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, 2013, 2012 and 2011 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, 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. The company has asserted counterclaims, including breach of contract, violation of the Lanham Act, unfair competition, intentional torts, unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of the General Public License that governs open source distributions, promissory estoppel and copyright infringement. Motions for summary judgment were heard in March 2007, and the court has not yet issued its decision. On September 14, 2007, plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection, and all proceedings in this case were stayed. On August 25, 2009, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware approved the appointment of a Trustee of SCO. 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. On July 10, 2013, the Court entered an order dismissing seven of SCO's ten claims, specifically its breach of contract and copyright claims, and one tortious interference claim.
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. The State terminated the contract, claiming that IBM was in breach, and the State is seeking damages. IBM believes the State’s claims against it are without merit and is seeking payment of termination amounts specified in the contract. 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. This matter remains pending in the Indiana courts.
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. The trial in the High Court concluded in April 2013 and the company is awaiting a ruling from the Court. 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 and are currently stayed pending resolution of the above-referenced High Court proceedings.
In a separate but related proceeding, in March 2011, the Trustee of the IBM UK Trust was granted leave to initiate a claim before the High Court in London against IBM UK and one member of the UK Trust membership, seeking an order modifying certain documents and terms relating to retirement provisions in IBM UK’s largest defined benefit plan (the C Plan) dating back to 1983. The trial of these proceedings began in May 2012 and finished in early June. On October 12, 2012, the High Court in London issued its ruling, holding that the 1983 Trust Deeds and Rules should be modified to allow certain categories of current IBM UK employees who are members of the C Plan to retire from the age of 60 (rather than from the age of 63) without actuarial reduction of their defined benefit pension. In a supplementary ruling on December 13, 2012, the Court declined to similarly modify the Trust Deeds and Rules for former employees who were C Plan members and who left the company prior to retirement. On February 7, 2013, the Court issued an order agreed to by all parties, under which there will be no appeals of the October 2012 and December 2012 judgments. As a result of the October 2012 ruling, IBM recorded an additional pre-tax retirement-related obligation of $162 million in the third quarter of 2012.
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 activities by employees of IBM Korea, LG IBM, IBM (China) Investment Company Limited and IBM Global Services (China) Co., Ltd., during the period from 1998 through 2009, allegedly in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977. As part of that settlement, IBM consented to the entry of a judgment relating to the books and records and internal control provisions of the securities laws, and also agreed to pay a total of $10 million, categorized by the SEC as follows: (i) $5.3 million, representing profits gained as a result of the conduct alleged in the SEC’s complaint, (ii) prejudgment interest on that amount of $2.7 million, and (iii) a civil penalty of $2 million. 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. 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 May 2013, IBM learned that the SEC is conducting an investigation into how IBM reports cloud revenue. IBM is cooperating with the SEC in this matter.
In December 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the company's third-quarter 2013 financial results disclosure. The company, its Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and a former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the company are named as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Section 20(a) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The company is a defendant in numerous actions filed after January 1, 2008 in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, county of Broome, on behalf of hundreds of plaintiffs. The complaints allege numerous and different causes of action, including for negligence and recklessness, private nuisance and trespass. Plaintiffs in these cases seek medical monitoring and claim damages in unspecified amounts for a variety of personal injuries and property damages allegedly arising out of the presence of groundwater contamination and vapor intrusion of groundwater contaminants into certain structures in which plaintiffs reside or resided, or conducted business, allegedly resulting from the release of chemicals into the environment by the company at its former manufacturing and development facility in Endicott. These complaints also seek punitive damages in an unspecified amount.
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 authorities regarding non-income tax assessments and non-income tax litigation matters. These matters include claims for taxes on the importation of computer software. In November 2008, the company won a significant case in the Superior Chamber of the federal administrative tax court in Brazil, and in late July 2009, the company received written confirmation regarding this decision. The total potential amount related to the remaining matters for all applicable years is approximately $700 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 $5,028 million and $4,719 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012, 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 $1,769 million and $1,513 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012, 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 $44 million and $65 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The fair value of the guarantees recognized in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position is not material.