LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	6 Months Ended
Nov. 30, 2024
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	10. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Derivative Litigation Concerning Oracle’s NetSuite Acquisition On May 3 and July 18, 2017, two alleged stockholders filed separate derivative lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, purportedly on Oracle’s behalf. Thereafter, the court consolidated the two derivative cases and designated the July 18, 2017 complaint as the operative complaint. The consolidated lawsuit was brought against all the then-current members and one former member of our Board of Directors, and Oracle as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing Oracle to agree to purchase NetSuite Inc. at an excessive price. The complaint sought (and the operative complaint continues to seek) declaratory relief, unspecified monetary damages (including interest) and attorneys’ fees and costs. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court denied on March 19, 2018. On May 4, 2018, our Board of Directors established a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) to investigate the allegations in this derivative action. Three non-employee directors served on the SLC. On August 15, 2019, the SLC filed a letter with the court, stating that the SLC believed that plaintiff should be allowed to proceed with the derivative litigation on behalf of Oracle. After the SLC advised the Board that it had fulfilled its duties and obligations, the Board withdrew the SLC’s authority, except that the SLC maintained certain authority to respond to discovery requests in the litigation. After plaintiff filed the July 18, 2017 complaint, an additional plaintiff joined the case. Plaintiffs filed several amended complaints and filed their final amended complaint on December 11, 2020. The final amended complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Technology Officer, the estate of Mark Hurd (our former Chief Executive Officer who passed away on October 18, 2019) and two other members of our Board of Directors. Oracle is named as a nominal defendant. On December 11, 2020, the estate of Mark Hurd and the two other members of our Board of Directors moved to dismiss this complaint. On June 21, 2021, the court granted this motion as to the estate of Mark Hurd and one Board member and denied the motion as to the other Board member, who filed an answer to the complaint on August 9, 2021. On December 28, 2020, our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Technology Officer and Oracle as a nominal defendant filed answers to the operative complaint. Trial commenced on July 18, 2022, and on November 18, 2022, the court held a final hearing on the parties’ post-trial briefing. On December 27, 2022, the court “so ordered” a stipulation, dismissing the Board member from this action. On May 12, 2023, the court issued its trial ruling, finding for defendants and rejecting plaintiffs’ claims. The court entered judgment for defendants on March 5, 2024. On April 2, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, appealing the court’s judgment and certain discovery decisions relating to the SLC. After full briefing, on October 23, 2024, the Supreme Court of Delaware, sitting en banc, heard oral argument on the appeal. The court has not yet issued a decision on this appeal. While Oracle continues to evaluate these claims, we do not believe these matters will have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations. Derivative Litigation Concerning Oracle’s Cloud Business On February 12 and May 6, 2019, two stockholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The cases were consolidated, and on July 8, 2019, a single plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint brought various claims relating to a Rule 10b-5 class action that was filed in the same court on August 10, 2018, and which was settled for a payment by Oracle of $17,500,000. That matter is now concluded. In the Rule 10b-5 class action, plaintiff alleged Oracle and certain Oracle officers made or were responsible for false and misleading statements regarding Oracle’s cloud business. Plaintiff in the derivative action filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2021. The derivative suit was brought by an alleged stockholder of Oracle, purportedly on Oracle’s behalf, against our Chief Technology Officer, our Chief Executive Officer and the estate of Mark Hurd. Plaintiff claimed that the alleged actions described in the 10b-5 class action caused harm to Oracle, including harming Oracle because Oracle allegedly repurchased its own stock at an inflated price. Plaintiff also claimed that defendants violated their fiduciary duties of candor, good faith, loyalty, and due care by failing to prevent this alleged harm. Plaintiff also brought derivative claims for violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff sought a ruling that this case may proceed as a derivative action, a finding that defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary duties, an award of damages to Oracle, an order directing defendants to enact corporate reforms, attorneys’ fees and costs, and unspecified relief. The parties reached an agreement to settle this case, under which Oracle will implement certain corporate governance measures, which shall remain in place for five years, and Oracle would pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs of no more than $700,000. On April 5, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On August 8, 2024, the court held a hearing where it granted plaintiffs’ motion and preliminarily approved the settlement. On November 14, 2024, the court held a final fairness hearing. No one objected to the settlement, and the court approved the settlement, entering a final judgment dismissing this case on November 14, 2024. On December 2, 2024, Oracle paid plaintiffs the $700,000 provided for in the settlement. This matter is now concluded. Netherlands Privacy Class Action On August 14, 2020, The Privacy Collective (TPC), a foundation having its registered office in Amsterdam, filed a purported class action lawsuit against Oracle Nederland B.V, Oracle Corporation and Oracle America, Inc. (the Oracle Defendants), Salesforce.com, Inc. and SFDC Netherlands B.V. in the District Court of Amsterdam. TPC alleges that the Oracle Defendants’ Data Management Platform product violates certain articles of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Dutch Telecommunications Act (Telecommunicatiewet). TPC claims damages under a number of categories, including: “immaterial damages” (at a fixed amount of €500 per Dutch internet user); “material damages” (in that the costs of loss of control over personal data should be equated to the market value of the personal data for parties like the Oracle Defendants); compensation for losses suffered due to an alleged data breach (at a fixed amount of €100 per Dutch internet user); and compensation for the costs of the litigation funder (10% to 25% of the compensation awarded); and the (actual) cost of the proceedings and extrajudicial costs. We filed our defense on March 3, 2021, and on December 29, 2021, the District Court issued a judgment, holding that all of TPC’s claims were deemed inadmissible because of fundamental procedural flaws. TPC filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam challenging the District Court’s judgment, except for the claims regarding the alleged data breach, which were dropped. On June 18, 2024, the Court of Appeal overturned the District Court’s decision regarding admissibility, thus permitting the case to proceed. We requested that the Court of Appeal permit an interim appeal to the Dutch Supreme Court and/or the European Court of Justice. On September 24, 2024, the Court of Appeal issued a judgment confirming that TPC’s claims are admissible and referred the matter back to the District Court of Amsterdam for a decision on the merits of TPC’s claims, including TPC’s claims for damages under article 82 of the GDPR. The Court of Appeal also granted Oracle’s request for an interim appeal to the Supreme Court, appealing the June 18 and the September 24, 2024, judgments. Oracle’s appeal is due by December 24, 2024. Once filed, the Supreme Court appeal will suspend proceedings before the District Court. On October 23, 2024, in anticipation of suspended proceedings following such Supreme Court appeal, the District Court effectively stayed proceedings by referring the matter to the “special docket session” on April 2, 2025. We believe that we have meritorious defenses against this action, including defenses to the quantum of damages claimed, and we will continue to vigorously defend it. While the final outcome of this matter cannot be predicted with certainty and we cannot estimate a range of loss at this time, we do not believe that it will have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations. Other Litigation We are party to various other legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, which arise in the ordinary course of business, including proceedings and claims that relate to acquisitions we have completed or to companies we have acquired or are attempting to acquire. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the outcome of any of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will result in losses that are materially in excess of amounts already recognized, if any.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

6 Months Ended

Nov. 30, 2024

10.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Derivative Litigation Concerning Oracle’s NetSuite Acquisition

On May 3 and July 18, 2017, two alleged stockholders filed separate derivative lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, purportedly on Oracle’s behalf. Thereafter, the court consolidated the two derivative cases and designated the July 18, 2017 complaint as the operative complaint. The consolidated lawsuit was brought against all the then-current members and one former member of our Board of Directors, and Oracle as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing Oracle to agree to purchase NetSuite Inc. at an excessive price. The complaint sought (and the operative complaint continues to seek) declaratory relief, unspecified monetary damages (including interest) and attorneys’ fees and costs. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court denied on March 19, 2018.

On May 4, 2018, our Board of Directors established a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) to investigate the allegations in this derivative action. Three non-employee directors served on the SLC. On August 15, 2019, the SLC filed a letter with the court, stating that the SLC believed that plaintiff should be allowed to proceed with the derivative litigation on behalf of Oracle. After the SLC advised the Board that it had fulfilled its duties and obligations, the Board withdrew the SLC’s authority, except that the SLC maintained certain authority to respond to discovery requests in the litigation.

After plaintiff filed the July 18, 2017 complaint, an additional plaintiff joined the case. Plaintiffs filed several amended complaints and filed their final amended complaint on December 11, 2020. The final amended complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Technology Officer, the estate of Mark Hurd (our former Chief Executive Officer who passed away on October 18, 2019) and two other members of our Board of Directors. Oracle is named as a nominal defendant. On December 11, 2020, the estate of Mark Hurd and the two other members of our Board of Directors moved to dismiss this complaint. On June 21, 2021, the court granted this motion as to the estate of Mark Hurd and one Board member and denied the motion as to the other Board member, who filed an answer to the complaint on August 9, 2021. On December 28, 2020, our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Technology Officer and Oracle as a nominal defendant filed answers to the operative complaint.

Trial commenced on July 18, 2022, and on November 18, 2022, the court held a final hearing on the parties’ post-trial briefing. On December 27, 2022, the court “so ordered” a stipulation, dismissing the Board member from this action. On May 12, 2023, the court issued its trial ruling, finding for defendants and rejecting plaintiffs’ claims. The court entered judgment for defendants on March 5, 2024. On April 2, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, appealing the court’s judgment and certain discovery decisions relating to the SLC. After full briefing, on October 23, 2024, the Supreme Court of Delaware, sitting en banc, heard oral argument on the appeal. The court has not yet issued a decision on this appeal.

While Oracle continues to evaluate these claims, we do not believe these matters will have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

Derivative Litigation Concerning Oracle’s Cloud Business

On February 12 and May 6, 2019, two stockholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The cases were consolidated, and on July 8, 2019, a single plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint brought various claims relating to a Rule 10b-5 class action that was filed in the same court on August 10, 2018, and which was settled for a payment by Oracle of $17,500,000. That matter is now concluded. In the Rule 10b-5 class action, plaintiff alleged Oracle and certain Oracle officers made or were responsible for false and misleading statements regarding Oracle’s cloud business.

Plaintiff in the derivative action filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2021. The derivative suit was brought by an alleged stockholder of Oracle, purportedly on Oracle’s behalf, against our Chief Technology Officer, our Chief Executive Officer and the estate of Mark Hurd. Plaintiff claimed that the alleged actions described in the 10b-5 class action caused harm to Oracle, including harming Oracle because Oracle allegedly repurchased its own stock at an inflated price. Plaintiff also claimed that defendants violated their fiduciary duties of candor, good faith, loyalty, and due care by failing to prevent this alleged harm. Plaintiff also brought derivative claims for violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff sought a ruling that this case may proceed as a derivative action, a finding that defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary duties, an award of damages to Oracle, an order directing defendants to enact corporate reforms, attorneys’ fees and costs, and unspecified relief. The parties reached an agreement to settle this case, under which Oracle will implement certain corporate governance measures, which shall remain in place for five years, and Oracle would pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs of no more than $700,000. On April 5, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On August 8, 2024, the court held a hearing where it granted plaintiffs’ motion and preliminarily approved the settlement. On November 14, 2024, the court held a final fairness hearing. No one objected to the settlement, and the court approved the settlement,

entering a final judgment dismissing this case on November 14, 2024. On December 2, 2024, Oracle paid plaintiffs the $700,000 provided for in the settlement. This matter is now concluded.

Netherlands Privacy Class Action

On August 14, 2020, The Privacy Collective (TPC), a foundation having its registered office in Amsterdam, filed a purported class action lawsuit against Oracle Nederland B.V, Oracle Corporation and Oracle America, Inc. (the Oracle Defendants), Salesforce.com, Inc. and SFDC Netherlands B.V. in the District Court of Amsterdam. TPC alleges that the Oracle Defendants’ Data Management Platform product violates certain articles of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Dutch Telecommunications Act (Telecommunicatiewet). TPC claims damages under a number of categories, including: “immaterial damages” (at a fixed amount of €500 per Dutch internet user); “material damages” (in that the costs of loss of control over personal data should be equated to the market value of the personal data for parties like the Oracle Defendants); compensation for losses suffered due to an alleged data breach (at a fixed amount of €100 per Dutch internet user); and compensation for the costs of the litigation funder (10% to 25% of the compensation awarded); and the (actual) cost of the proceedings and extrajudicial costs.

We filed our defense on March 3, 2021, and on December 29, 2021, the District Court issued a judgment, holding that all of TPC’s claims were deemed inadmissible because of fundamental procedural flaws. TPC filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam challenging the District Court’s judgment, except for the claims regarding the alleged data breach, which were dropped. On June 18, 2024, the Court of Appeal overturned the District Court’s decision regarding admissibility, thus permitting the case to proceed. We requested that the Court of Appeal permit an interim appeal to the Dutch Supreme Court and/or the European Court of Justice. On September 24, 2024, the Court of Appeal issued a judgment confirming that TPC’s claims are admissible and referred the matter back to the District Court of Amsterdam for a decision on the merits of TPC’s claims, including TPC’s claims for damages under article 82 of the GDPR. The Court of Appeal also granted Oracle’s request for an interim appeal to the Supreme Court, appealing the June 18 and the September 24, 2024, judgments. Oracle’s appeal is due by December 24, 2024. Once filed, the Supreme Court appeal will suspend proceedings before the District Court.

On October 23, 2024, in anticipation of suspended proceedings following such Supreme Court appeal, the District Court effectively stayed proceedings by referring the matter to the “special docket session” on April 2, 2025.

We believe that we have meritorious defenses against this action, including defenses to the quantum of damages claimed, and we will continue to vigorously defend it.

While the final outcome of this matter cannot be predicted with certainty and we cannot estimate a range of loss at this time, we do not believe that it will have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

Other Litigation

We are party to various other legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, which arise in the ordinary course of business, including proceedings and claims that relate to acquisitions we have completed or to companies we have acquired or are attempting to acquire. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the outcome of any of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will result in losses that are materially in excess of amounts already recognized, if any.