Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal and Regulatory Matters

In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various pending and threatened litigation and regulatory matters related to our operations, some of which include claims for punitive or exemplary damages. Our ordinary course litigation may include class action lawsuits, which make allegations related to various aspects of our business. From time to time, we also receive requests for information from various state and federal regulatory authorities, some of which take the form of civil investigative demands or subpoenas. Some of these regulatory inquiries may result in the assessment of fines for violations of regulations or settlements with such authorities requiring a variety of remedies. We believe that none of these actions depart from customary litigation or regulatory inquiries incidental to our business.

We review lawsuits and other legal and regulatory matters (collectively "legal proceedings") on an ongoing basis when making accrual and disclosure decisions. When assessing reasonably possible and probable outcomes, management bases its decision on its assessment of the ultimate outcome assuming all appeals have been exhausted. For legal proceedings where it has been determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, a liability based on known facts and which represents our best estimate has been recorded. Actual losses may materially differ from the amounts recorded and the ultimate outcome of our pending cases is generally not yet determinable. While some of these matters could be material to our operating results or cash flows for any particular period if an unfavorable outcome results, at present we do not believe the ultimate resolution of currently pending legal proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

PennyMac Litigation

On November 5, 2019, Black Knight Servicing Technologies, LLC (“BKST”), a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Black Knight, filed a Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (the “Black Knight Complaint”) against PennyMac Loan Services, LLC (“PennyMac”) in the Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida. The Black Knight Complaint includes causes of action for breach of contract and misappropriation of MSP® System trade secrets in order to develop an imitation mortgage processing system intended to replace the MSP® System. The Black Knight Complaint seeks damages for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets, injunctive relief under the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act and declaratory judgment that BKST owns all intellectual property and software developed by or on behalf of PennyMac as a result of its wrongful use of and access to the MSP® System and related trade secret and confidential information. PennyMac filed a motion to compel arbitration of the action and the Court granted the motion on April 6, 2020. After the Court denied BKST's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s order compelling arbitration, BKST filed a Notice of Appeal with the Florida First District Court of Appeal on May 6, 2020. The appeal is fully briefed and oral argument is set for November 17, 2020.

Shortly after the filing of the Black Knight Complaint, on November 6, 2019, PennyMac filed an Antitrust Complaint (the “PennyMac Complaint”) against Black Knight in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The

PennyMac Complaint included causes of action for alleged monopolization and attempted monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, violation of California’s Cartwright Act, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law and common law unfair competition under California law. The PennyMac Complaint sought equitable remedies, damages and other monetary relief, including treble and punitive damages. Generally, PennyMac alleged that Black Knight relies on various anticompetitive, unfair, and discriminatory practices to maintain and to enhance its dominance in the mortgage servicing platform market and in an attempt to monopolize the platform software applications market. Black Knight moved to dismiss the PennyMac Complaint or have the action transferred to Florida based upon a forum selection clause in the agreement with BKST. On February 13, 2020, the judge granted Black Knight's motion to transfer the case to Florida and denied as moot the motion to dismiss. On April 17, 2020, PennyMac filed a Notice of Dismissal of this action without prejudice and indicated that they intended to bring the claims raised in the dismissed PennyMac Complaint as defenses, third party claims and/or counterclaims in arbitration. On April 23, 2020, the Court entered an order dismissing the action without prejudice and directing that the clerk close the case. On April 28, 2020, PennyMac submitted this matter to the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") for arbitration. On May 27, 2020, Black Knight filed its Answering Statement with the AAA. The arbitrator was confirmed by the AAA on July 21, 2020. On October 21, 2020, PennyMac submitted an additional matter pertaining to a Black Knight Origination Technologies, LLC software audit request to the AAA for arbitration.

The arbitrator set Black Knight's trade secret case for a 10-day final beginning hearing on October 24, 2022, and set PennyMac's antitrust case for a 5-day final hearing beginning on November 14, 2022.

On June 26, 2020, Black Knight filed a Complaint against PennyMac in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking a declaratory judgment that PennyMac waived its right to arbitrate federal antitrust and related state law claims against Black Knight because PennyMac previously filed and litigated those claims in a court of law (the “BKI Declaratory Action”). On July 22, 2020, PennyMac moved to dismiss the complaint in the BKI Declaratory Action, which Black Knight opposed. In response to a request from the Court in the BKI Declaratory Action, on August 20, 2020, BKI filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of the federal court's subject matter jurisdiction. Black Knight filed its motion for summary judgment on September 28, 2020 and PennyMac filed its opposition to the motion on October 27, 2020.

As these cases continue to evolve, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the probability that we will ultimately prevail on our lawsuit or be held liable for the violations alleged in the PennyMac Complaint, nor is it possible to reasonably estimate the ultimate gain or loss, if any, or range of gain or loss that could result from these cases.

Other Legal Matter

During the nine months ended September 30, 2020, we recognized a one-time gain of $18.5 million related to the resolution of a legacy legal matter of Lender Processing Services, Inc. ("LPS") in Other income (expense), net in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings and Comprehensive Earnings (Unaudited).

Indemnifications and Warranties

We often agree to indemnify our clients against damages and costs resulting from claims of patent, copyright, trademark infringement or breaches of confidentiality associated with use of our software through software licensing agreements. Historically, we have not made any payments under such indemnifications, but continue to monitor the conditions that are subject to the indemnifications to identify whether a loss has occurred that is both probable and estimable that would require recognition. In addition, we warrant to clients that our software operates substantially in accordance with the software specifications. Historically, no costs have been incurred related to software warranties and none are expected in the future, and as such, no accruals for warranty costs have been made.

Indemnification Agreement

We are party to a cross-indemnity agreement dated December 22, 2014 with ServiceLink Holdings, LLC ("ServiceLink"). Pursuant to this agreement, ServiceLink indemnifies us from liabilities relating to, arising out of or resulting from the conduct of ServiceLink's business or any action, suit or proceeding in which we or any of our subsidiaries are named by reason of being a successor to the business of LPS and the cause of such action, suit or proceeding relates to the business of ServiceLink. In return, we indemnify ServiceLink for liabilities relating to, arising out of, or resulting from the conduct of our business.