CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS
CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS	NOTE M. CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS Contingencies As a company with a substantial employee population and with clients in more than 175 countries, IBM is involved, either as plaintiff or defendant, in a variety of ongoing claims, demands, suits, investigations, tax matters and proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business. The company is a leader in the information technology industry and, as such, has been and will continue to be subject to claims challenging its IP rights and associated products and offerings, including claims of copyright and patent infringement and violations of trade secrets and other IP rights. In addition, the company enforces its own IP against infringement, through license negotiations, lawsuits or otherwise. Also, as is typical for companies of IBM’s scope and scale, the company is party to actions and proceedings in various jurisdictions involving a wide range of labor and employment issues (including matters related to contested employment decisions, country-specific labor and employment laws, and the company’s pension, retirement and other benefit plans), as well as actions with respect to contracts, product liability, securities, foreign operations, competition law and environmental matters. These actions may be commenced by a number of different parties, including competitors, clients, current or former employees, government and regulatory agencies, stockholders and representatives of the locations in which the company does business. Some of the actions to which the company is party may involve particularly complex technical issues, and some actions may raise novel questions under the laws of the various jurisdictions in which these matters arise. The company records a provision with respect to a claim, suit, investigation or proceeding when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Any recorded liabilities, including any changes to such liabilities for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 were not material to the Consolidated Financial Statements. In accordance with the relevant accounting guidance, the company provides disclosures of matters for which the likelihood of material loss is at least reasonably possible. In addition, the company also discloses matters based on its consideration of other matters and qualitative factors, including the experience of other companies in the industry, and investor, customer and employee relations considerations. With respect to certain of the claims, suits, investigations and proceedings discussed herein, the company believes at this time that the likelihood of any material loss is remote, given, for example, the procedural status, court rulings, and/or the strength of the company’s defenses in those matters. With respect to the remaining claims, suits, investigations and proceedings discussed in this note, except as specifically discussed herein, the company is unable to provide estimates of reasonably possible losses or range of losses, including losses in excess of amounts accrued, if any, for the following reasons. Claims, suits, investigations and proceedings are inherently uncertain, and it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. It is the company’s experience that damage amounts claimed in litigation against it are unreliable and unrelated to possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of the company’s potential liability. Further, the company is unable to provide such an estimate due to a number of other factors with respect to these claims, suits, investigations and proceedings, including considerations of the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and/or the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matters. The company reviews claims, suits, investigations and proceedings at least quarterly, and decisions are made with respect to recording or adjusting provisions and disclosing reasonably possible losses or range of losses (individually or in the aggregate), to reflect the impact and status of settlement discussions, discovery, procedural and substantive rulings, reviews by counsel and other information pertinent to a particular matter. Whether any losses, damages or remedies finally determined in any claim, suit, investigation or proceeding could reasonably have a material effect on the company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows will depend on a number of variables, including: the timing and amount of such losses or damages; the structure and type of any such remedies; the significance of the impact any such losses, damages or remedies may have in the Consolidated Financial Statements; and the unique facts and circumstances of the particular matter that may give rise to additional factors. While the company will continue to defend itself vigorously, it is possible that the company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be affected in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of these matters. The following is a summary of the more significant legal matters involving the company. The company is a defendant in an action filed on March 6, 2003 in state court in Salt Lake City, Utah by the SCO Group (SCO v. IBM). The company removed the case to Federal Court in Utah. Plaintiff is an alleged successor in interest to some of AT&T’s UNIX IP rights, and alleges copyright infringement, unfair competition, interference with contract and breach of contract with regard to the company’s distribution of AIX and Dynix and contribution of code to Linux and the company has asserted counterclaims. On September 14, 2007, plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection, and all proceedings in this case were stayed. The court in another suit, the SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., held a trial in March 2010. The jury found that Novell is the owner of UNIX and UnixWare copyrights; the judge subsequently ruled that SCO is obligated to recognize Novell’s waiver of SCO’s claims against IBM and Sequent for breach of UNIX license agreements. On August 30, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling and denied SCO’s appeal of this matter. In June 2013, the Federal Court in Utah granted SCO’s motion to reopen the SCO v. IBM case. In February 2016, the Federal Court ruled in favor of IBM on all of SCO’s remaining claims, and in March 2016, SCO filed a notice of appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 13, 2010, IBM and the State of Indiana (acting on behalf of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration) sued one another in a dispute over a 2006 contract regarding the modernization of social service program processing in Indiana. After six weeks of trial, on July 18, 2012, the Indiana Superior Court in Marion County rejected the State’s claims in their entirety and awarded IBM $52 million plus interest and costs. On February 13, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed portions of the trial judge’s findings, found IBM in material breach, and ordered the case remanded to the trial judge to determine the State’s damages, if any. The Indiana Court of Appeals also affirmed approximately $50 million of the trial court’s award of damages to IBM. On March 22, 2016, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the outcome of the Indiana Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Indiana Superior Court. On April 16, 2014, Iusacell SA de C.V. (Iusacell) sued IBM, claiming that IBM made fraudulent misrepresentations that induced Iusacell to enter into an agreement with IBM Mexico. Iusacell claims damages for lost profits. Iusacell’s complaint relates to a contractual dispute in Mexico, which is the subject of a pending arbitration proceeding in Mexico initiated by IBM Mexico against Iusacell for breach of the underlying agreement. On November 14, 2014, the District Court in the Southern District of New York granted IBM’s motion to stay Iusacell’s action against the company pending the arbitration in Mexico between Iusacell and IBM Mexico. IBM United Kingdom Limited (IBM UK) initiated legal proceedings in May 2010 before the High Court in London against the IBM UK Pensions Trust (the UK Trust) and two representative beneficiaries of the UK Trust membership. IBM UK is seeking a declaration that it acted lawfully both in notifying the Trustee of the UK Trust that it was closing its UK defined benefit plans to future accruals for most participants and in implementing the company’s new retirement policy. In April 2014, the High Court acknowledged that the changes made to its UK defined benefit plans were within IBM’s discretion, but ruled that IBM breached its implied duty of good faith both in implementing these changes and in the manner in which it consulted with employees. Proceedings to determine remedies were held in July 2014, and in February 2015 the High Court held that for IBM to make changes to accruals under the plan would require a new consultation of the participants, but other changes (including to early retirement policy) would not require such consultation. IBM UK has appealed both the breach and remedies judgments. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the Court’s rulings would require IBM to reverse the changes made to the UK defined benefit plans retroactive to their effective dates. This could result in an estimated non-operating one-time pre-tax charge of approximately $290 million, plus ongoing defined benefit related accruals. In addition, IBM UK is a defendant in approximately 290 individual actions brought since early 2010 by participants of the defined benefits plans who left IBM UK. These actions, which allege constructive dismissal and age discrimination, are pending before the Employment Tribunal in Southampton UK. In March 2011, the company announced that it had agreed to settle a civil enforcement action with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) relating to alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA). On July 25, 2013, the court approved that 2011 settlement and required that for a two-year period IBM make reports to the SEC and the court on certain matters, including those relating to compliance with the FCPA. The two-year period expired in July 2015. In early 2012, IBM notified the SEC of an investigation by the Polish Central Anti-Corruption Bureau involving allegations of illegal activity by a former IBM Poland employee in connection with sales to the Polish government. IBM is cooperating with the SEC and Polish authorities in this matter. In April 2013, IBM learned that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is also investigating allegations related to the Poland matter, as well as allegations relating to transactions in Argentina, Bangladesh and Ukraine. The DOJ is also seeking information regarding the company’s global FCPA compliance program and its public sector business. The company is cooperating with the DOJ in this matter. In March 2015, putative class action litigation was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the company’s October 2014 announcement that it was divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology business. The company and three of its officers were named as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In May 2015, a related putative class action was also commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York based on the same underlying facts, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). The company, management’s Retirement Plans Committee, and three current or former IBM executives were named as defendants. On September 7, 2016, the Court granted the company’s motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims in both actions. On October 21, 2016, the ERISA plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, dropping the company as a defendant. The matter remains pending in the United States District Court. In August 2015, IBM learned that the SEC is conducting an investigation relating to revenue recognition with respect to the accounting treatment of certain transactions in the U.S., UK and Ireland. The company is cooperating with the SEC in this matter. The company is party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by U.S. federal or state environmental agencies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), known as “Superfund,” or laws similar to CERCLA. Such statutes require potentially responsible parties to participate in remediation activities regardless of fault or ownership of sites. The company is also conducting environmental investigations, assessments or remediations at or in the vicinity of several current or former operating sites globally pursuant to permits, administrative orders or agreements with country, state or local environmental agencies, and is involved in lawsuits and claims concerning certain current or former operating sites. The company is also subject to ongoing tax examinations and governmental assessments in various jurisdictions. Along with many other U.S. companies doing business in Brazil, the company is involved in various challenges with Brazilian tax authorities regarding non-income tax assessments and non-income tax litigation matters. In 2016, the company also received new non-income tax assessments from the municipality of Rio de Janeiro. The total potential amount related to all these matters for all applicable years is approximately $980 million. The company believes it will prevail on these matters and that this amount is not a meaningful indicator of liability. Commitments The company’s extended lines of credit to third-party entities include unused amounts of $6,542 million and $5,477 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. A portion of these amounts was available to the company’s business partners to support their working capital needs. In addition, the company has committed to provide future financing to its clients in connection with client purchase agreements for approximately $2,463 million and $2,097 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The company has applied the guidance requiring a guarantor to disclose certain types of guarantees, even if the likelihood of requiring the guarantor’s performance is remote. The following is a description of arrangements in which the company is the guarantor. The company is a party to a variety of agreements pursuant to which it may be obligated to indemnify the other party with respect to certain matters. Typically, these obligations arise in the context of contracts entered into by the company, under which the company customarily agrees to hold the other party harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations and covenants related to such matters as title to assets sold, certain IP rights, specified environmental matters, third-party performance of nonfinancial contractual obligations and certain income taxes. In each of these circumstances, payment by the company is conditioned on the other party making a claim pursuant to the procedures specified in the particular contract, the procedures of which typically allow the company to challenge the other party’s claims. While typically indemnification provisions do not include a contractual maximum on the company’s payment, the company’s obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of time and/or nature of claim, and in some instances, the company may have recourse against third parties for certain payments made by the company. It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under these or similar agreements due to the conditional nature of the company’s obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the company under these agreements have not had a material effect on the company’s business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, the company guarantees certain loans and financial commitments. The maximum potential future payment under these financial guarantees was $34 million and $34 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The fair value of the guarantees recognized in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position was immaterial.

NOTE M. CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS

Contingencies

As a company with a substantial employee population and with clients in more than 175 countries, IBM is involved, either as plaintiff or defendant, in a variety of ongoing claims, demands, suits, investigations, tax matters and proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business. The company is a leader in the information technology industry and, as such, has been and will continue to be subject to claims challenging its IP rights and associated products and offerings, including claims of copyright and patent infringement and violations of trade secrets and other IP rights. In addition, the company enforces its own IP against infringement, through license negotiations, lawsuits or otherwise. Also, as is typical for companies of IBM’s scope and scale, the company is party to actions and proceedings in various jurisdictions involving a wide range of labor and employment issues (including matters related to contested employment decisions, country-specific labor and employment laws, and the company’s pension, retirement and other benefit plans), as well as actions with respect to contracts, product liability, securities, foreign operations, competition law and environmental matters. These actions may be commenced by a number of different parties, including competitors, clients, current or former employees, government and regulatory agencies, stockholders and representatives of the locations in which the company does business. Some of the actions to which the company is party may involve particularly complex technical issues, and some actions may raise novel questions under the laws of the various jurisdictions in which these matters arise.

The company records a provision with respect to a claim, suit, investigation or proceeding when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Any recorded liabilities, including any changes to such liabilities for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 were not material to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

In accordance with the relevant accounting guidance, the company provides disclosures of matters for which the likelihood of material loss is at least reasonably possible. In addition, the company also discloses matters based on its consideration of other matters and qualitative factors, including the experience of other companies in the industry, and investor, customer and employee relations considerations.

With respect to certain of the claims, suits, investigations and proceedings discussed herein, the company believes at this time that the likelihood of any material loss is remote, given, for example, the procedural status, court rulings, and/or the strength of the company’s defenses in those matters. With respect to the remaining claims, suits, investigations and proceedings discussed in this note, except as specifically discussed herein, the company is unable to provide estimates of reasonably possible losses or range of losses, including losses in excess of amounts accrued, if any, for the following reasons. Claims, suits, investigations and proceedings are inherently uncertain, and it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. It is the company’s experience that damage amounts claimed in litigation against it are unreliable and unrelated to possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of the company’s potential liability. Further, the company is unable to provide such an estimate due to a number of other factors with respect to these claims, suits, investigations and proceedings, including considerations of the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and/or the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matters. The company reviews claims, suits, investigations and proceedings at least quarterly, and decisions are made with respect to recording or adjusting provisions and disclosing reasonably possible losses or range of losses (individually or in the aggregate), to reflect the impact and status of settlement discussions, discovery, procedural and substantive rulings, reviews by counsel and other information pertinent to a particular matter.

Whether any losses, damages or remedies finally determined in any claim, suit, investigation or proceeding could reasonably have a material effect on the company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows will depend on a number of variables, including: the timing and amount of such losses or damages; the structure and type of any such remedies; the significance of the impact any such losses, damages or remedies may have in the Consolidated Financial Statements; and the unique facts and circumstances of the particular matter that may give rise to additional factors. While the company will continue to defend itself vigorously, it is possible that the company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be affected in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of these matters.

The following is a summary of the more significant legal matters involving the company.

The company is a defendant in an action filed on March 6, 2003 in state court in Salt Lake City, Utah by the SCO Group (SCO v. IBM). The company removed the case to Federal Court in Utah. Plaintiff is an alleged successor in interest to some of AT&T’s UNIX IP rights, and alleges copyright infringement, unfair competition, interference with contract and breach of contract with regard to the company’s distribution of AIX and Dynix and contribution of code to Linux and the company has asserted counterclaims. On September 14, 2007, plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection, and all proceedings in this case were stayed. The court in another suit, the SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., held a trial in March 2010. The jury found that Novell is the owner of UNIX and UnixWare copyrights; the judge subsequently ruled that SCO is obligated to recognize Novell’s waiver of SCO’s claims against IBM and Sequent for breach of UNIX license agreements. On August 30, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling and denied SCO’s appeal of this matter. In June 2013, the Federal Court in Utah granted SCO’s motion to reopen the SCO v. IBM case.

In February 2016, the Federal Court ruled in favor of IBM on all of SCO’s remaining claims, and in March 2016, SCO filed a notice of appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On May 13, 2010, IBM and the State of Indiana (acting on behalf of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration) sued one another in a dispute over a 2006 contract regarding the modernization of social service program processing in Indiana. After six weeks of trial, on July 18, 2012, the Indiana Superior Court in Marion County rejected the State’s claims in their entirety and awarded IBM $52 million plus interest and costs. On February 13, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed portions of the trial judge’s findings, found IBM in material breach, and ordered the case remanded to the trial judge to determine the State’s damages, if any. The Indiana Court of Appeals also affirmed approximately $50 million of the trial court’s award of damages to IBM. On March 22, 2016, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the outcome of the Indiana Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Indiana Superior Court.

On April 16, 2014, Iusacell SA de C.V. (Iusacell) sued IBM, claiming that IBM made fraudulent misrepresentations that induced Iusacell to enter into an agreement with IBM Mexico. Iusacell claims damages for lost profits. Iusacell’s complaint relates to a contractual dispute in Mexico, which is the subject of a pending arbitration proceeding in Mexico initiated by IBM Mexico against Iusacell for breach of the underlying agreement. On November 14, 2014, the District Court in the Southern District of New York granted IBM’s motion to stay Iusacell’s action against the company pending the arbitration in Mexico between Iusacell and IBM Mexico.

IBM United Kingdom Limited (IBM UK) initiated legal proceedings in May 2010 before the High Court in London against the IBM UK Pensions Trust (the UK Trust) and two representative beneficiaries of the UK Trust membership. IBM UK is seeking a declaration that it acted lawfully both in notifying the Trustee of the UK Trust that it was closing its UK defined benefit plans to future accruals for most participants and in implementing the company’s new retirement policy. In April 2014, the High Court acknowledged that the changes made to its UK defined benefit plans were within IBM’s discretion, but ruled that IBM breached its implied duty of good faith both in implementing these changes and in the manner in which it consulted with employees. Proceedings to determine remedies were held in July 2014, and in February 2015 the High Court held that for IBM to make changes to accruals under the plan would require a new consultation of the participants, but other changes (including to early retirement policy) would not require such consultation. IBM UK has appealed both the breach and remedies judgments. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the Court’s rulings would require IBM to reverse the changes made to the UK defined benefit plans retroactive to their effective dates. This could result in an estimated non-operating one-time pre-tax charge of approximately $290 million, plus ongoing defined benefit related accruals. In addition, IBM UK is a defendant in approximately 290 individual actions brought since early 2010 by participants of the defined benefits plans who left IBM UK. These actions, which allege constructive dismissal and age discrimination, are pending before the Employment Tribunal in Southampton UK.

In March 2011, the company announced that it had agreed to settle a civil enforcement action with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) relating to alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA). On July 25, 2013, the court approved that 2011 settlement and required that for a two-year period IBM make reports to the SEC and the court on certain matters, including those relating to compliance with the FCPA. The two-year period expired in July 2015. In early 2012, IBM notified the SEC of an investigation by the Polish Central Anti-Corruption Bureau involving allegations of illegal activity by a former IBM Poland employee in connection with sales to the Polish government. IBM is cooperating with the SEC and Polish authorities in this matter. In April 2013, IBM learned that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is also investigating allegations related to the Poland matter, as well as allegations relating to transactions in Argentina, Bangladesh and Ukraine. The DOJ is also seeking information regarding the company’s global FCPA compliance program and its public sector business. The company is cooperating with the DOJ in this matter.

In March 2015, putative class action litigation was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the company’s October 2014 announcement that it was divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology business. The company and three of its officers were named as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In May 2015, a related putative class action was also commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York based on the same underlying facts, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). The company, management’s Retirement Plans Committee, and three current or former IBM executives were named as defendants. On September 7, 2016, the Court granted the company’s motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims in both actions. On October 21, 2016, the ERISA plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, dropping the company as a defendant. The matter remains pending in the United States District Court.

In August 2015, IBM learned that the SEC is conducting an investigation relating to revenue recognition with respect to the accounting treatment of certain transactions in the U.S., UK and Ireland. The company is cooperating with the SEC in this matter.

The company is party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by U.S. federal or state environmental agencies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), known as “Superfund,” or laws similar to CERCLA. Such statutes require potentially responsible parties to participate in remediation activities regardless of fault or ownership of sites. The company is also conducting environmental investigations, assessments or remediations at or in the vicinity of several current or former operating sites globally pursuant to permits, administrative orders or agreements with country, state or local environmental agencies, and is involved in lawsuits and claims concerning certain current or former operating sites.

The company is also subject to ongoing tax examinations and governmental assessments in various jurisdictions. Along with many other U.S. companies doing business in Brazil, the company is involved in various challenges with Brazilian tax authorities regarding non-income tax assessments and non-income tax litigation matters. In 2016, the company also received new non-income tax assessments from the municipality of Rio de Janeiro. The total potential amount related to all these matters for all applicable years is approximately $980 million. The company believes it will prevail on these matters and that this amount is not a meaningful indicator of liability.

Commitments

The company’s extended lines of credit to third-party entities include unused amounts of $6,542 million and $5,477 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. A portion of these amounts was available to the company’s business partners to support their working capital needs. In addition, the company has committed to provide future financing to its clients in connection with client purchase agreements for approximately $2,463 million and $2,097 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

The company has applied the guidance requiring a guarantor to disclose certain types of guarantees, even if the likelihood of requiring the guarantor’s performance is remote. The following is a description of arrangements in which the company is the guarantor.

The company is a party to a variety of agreements pursuant to which it may be obligated to indemnify the other party with respect to certain matters. Typically, these obligations arise in the context of contracts entered into by the company, under which the company customarily agrees to hold the other party harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations and covenants related to such matters as title to assets sold, certain IP rights, specified environmental matters, third-party performance of nonfinancial contractual obligations and certain income taxes. In each of these circumstances, payment by the company is conditioned on the other party making a claim pursuant to the procedures specified in the particular contract, the procedures of which typically allow the company to challenge the other party’s claims. While typically indemnification provisions do not include a contractual maximum on the company’s payment, the company’s obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of time and/or nature of claim, and in some instances, the company may have recourse against third parties for certain payments made by the company.

It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under these or similar agreements due to the conditional nature of the company’s obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the company under these agreements have not had a material effect on the company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

In addition, the company guarantees certain loans and financial commitments. The maximum potential future payment under these financial guarantees was $34 million and $34 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The fair value of the guarantees recognized in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position was immaterial.