate amount of our obligation may be materially different from the amount accrued.

On October 5, 2016, October 27, 2016 and November 18, 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 at that time 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 at that time as defendants and alleging violations of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false or misleading statements related to potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 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 motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on June 6, 2017. On August 8, 2018, the USDC-NJ issued an order which granted the motions 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 USDC-NJ 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 USDC-NJ 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 Third Circuit. On March 6, 2019, the Third Circuit denied our petition without prejudice. In an order dated March 19, 2019, the USDC-NJ directed the lead plaintiffs to provide the defendants with a proposed amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed their second

amended complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 10, 2019. On June 7, 2020, the USDC-NJ issued an order denying our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On July 10, 2020, we filed our answer to the second amended complaint. On July 23, 2020, the DOJ filed a motion on consent for leave to intervene and to stay all discovery through the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in United States v. Gordon J. Coburn and Steven Schwartz, Crim. No. 19-120 (KM), except for documents produced by us to the DOJ in connection with those criminal proceedings. On July 24, 2020, the USDC-NJ granted the DOJ’s motion; and on that same day, we filed a motion in the USDC-NJ to certify the June 7, 2020 order for immediate appeal to the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). On March 17, 2021, the USDC-NJ issued an order denying our motion.

On October 31, 2016, November 15, 2016 and November 18, 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 at that time 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.

On February 22, 2017, April 7, 2017 and May 10, 2017, three additional putative shareholder derivative complaints alleging similar claims were filed in the USDC-NJ, naming us and certain of our current and former directors and officers at that time 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 USDC-NJ 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 USDC-NJ, 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. On May 14, 2019, the USDC-NJ approved a stipulation that (i) consolidated this action with the putative shareholder derivative suits that were previously filed in the USDC-NJ; and (ii) stayed all of these suits pending an order on the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the securities class action. On August 3, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On October 19, 2020, the USDC-NJ approved a stipulation that stayed all of these suits through the earlier of the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in United States v. Gordon J. Coburn and Steven Schwartz, Crim. No. 19-120 (KM), or November 1, 2021.

On June 1, 2021, an eighth putative shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the USDC-NJ, naming us, and certain of our current and former officers and directors, as defendants. The complaint 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 related 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. Although the Company continues to defend the lawsuits vigorously, these 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 June 30, 2021.

We have maintained directors and officers insurance and have recorded an insurance receivable of $10 million and $7 million as of June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively, in "Other current assets," on our unaudited consolidated statements of financial position related to the recovery of a portion of the indemnification expenses and costs related to the putative securities class action complaints. 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 8 for information relating to the ITD Dispute.

Many of our engagements involve projects that are critical to the operations of our clients’ business and provide benefits that are difficult to quantify. Any failure in a client’s systems or our failure to meet our contractual obligations to our clients, including any breach involving a client’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 client engagements, we have entered into contractual arrangements through which we may be obligated to indemnify clients 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 client 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 material payments under these indemnification agreements and therefore they have not had a material 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.