XML 35 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Litigation and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Apr. 30, 2011

Note 15: Litigation and Contingencies

HP is involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including those identified below, consisting of intellectual property, commercial, securities, employment, employee benefits and environmental matters that arise in the ordinary course of business. HP records a provision for a liability when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. HP believes it has adequate provisions for any such matters, and, as of April 30, 2011, it was not reasonably possible that an additional material loss had been incurred in an amount in excess of the amounts already recognized on HP's financial statements. HP reviews these provisions at least quarterly and adjusts these provisions to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Based on its experience, HP believes that any damage amounts claimed in the specific matters discussed below are not a meaningful indicator of HP's potential liability. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. However, HP believes that it has valid defenses with respect to legal matters pending against it. Nevertheless, cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these contingencies.

Litigation, Proceedings and Investigations

Copyright levies. As described below, proceedings are ongoing or have been concluded involving HP in certain European Union ("EU") member countries, including litigation in Germany, Belgium and Austria, seeking to impose or modify levies upon equipment (such as multifunction devices ("MFDs"), personal computers ("PCs") and printers) and alleging that these devices enable producing private copies of copyrighted materials. Descriptions of some of the ongoing proceedings are included below. The levies are generally based upon the number of products sold and the per-product amounts of the levies, which vary. Some EU member countries that do not yet have levies on digital devices are expected to implement similar legislation to enable them to extend existing levy schemes, while some other EU member countries are expected to limit the scope of levy schemes and applicability in the digital hardware environment. HP, other companies and various industry associations have opposed the extension of levies to the digital environment and have advocated alternative models of compensation to rights holders.

VerwertungsGesellschaft Wort ("VG Wort"), a collection agency representing certain copyright holders, instituted legal proceedings against HP in the Stuttgart Civil Court seeking levies on printers. On December 22, 2004, the court held that HP is liable for payments regarding all printers using ASCII code sold in Germany but did not determine the amount payable per unit. HP appealed this decision in January 2005 to the Stuttgart Court of Appeals. On May 11, 2005, the Stuttgart Court of Appeals issued a decision confirming that levies are due. On June 6, 2005, HP filed an appeal to the German Federal Supreme Court in Karlsruhe. On December 6, 2007, the German Federal Supreme Court issued a judgment that printers are not subject to levies under the existing law. The court issued a written decision on January 25, 2008, and VG Wort subsequently filed an application with the German Federal Supreme Court under Section 321a of the German Code of Civil Procedure contending that the court did not consider their arguments. On May 9, 2008, the German Federal Supreme Court denied VG Wort's application. VG Wort appealed the decision by filing a claim with the German Federal Constitutional Court challenging the ruling that printers are not subject to levies. On September 21, 2010, the Constitutional Court published a decision holding that the German Federal Supreme Court erred by not referring questions on interpretation of German copyright law to the Court of Justice of the European Union and therefore revoked the German Federal Supreme Court decision and remitted the matter to it. The German Federal Supreme Court held a hearing on March 24, 2011, and judgment is expected on July 21, 2011.

In September 2003, VG Wort filed a lawsuit against Fujitsu Siemens Computer GmbH ("FSC") in the Munich Civil Court in Munich, Germany seeking levies on PCs. This is an industry test case in Germany, and HP has agreed not to object to the delay if VG Wort sues HP for such levies on PCs following a final decision against FSC. On December 23, 2004, the Munich Civil Court held that PCs are subject to a levy and that FSC must pay €12 plus compound interest for each PC sold in Germany since March 2001. FSC appealed this decision in January 2005 to the Munich Court of Appeals. On December 15, 2005, the Munich Court of Appeals affirmed the Munich Civil Court decision. FSC filed an appeal with the German Federal Supreme Court in February 2006. On October 2, 2008, the German Federal Supreme Court issued a judgment that PCs were not photocopiers within the meaning of the German copyright law that was in effect until December 31, 2007 and, therefore, not subject to the levies on photocopiers established by that law. VG Wort subsequently filed a claim with the German Federal Constitutional Court challenging that ruling. In January 2011, the Constitutional Court published a decision holding that the German Federal Supreme Court decision was inconsistent with the German Constitution and revoking the German Federal Supreme Court decision. The Constitutional Court remitted the matter to the German Federal Supreme Court for further action. The German Federal Supreme Court held a hearing on April 7, 2011, and judgment is expected on July 21, 2011.

Reprobel, a cooperative society with the authority to collect and distribute the remuneration for reprography to Belgian copyright holders, requested HP by extra-judicial means to amend certain copyright levy declarations submitted for inkjet MFDs sold in Belgium from January 2005 to December 2009 to enable it to collect copyright levies calculated based on the generally higher copying speed when the MFDs are operated in draft print mode rather than when operated in normal print mode. In March 2010, HP filed a lawsuit against Reprobel in the French-speaking chambers of the Court of First Instance of Brussels seeking a declaratory judgment that no copyright levies are payable on sales of MFDs in Belgium or, alternatively, that copyright levies payable on such MFDs must be assessed based on the copying speed when operated in the normal print mode set by default in the device. The schedule for the court proceedings has been determined, and no decision from the court is expected before September 2012.

Based on industry opposition to the extension of levies to digital products, HP's assessments of the merits of various proceedings and HP's estimates of the units impacted and levies, HP has accrued amounts that it believes are adequate to address the matters described above. However, the ultimate resolution of these matters and the associated financial impact on HP, including the number of units impacted, the amount of levies imposed and the ability of HP to recover such amounts through increased prices, remains uncertain.

Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company is a lawsuit in which HP was joined on June 14, 2004 that is pending in state court in Santa Clara County, California. The lawsuit alleges that HP (along with Intel) misled the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact that systems that use the Intel Pentium 4 processor are less powerful and slower than systems using the Intel Pentium III processor and processors made by a competitor of Intel. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a nationwide class. On February 27, 2009, the court denied with prejudice plaintiffs' motion for nationwide class certification for a third time. The plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision, and a hearing on that appeal is scheduled for June 14, 2011.

Inkjet Printer Litigation. As described below, HP is involved in several lawsuits claiming breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both. The plaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose competitive products.

•

A consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. On January 4, 2008, the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class certification and to add a class representative and HP's motion for summary judgment. On July 25, 2008, the court denied all three motions. On March 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification scheduled for April 9, 2010 was postponed.

•

A lawsuit captioned Blennis v. HP was filed on January 17, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 21, 2010 but was taken off the calendar.

•

A lawsuit captioned Rich v. HP was filed against HP on May 22, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit alleges that HP designed its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use color ink in addition to black ink when printing black and white images and text. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a nationwide injunctive class and a California-only damages class. A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 7, 2010 but was taken off the calendar.

•

Four class actions against HP and its subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., were filed in Canada, one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006, two commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006, respectively, and one commenced in Ontario in June 2006, where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages. In March 2010, one of the Quebec cases was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. In February 2011, the other Quebec case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiffs in In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, Blennis v. HP and Rich v. HP entered into an agreement to settle those lawsuits on behalf of the proposed classes, which agreement is subject to approval of the court before it becomes final. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the lawsuits will be consolidated, and eligible class members will each have the right to obtain e-credits not to exceed $5 million in the aggregate for use in purchasing printers or printer supplies through HP's website. As part of the proposed settlement, HP also agreed to provide class members with additional information regarding HP inkjet printer functionality and to change the content of certain software and user guide messaging provided to users regarding the life of inkjet printer cartridges. In addition, class counsel and the class representatives will be paid attorneys' fees and expenses and stipends. On March 29, 2011, the court granted final approval to the settlement. On April 27, 2011, certain class members who objected to the settlement filed an appeal of the court's order granting final approval to the settlement.

Baggett v. HP is a consumer class action filed against HP on June 6, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging that HP employs a technology in its LaserJet color printers whereby the printing process shuts down prematurely, thus preventing customers from using the toner that is allegedly left in the cartridge. The plaintiffs also allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers that they will be unable to utilize the toner remaining in the cartridge after the printer shuts down. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of purchasers of all HP LaserJet color printers and seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. On September 29, 2009, the court granted HP's motion for summary judgment against the named plaintiff and denied plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot. On November 3, 2009, the court entered judgment against the named plaintiff. On November 17, 2009, plaintiff filed an appeal of the court's summary judgment ruling with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiff entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuit on behalf of the proposed class, which agreement is subject to approval of the court before it becomes final. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, eligible class members will each have the right to obtain e-credits not to exceed $5 million in the aggregate for use in purchasing printers or printer supplies through HP's website. In addition, class counsel and the class representative will be paid attorneys' fees and expenses and stipends in an amount that is yet to be approved by the court. On October 13, 2010, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The court held a fairness hearing on February 14, 2011 to determine whether to grant final approval of the proposed settlement. The court has not yet issued a decision.

Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation. HP is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or in violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws. Those matters include the following:

•

Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York claiming that current and former EDS employees involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. Another purported collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on October 23, 2007, is also now pending in the same court alleging similar facts. The Steavens case has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham case. On December 15, 2010, the court granted conditional certification of the class in the consolidated Cunningham and Steavens matter.

•

Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed in November 2006 in California Superior Court claiming that certain EDS information technology workers in California were misclassified as exempt employees. The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which, on January 7, 2008, certified a class of information technology workers in California. On June 6, 2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is pending. Two other purported class actions originally filed in California Superior Court, Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on March 16, 2009, and George, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on April 2, 2009, allege similar facts. The Karlbom case is pending in San Diego County Superior Court but has been temporarily stayed based on the pending motions in the Steavens consolidated matter. The George case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham and Steavens cases.

India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Proceedings. As described below, Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Ltd ("HPI"), a subsidiary of HP, and certain current and former HP employees have received show cause notices from the India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (the "DRI") alleging underpayment of certain customs duties:

•

On April 30 and May 10, 2010, the DRI issued show cause notices to HPI, seven current HP employees and one former HP employee alleging that HP has underpaid customs duties while importing products and spare parts into India and seeking to recover an aggregate of approximately $370 million, plus penalties. On June 2, 2010, the DRI issued an additional show cause notice to HPI and three current HPI employees alleging that HP failed to pay customs duties on the appropriate value of recovery CDs containing Microsoft operating systems and seeking to recover approximately $5.3 million, plus penalties. HP has deposited a total of approximately $16.7 million with the DRI and agreed to post a provisional bond in exchange for the DRI's agreement not to seize HP products and spare parts and not to interrupt the transaction of business by HP in India.

•

On June 17, 2010, the DRI issued show cause notices to HPI and two current HPI employees regarding non-inclusion of the value of software contained in the products imported from third party original design manufacturers. The total amount of the alleged unpaid customs duties relating to such software, including the interest proposed to be demanded under these notices, is approximately $130,000, which amount HPI has deposited with the DRI. The DRI is also seeking to impose penalties.

•

On October 1, 2010, in connection with an existing DRI investigation commenced against SAP AG, the DRI issued a show cause notice to HPI alleging underpayment of customs duties related to the importation of certain SAP software. The amount of the alleged duty differential is approximately $38,000, which amount has been deposited with the DRI. The DRI is also seeking to impose interest and penalties.

HP intends to contest each of the show cause notices through the judicial process. HP has responded or is in the process of responding to the show cause notices.

Russia GPO and Related Investigations. The German Public Prosecutor's Office ("German PPO") has been conducting an investigation into allegations that current and former employees of HP engaged in bribery, embezzlement and tax evasion relating to a transaction between Hewlett-Packard ISE GmbH in Germany, a former subsidiary of HP, and the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation. The approximately €35 million transaction, which was referred to as the Russia GPO deal, spanned the years 2001 to 2006 and was for the delivery and installation of an IT network.

The U.S. Department of Justice and the SEC have also been conducting an investigation into the Russia GPO deal and potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"). Under the FCPA, a person or an entity could be subject to fines, civil penalties of up to $500,000 per violation and equitable remedies, including disgorgement and other injunctive relief. In addition, criminal penalties could range from the greater of $2 million per violation or twice the gross pecuniary gain or loss from the violation.

In addition to information about the Russia GPO deal, the U.S. enforcement authorities have requested (i) information related to certain other transactions, including transactions in Russia, Serbia and in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) subregion dating back to 2000, and (ii) information related to two former HP executives seconded to Russia and to whether HP personnel in Russia, Germany, Austria, Serbia, the Netherlands or CIS were involved in kickbacks or other improper payments to channel partners or state-owned or private entities.

HP is cooperating with these investigating agencies.

In addition, as described below, HP is involved in stockholder derivative litigation arising from the Russia GPO deal, the related investigations and other matters commenced against current and former members of the HP Board of Directors in which the plaintiffs are seeking to recover certain compensation paid by HP to the defendants and other damages:

•

Henrietta Klein v. Mark V. Hurd, et al., is a lawsuit filed on September 24, 2010 in California Superior Court alleging the individual defendants wasted corporate assets and breached their fiduciary duties by failing to implement and oversee HP's compliance with the FCPA.

•

Saginaw Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Marc L. Andreessen, et al., is a lawsuit filed on October 19, 2010 in United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched by consciously disregarding HP's alleged violations of the FCPA.

•

A.J. Copeland v. Raymond J. Lane, et al., is a lawsuit filed on March 7, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets in connection with HP's alleged violations of the FCPA, severance payments made to former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Mark Hurd, and HP's acquisition of 3PAR Inc. The lawsuit also alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with HP's 2010 and 2011 proxy statements.

Leak Investigation Proceedings. As described below, HP is or has been the subject of various governmental inquiries concerning the processes employed in an investigation into leaks of HP confidential information to members of the media that concluded in May 2006:

•

In August 2006, HP was informally contacted by the Attorney General of the State of California requesting information concerning the processes employed in the leak investigation. On December 7, 2006, HP announced that it entered into an agreement with the California Attorney General to resolve civil claims arising from the leak investigation, including a claim made by the California Attorney General in a Santa Clara County Superior Court action filed on December 7, 2006, that HP committed unfair business practices under California law in connection with the leak investigation. As a result of this agreement, which includes an injunction, the California Attorney General will not pursue civil claims against HP or its current and former directors, officers and employees. Under the terms of the agreement, HP paid a total of $14.5 million and agreed to implement and maintain for five years a series of measures designed to ensure that HP's corporate investigations are conducted in accordance with California law and the company's high ethical standards. Of the $14.5 million, $13.5 million has been used to create a Privacy and Piracy Fund to assist California prosecutors in investigating and prosecuting consumer privacy and information piracy violations, $650,000 was used to pay statutory damages and $350,000 reimbursed the California Attorney General's office for its investigation costs. There was no finding of liability against HP as part of the settlement.

•

Beginning in September 2006, HP received requests from the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives (the "Committee") for records and information concerning the leak investigation, securities transactions by HP officers and directors, including an August 25, 2006 securities transaction by Mark Hurd, HP's former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and related matters. HP has responded to those requests. In addition, Mr. Hurd voluntarily gave testimony to the Committee regarding the leak investigation on September 28, 2006.

•

In September 2006, HP was informally contacted by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California requesting similar information concerning the processes employed in the leak investigation. HP has responded to that request.

•

Beginning in September 2006, HP has received requests from the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission for records and information and interviews with current and former HP directors and officers relating to the leak investigation, the resignation of Thomas J. Perkins from HP's Board of Directors, HP's May 22, 2006 and September 6, 2006 filings with the SEC on Form 8-K, stock repurchases by HP and securities transactions by its officers and directors that occurred between May 1 and October 1, 2006, and HP's policies, practices and approval of securities transactions. In May 2007, HP consented to the entry of an order by the SEC ordering HP to cease and desist from committing or causing violations of the public reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. HP has been advised by the staff of the Division of Enforcement that the staff has completed its investigation and does not intend to recommend that any other SEC enforcement action be brought in connection with these matters.

•

In September 2006, HP received a request from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission for records and information relating to the processes employed in the leak investigation. HP has responded to that request.

In addition, four stockholder derivative lawsuits have been filed in California purportedly on behalf of HP stockholders seeking to recover damages for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and to require HP to improve its corporate governance and internal control procedures as a result of the activities of the leak investigation: Staehr v. Dunn, et al. was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court on September 18, 2006; Worsham v. Dunn, et al. was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court on September 14, 2006; Tansey v. Dunn, et al. was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court on September 20, 2006; and Hall v. Dunn, et al. was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court on September 25, 2006. On October 19, 2006, the Santa Clara County Superior Court consolidated the four California cases under the caption In re Hewlett-Packard Company Derivative Litigation. The consolidated complaint filed on November 19, 2006, also seeks to recover damages in connection with sales of HP stock alleged to have been made by certain current and former HP officers and directors while in possession of material non-public information. Two additional stockholder derivative lawsuits, Pifko v. Babbio, et al., filed on September 19, 2006, and Gross v. Babbio, et al., filed on November 21, 2006, were filed in Chancery Court, County of New Castle, Delaware; both seek to recover damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and to obtain an order instructing the defendants to refrain from further breaches of fiduciary duty and to implement corrective measures that will prevent future occurrences of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On January 24, 2007, the Delaware court consolidated the two cases under the caption In re Hewlett-Packard Company Derivative Litigation and subsequently stayed the proceedings, as the parties had reached a tentative settlement. The HP Board of Directors appointed a Special Litigation Committee consisting of independent Board members authorized to investigate, review and evaluate the facts and circumstances asserted in these derivative matters and to determine how HP should proceed in these matters. On December 14, 2007, HP and the plaintiffs in the California and Delaware derivative actions entered into an agreement to settle those lawsuits. Under the terms of the settlement, HP agreed to continue certain corporate governance changes until December 31, 2012 and to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The California court granted final approval to the settlement on March 11, 2008 and subsequently granted plaintiffs' counsel's fee application and dismissed the action. On June 12, 2008, the Delaware court granted final approval to the settlement and the plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and also dismissed the action. Because neither the dismissal of the California nor the Delaware derivative action was thereafter appealed, both cases are now concluded.

Environmental

Our operations and our products are subject to various federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations concerning environmental protection, including laws addressing the discharge of pollutants into the air and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, the cleanup of contaminated sites, the content of its products and the recycling, treatment and disposal of its products. In particular, HP faces increasing complexity in its product design and procurement operations as it adjusts to new and future requirements relating to the chemical and materials composition of its products, their safe use, the energy consumption associated with those products, including requirements relating to climate change. We also are subject to legislation in an increasing number of jurisdictions that makes producers of electrical goods, including computers and printers, financially responsible for specified collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of past and future covered products (sometimes referred to as "product take-back legislation"). HP could incur substantial costs, its products could be restricted from entering certain jurisdictions, and it could face other sanctions, if it were to violate or become liable under environmental laws or if its products become non-compliant with environmental laws. HP's potential exposure includes fines and civil or criminal sanctions, third-party property damage or personal injury claims and clean up costs. The amount and timing of costs under environmental laws are difficult to predict.

HP is party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by U.S. or state environmental agencies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), known as "Superfund," or state laws similar to CERCLA. HP is also conducting environmental investigations or remediations at several current or former operating sites pursuant to administrative orders or consent agreements with state environmental agencies.