XML 59 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.20.1
Commitments and Contingencies
 3 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Letters of Credit
As of each of April 30, 2020 and January 31, 2020, we had a total of $19.9 million in letters of credit outstanding in favor of certain landlords for office space. These letters of credit renew annually and expire at various dates through 2027.
Legal Proceedings
On June 7, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Christie v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-3221-LHK. The complaint named as defendants Cloudera, its former Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and a former officer and director, asserting alleged class claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and SEC Rule 10b-5. Two substantially similar class action complaints, entitled Zarantonello v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-4007-LHK, and Dvornic v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-4310-LHK, were subsequently filed against the same defendants in the same court on July 12, 2019 and July 26, 2019, respectively. The suits have been consolidated under the name, In re Cloudera, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:19-cv-3221-LHK. The court subsequently appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 14, 2020. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims against the Company and three individual defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, based on allegedly false and misleading statements between April 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019. It also adds as defendants ten current or former directors or officers of the Company and Intel Corporation and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of all persons who acquired Cloudera stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement filed in connection with Cloudera’s January 2019 merger with Hortonworks, and alleging that the registration statement contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted material facts. The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 18, 2020, the court vacated its prior order appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel and reopened the lead plaintiff process. Cloudera believes that the allegations in the action are without merit.
On June 7, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, entitled Lazard v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348674. The complaint named as defendants Cloudera, thirteen individuals who are current or former directors or officers of the Company, and Intel Corporation. The complaint alleged that the registration statement contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted material facts. Two substantially similar suits, entitled Franchi v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348790, and Cannizzo v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348974, were subsequently filed in the same court on June 11, 2019 and June 14, 2019, respectively. The suits have been consolidated under the name In re Cloudera, Inc. Securities Litigation, and the consolidated amended complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons who acquired Cloudera stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement filed in connection with Cloudera’s January 2019 merger with Hortonworks, and alleges that the registration statement contained untrue statements of material fact and
omitted material facts. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. Cloudera believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without merit.
On July 30, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled Lee, et al. v. Cole, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01422-LPS. The complaint names as defendants eleven individuals who are current or former directors or officers of the Company, names the Company as a nominal defendant, and purports to assert claims on the Company’s behalf against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On September 5, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled Slattery v. Reilly, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01662-LPS. The complaint names as defendants thirteen individuals who are current or former directors or officers of the Company, names the Company as a nominal defendant, and purports to assert claims on the Company’s behalf against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and alleged violations of Section 10(b), 14 and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On October 16, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled Frentzel v. Bearden, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01962-LPS. The complaint names as defendants thirteen individuals who are current or former directors or officers of the Company, and names the Company as a nominal defendant, and purports to assert claims on the Company’s behalf against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, alleged violations of Section 14 of the Exchange Act, insider selling and misappropriation of information. All three derivative actions are based on allegations that are substantially similar to those in the class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, described above. All three derivative actions seek, among other things, an award of damages on behalf of the Company, corporate governance reforms and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Slattery and Frentzel actions additionally seek disgorgement on behalf of the Company. The suits have been consolidated under the name, In re Cloudera, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:19-cv-01422-LPS. A consolidated amended complaint has not yet been filed.
On September 3, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Chen v. Reilly, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-05536-LHK. That complaint names as defendants thirteen individuals who are current or former directors or officers of the Company, names the Company as a nominal defendant, and purports to assert claims on the Company’s behalf against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and alleged violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. On September 10, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative complaint that is substantially similar to the Chen action and is brought against the same defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Fu v. Reilly, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-05705-LHK. Both derivative actions are based on allegations that are substantially similar to those in the class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, described above. Both derivative actions seek, among other things, an award of damages on behalf of the Company, corporate governance reforms and attorneys’ fees and costs. The suits have been consolidated under the name, In re Cloudera, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 5:19-cv-05536-LHK. A consolidated amended complaint has not yet been filed and the case is currently stayed.
In the ordinary course of business, we are or may be involved in a variety of litigation matters, suits, investigations, and proceedings, including actions with respect to intellectual property claims, government investigations, labor and employment claims, breach of contract claims, tax, and other matters. Regardless of the outcome, these litigation matters can have an adverse impact on us because of defense costs, diversion of management resources, harm to reputation, and other factors. Future litigation may be necessary to defend ourselves, or our customers or partners on indemnity matters, by determining the scope, enforceability and validity of third-party proprietary rights or by establishing our proprietary rights. Further, the ultimate outcome of any litigation is uncertain and, regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense costs, potential negative publicity, diversion of management resources and other factors. While we are not aware of other pending legal matters or claims, individually or in the aggregate, that are expected to have a material adverse impact on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows, our analysis of whether a claim may proceed to litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, nor can the results of litigation be predicted with certainty. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that existing or future legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or otherwise will not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows in a particular period or subject us to an injunction that could seriously harm our business.
We record a provision for contingent losses when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. With respect to our outstanding legal matters, our management believes that the amount or estimable range of possible loss will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our
business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. Therefore, if one or more of these legal matters were resolved against us for amounts in excess of management’s expectations, our results of operations and financial condition including in a particular reporting period, could be materially adversely affected.
Indemnification
From time to time, we enter into certain types of contracts that contingently require us to indemnify various parties against claims from third parties. These contracts primarily relate to (i) certain real estate leases under which we may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities and other claims arising from our use of the applicable premises, (ii) our amended and restated bylaws, under which we must indemnify directors and executive officers, and may indemnify other officers and employees, for liabilities arising out of their relationship with us, (iii) contracts under which we must indemnify directors and certain officers for liabilities arising out of their relationship with us, (iv) contracts under which we may be required to indemnify customers or partners against certain claims, including claims from third parties asserting, among other things, infringement of their intellectual property rights, and (v) procurement, consulting, or license agreements under which we may be required to indemnify vendors, consultants or licensors for certain claims, including claims that may be brought against them arising from our acts or omissions with respect to the supplied products, technology or services. From time to time, we may receive indemnification claims under these contracts in the normal course of business. In addition, under these contracts we may have to modify the accused infringing intellectual property and/or refund amounts received.
In the event that one or more of these matters were to result in a claim against us, an adverse outcome, including a judgment or settlement, may cause a material adverse effect on our future business, operating results or financial condition. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these contracts due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement.
We maintain director and officer insurance, which may cover certain liabilities arising from our obligation to indemnify our directors and certain officers.
To date, we have not incurred any material costs, and have not accrued any liabilities in the consolidated financial statements as a result of these provisions.