Commitments And Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments And Contingencies

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

At September 30, 2011, the Company had outstanding letters of credit of approximately $33 and other bond obligations of approximately $2 related to performance and payment guarantees. The Company believes that any guarantee obligation that may arise will not be material. The Company also has purchase commitments with telecommunications providers of approximately $1 for the remainder of 2011 and $17 for 2012.

At September 30, 2011, the Company had outstanding performance bond obligations of approximately $35 related to performance and payment guarantees for the Company’s former HR Management line of business. Subsequent to completion of the sale of the HR Management business, the Company continues to be responsible for these bond obligations. As part of the gain on disposition the Company recognized a liability equal to the present value of probability weighted cash flows of potential outcomes, a level 3 fair value measurement. Although NorthgateArinso is obligated to indemnify the Company for any and all losses, costs, liabilities and expenses incurred related to these performance bonds, as of September 30, 2011 the Company maintains a liability of approximately $1 for these obligations.

Contingencies

The Company from time to time is involved in various loss contingencies, including tax and legal contingencies that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company accrues for a loss contingency when it is more likely than not that a liability has been incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. At this time, the Company believes that the results of any such contingencies, either individually or in the aggregate, will not have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. However, the outcome of any litigation cannot be predicted with certainty. An unfavorable resolution of one or more pending matters could have a materially adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition in the future. At September 30, 2011, the Company believes it is adequately reserved for all legal contingencies.

Several related class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in 2001 on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Intervoice, Inc. (Intervoice) during the period from October 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000 (the Class Period). Plaintiffs filed claims, which were consolidated into one proceeding under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Intervoice (a subsidiary of the Company since 2008) as well as certain named former officers and directors of Intervoice on behalf of the alleged class members. In the complaint, plaintiffs claim that Intervoice and the named former officers and directors issued false and misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the financial condition of Intervoice, the results of a merger with another company and the alleged future business projections of Intervoice. Plaintiffs asserted that these alleged statements resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint because it lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading standards applicable to federal securities litigation. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal in part and reversed in part. The Fifth Circuit remanded a limited number of issues for further proceedings in the District Court. In 2006, the District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class of purchasers of Intervoice stock during the Class Period. Intervoice appealed and in 2008, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court’s class-certification order and remanded the case to the District Court for further consideration. In October 2009, the District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class. In January 2010, the Fifth Circuit granted the plaintiffs’ petition for permission to appeal the denial of class certification. The Company and the plaintiffs signed a term sheet to settle and terminate the lawsuit. The District Court granted final approval of the parties’ joint stipulation of settlement on September 27, 2011. The joint stipulation of settlement was not appealed prior to the deadline for filing an appeal. The final settlement did not have a material adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition at September 30, 2011.