LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	6 Months Ended
Nov. 30, 2015
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	13. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Hewlett-Packard Company Litigation On June 15, 2011, Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) filed a complaint in the California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara against Oracle Corporation alleging numerous causes of action including breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of the California Unfair Business Practices Act. The complaint alleged that when Oracle announced on March 22 and 23, 2011 that it would no longer develop future versions of its software to run on HP’s Itanium-based servers, it breached a settlement agreement signed on September 20, 2010 between HP and Mark Hurd (the Hurd Settlement Agreement), who was both HP’s former chief executive officer and chairman of HP’s board of directors. HP sought a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights and obligations under the Hurd Settlement Agreement, and other equitable and monetary relief. Oracle answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint, which was amended on December 2, 2011. The amended cross-complaint alleged claims including violation of the Lanham Act. Oracle alleged that HP had secretly agreed to pay Intel to continue to develop and manufacture the Itanium microprocessor, and had misrepresented to customers that the Itanium microprocessor had a long roadmap, among other claims. Oracle sought equitable rescission of the Hurd Settlement Agreement, and other equitable and monetary relief. The court bifurcated the trial and tried HP’s causes of action for declaratory relief and promissory estoppel without a jury in June 2012. The court issued a final statement of decision on August 28, 2012, finding that the Hurd Settlement Agreement required Oracle to continue to develop certain of its software products for use on HP’s Itanium-based servers and to port such products at no cost to HP for as long as HP sells those servers. Oracle has announced that it is appealing this decision. The issues of breach, HP’s performance, causation and damages, HP’s tort claims, and Oracle’s cross-claims will all be tried before a jury. As of April 8, 2013, the trial was stayed pending Oracle’s appeal of the court’s denial of its anti-SLAPP motion. On August 27, 2015, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Oracle’s anti-SLAPP motion. The Court of Appeal’s decision became final on September 26, 2015. The matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings and trial, which is set to begin on May 23, 2016. We cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action. We believe that we have meritorious defenses against this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it. State of Oregon Litigation On August 22, 2014, the Attorney General for the State of Oregon, the State of Oregon, and the Oregon Health Insurance Exchange Corporation, doing business as Cover Oregon (Cover Oregon) filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Marion against Oracle, our then-President and Chief Financial Officer, three current and two former Oracle employees, and Mythics, Inc. The complaint alleges claims related to the work Oracle performed on Oregon’s healthcare exchange website and Oregon’s system for delivering health and human services to low-income residents. Thereafter, Cover Oregon was dissolved, and the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (the DCBS) continued to assert Cover Oregon’s claims. Also, one of the former Oracle employees was dismissed from the lawsuit. A First Amended Complaint was filed on August 10, 2015. The complaint alleges claims against Oracle for fraud, violations of Oregon’s False Claims Act, breach of contract, and violations of the Oregon Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and alleges a violation of Oregon’s False Claims Act against each of the individuals. The complaint seeks monetary damages, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs, and a permanent injunction prohibiting Oracle from marketing to or entering into a contract with any public corporation or agency of the State of Oregon. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Oracle committed fraud by making false statements about the capabilities and functionality of its products and about the amount of time and effort it would take Oracle’s consulting and managed cloud services operations to perform the requested work. It also alleges that Oracle breached the contracts by failing to provide what was required under the contracts and failing to perform the services in a professional manner consistent with industry standards. The complaint alleges that Oracle violated Oregon’s False Claims Act by making false statements in order to obtain payment of invoices and by presenting invoices for payment that were false. The claims for violation of Oregon’s Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act allege that Oracle violated the statute by making false statements in writing about the capabilities of Oracle’s products and the functionality and readiness of the healthcare exchange website, by using those false statements to obtain the signatures necessary to secure the contracts, execute documents, and enable payment, and by using the wires to transmit documents containing the allegedly false statements. The claims against the individuals allege that one former employee violated Oregon’s False Claims Act by making false statements that fraudulently induced the State of Oregon to enter into its contracts with Oracle, and that the other four employees violated the statute by making false statements in order to get invoices paid. Oracle responded to the original complaint on December 2, 2014, and filed a response to the First Amended Complaint on August 20, 2015. Oracle denied all claims and allegations and filed counterclaims against the DCBS for breach of contract, quantum meruit (a claim requesting payment for the value of services provided), and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted the State of Oregon’s motion to dismiss Oracle’s claims for breach of contract and the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On October 26, 2015, Oracle filed its amended response to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and alleged counterclaims against the DCBS for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied-in-fact contract, quantum meruit, and promissory estoppel (a claim seeking to enforce promises that Oracle relied upon in providing services). The State of Oregon filed a motion to dismiss all counterclaims except the causes of action for quantum meruit and promissory estoppel, and a hearing has been set for February 5, 2016. Oracle seeks monetary damages to compensate it for the value of unpaid services and its attorneys’ fees and costs. Trial is set to begin on September 12, 2017. We cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action. We believe that we have meritorious defenses against this action, and will continue to vigorously defend it. On August 8, 2014, Oracle filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, District of Oregon in Portland against Cover Oregon. The complaint alleged claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit and sought monetary damages to compensate Oracle for the value of unpaid services. On September 8, 2014, Oracle filed a First Amended Complaint adding two State of Oregon agencies as defendants and adding causes of action for copyright infringement and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On January 27, 2015, Oracle filed a Second Amended Complaint. Cover Oregon, now the DCBS, is a defendant as to all causes of action; the other state agencies are defendants to the cause of action for copyright infringement. In addition to monetary damages, Oracle seeks an injunction prohibiting infringement of its copyrights. All defendants moved for judgment in their favor, claiming that the state entities have sovereign immunity (that is, they cannot be sued in federal court). On November 18, 2015, the court ruled on the motions, holding that two state agencies (Oregon Health Authority and Oregon Department of Human Services)do not have sovereign immunity, but that the DCBS does have sovereign immunity. All parties have indicated they will appeal. 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, 2015

13. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Hewlett-Packard Company Litigation

On June 15, 2011, Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) filed a complaint in the California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara against Oracle Corporation alleging numerous causes of action including breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of the California Unfair Business Practices Act. The complaint alleged that when Oracle announced on March 22 and 23, 2011 that it would no longer develop future versions of its software to run on HP’s Itanium-based servers, it breached a settlement agreement signed on September 20, 2010 between HP and Mark Hurd (the Hurd Settlement Agreement), who was both HP’s former chief executive officer and chairman of HP’s board of directors. HP sought a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights and obligations under the Hurd Settlement Agreement, and other equitable and monetary relief.

Oracle answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint, which was amended on December 2, 2011. The amended cross-complaint alleged claims including violation of the Lanham Act. Oracle alleged that HP had secretly agreed to pay Intel to continue to develop and manufacture the Itanium microprocessor, and had misrepresented to customers that the Itanium microprocessor had a long roadmap, among other claims. Oracle sought equitable rescission of the Hurd Settlement Agreement, and other equitable and monetary relief.

The court bifurcated the trial and tried HP’s causes of action for declaratory relief and promissory estoppel without a jury in June 2012. The court issued a final statement of decision on August 28, 2012, finding that the Hurd Settlement Agreement required Oracle to continue to develop certain of its software products for use on HP’s Itanium-based servers and to port such products at no cost to HP for as long as HP sells those servers. Oracle has announced that it is appealing this decision. The issues of breach, HP’s performance, causation and damages, HP’s tort claims, and Oracle’s cross-claims will all be tried before a jury. As of April 8, 2013, the trial was stayed pending Oracle’s appeal of the court’s denial of its anti-SLAPP motion. On August 27, 2015, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Oracle’s anti-SLAPP motion. The Court of Appeal’s decision became final on September 26, 2015. The matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings and trial, which is set to begin on May 23, 2016. We cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action. We believe that we have meritorious defenses against this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it.

State of Oregon Litigation

On August 22, 2014, the Attorney General for the State of Oregon, the State of Oregon, and the Oregon Health Insurance Exchange Corporation, doing business as Cover Oregon (Cover Oregon) filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Marion against Oracle, our then-President and Chief Financial Officer, three current and two former Oracle employees, and Mythics, Inc. The complaint alleges claims related to the work Oracle performed on Oregon’s healthcare exchange website and Oregon’s system for delivering health and human services to low-income residents. Thereafter, Cover Oregon was dissolved, and the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (the DCBS) continued to assert Cover Oregon’s claims. Also, one of the former Oracle employees was dismissed from the lawsuit. A First Amended Complaint was filed on August 10, 2015.

The complaint alleges claims against Oracle for fraud, violations of Oregon’s False Claims Act, breach of contract, and violations of the Oregon Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and alleges a violation of Oregon’s False Claims Act against each of the individuals. The complaint seeks monetary damages, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs, and a permanent injunction prohibiting Oracle from marketing to or entering into a contract with any public corporation or agency of the State of Oregon. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Oracle committed fraud by making false statements about the capabilities and functionality of its products and about the amount of time and effort it would take Oracle’s consulting and managed cloud services operations to perform the requested work. It also alleges that Oracle breached the contracts by failing to provide what was required under the contracts and failing to perform the services in a professional manner consistent with industry standards. The complaint alleges that Oracle violated Oregon’s False Claims Act by making false statements in order to obtain payment of invoices and by presenting invoices for payment that were false. The claims for violation of Oregon’s Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act allege that Oracle violated the statute by making false statements in writing about the capabilities of Oracle’s products and the functionality and readiness of the healthcare exchange website, by using those false statements to obtain the signatures necessary to secure the contracts, execute documents, and enable payment, and by using the wires to transmit documents containing the allegedly false statements.

The claims against the individuals allege that one former employee violated Oregon’s False Claims Act by making false statements that fraudulently induced the State of Oregon to enter into its contracts with Oracle, and that the other four employees violated the statute by making false statements in order to get invoices paid.

Oracle responded to the original complaint on December 2, 2014, and filed a response to the First Amended Complaint on August 20, 2015. Oracle denied all claims and allegations and filed counterclaims against the DCBS for breach of contract, quantum meruit (a claim requesting payment for the value of services provided), and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted the State of Oregon’s motion to dismiss Oracle’s claims for breach of contract and the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On October 26, 2015, Oracle filed its amended response to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and alleged counterclaims against the DCBS for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied-in-fact contract, quantum meruit, and promissory estoppel (a claim seeking to enforce promises that Oracle relied upon in providing services). The State of Oregon filed a motion to dismiss all counterclaims except the causes of action for quantum meruit and promissory estoppel, and a hearing has been set for February 5, 2016. Oracle seeks monetary damages to compensate it for the value of unpaid services and its attorneys’ fees and costs. Trial is set to begin on September 12, 2017. We cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action. We believe that we have meritorious defenses against this action, and will continue to vigorously defend it.

On August 8, 2014, Oracle filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, District of Oregon in Portland against Cover Oregon. The complaint alleged claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit and sought monetary damages to compensate Oracle for the value of unpaid services. On September 8, 2014, Oracle filed a First Amended Complaint adding two State of Oregon agencies as defendants and adding causes of action for copyright infringement and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On January 27, 2015, Oracle filed a Second Amended Complaint. Cover Oregon, now the DCBS, is a defendant as to all causes of action; the other state agencies are defendants to the cause of action for copyright infringement. In addition to monetary damages, Oracle seeks an injunction prohibiting infringement of its copyrights. All defendants moved for judgment in their favor, claiming that the state entities have sovereign immunity (that is, they cannot be sued in federal court). On November 18, 2015, the court ruled on the motions, holding that two state agencies (Oregon Health Authority and Oregon Department of Human Services)do not have sovereign immunity, but that the DCBS does have sovereign immunity. All parties have indicated they will appeal.

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.