14.	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Hewlett-Packard Company Litigation

On June 15, 2011, Hewlett-Packard Company, now Hewlett Packard Enterprise 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 is our Chief Executive Officer and 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 (the Phase One Ruling). A jury trial began on May 23, 2016. On June 30, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of HP on its claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and against Oracle on its claim for violation of the Lanham Act (the Phase Two Jury Verdict). The jury awarded HP damages in the amount of $3.0 billion, and HP is entitled to post-judgment interest on this award. On August 30, 2016, the court denied HP’s motion for pre-judgment interest. Final judgment has not yet been entered pending resolution of several non-jury issues and post-trial motions.

Upon final notice of entry of judgment, Oracle plans to appeal the trial court’s Phase One Ruling and Phase Two Jury Verdict. No amounts have been paid or recorded to our results of operations either prior to or subsequent to the Phase One Ruling or Phase Two Jury Verdict. We continue to believe that we have meritorious defenses against HP’s claims, and we intend to present these defenses to the appellate court. Among the arguments we expect to make on appeal are the following: the trial court misapplied fundamental principles of contract law and misinterpreted the Hurd Settlement Agreement, including by disregarding the context of the Hurd Settlement Agreement and the evidence of the parties’ mutual intentions; that HP’s breach of contract claim should fail as a matter of law because HP does not claim and did not prove that Oracle failed to deliver any software under the trial court’s interpretation of the contract; that awarding HP both damages for breach of the Hurd Settlement Agreement and specific performance of that agreement constitutes an improper double recovery; that HP’s promissory estoppel claim is defective for several reasons, including that HP never claimed or proved that Oracle failed to deliver any software encompassed by the alleged promise; and that the damages award is excessive, unsupported by the evidence, and contrary to law. We cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action due to the complexities and uncertainty surrounding the appeal process and the nature of the claims. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and the outcome of the appeal process related to this action is uncertain. It is possible that the resolution of this action could have a material impact to our future cash flows and results of operations.

State of Oregon Litigation

On August 22, 2014, the Attorney General for the State of Oregon filed suit against Oracle and a number of individuals. Other lawsuits between the parties followed which have been disclosed in certain of Oracle’s previous filings with the SEC, including Oracle’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2016. The individuals were all voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on September 12, 2016. On September 15, 2016, the State of Oregon, Oracle and Mythics, Inc. executed a comprehensive settlement resolving all outstanding litigation in these lawsuits. The settlement was immaterial to Oracle’s consolidated financial statements.

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.