This excerpt taken from the HPQ 8-K filed Nov 12, 2008.
NOTE 15: CONTINGENCIES
In connection with certain service contracts, the Company may arrange a client supported financing transaction (CSFT) with a client and an independent third-party financial institution or its designee. Under CSFT arrangements, the financial institution finances the purchase of certain IT-related assets and simultaneously leases those assets for use in connection with the service contract.
In a CSFT, all client contract payments are made directly to the financial institution providing the financing. After the predetermined monthly obligations to the financial institution are met, the remaining portion of the customer payment is made available to the Company. If the client does not make the required payments under the service contract, under no circumstances does the Company have any obligation to acquire the underlying assets unless nonperformance under the service contract would permit its termination, or the Company fails to comply with certain customary terms under the financing agreements, including, for example, covenants the Company has undertaken regarding the use of the assets for their intended purpose. The Company considers the likelihood of its failure to comply with any of these terms to be remote. In the event of nonperformance under applicable contracts which would permit their termination, the Company would have no additional or incremental performance risk with respect to the ownership of the assets, because it would have owned or leased the same or substantially equivalent assets in order to fulfill its obligations under its service contracts. Performance under the Companys service contracts is generally measured by contract terms relating to project deadlines, IT system deliverables or level-of-effort measurements.
As of December 31, 2007, an aggregate of $76 million was outstanding under CSFTs yet to be paid by the Companys clients. The Company believes it is in compliance with performance obligations under all service contracts for which there is a related CSFT and the ultimate liability, if any, incurred in connection with such financings will not have a material adverse affect on its consolidated results of operations or financial position.
In the normal course of business, the Company may provide certain clients, principally governmental entities, with financial performance guarantees, which are generally backed by standby letters of credit or surety bonds. In general, the Company would only be liable for the amounts of these guarantees in the event that nonperformance by the Company permits termination of the related contract by the Companys client, which the Company believes is remote. At December 31, 2007, the Company had $568 million outstanding standby letters of credit and surety bonds relating to these performance guarantees. The Company believes it is in compliance with its performance obligations under all service contracts for which there is a financial performance guarantee, and the ultimate liability, if any, incurred in connection with these guarantees will not have a material adverse affect on its consolidated results of operations or financial position. In addition, the Company had $8 million of other financial guarantees outstanding at December 31, 2007 relating to indebtedness of others.
The Company has received tax assessments from various taxing authorities and is currently at varying stages of appeals regarding these matters. The Company has provided for the amounts it believes will ultimately result from those proceedings. In January 2008, the Company reached a final agreement with the Appeals Office of the Internal Revenue Service for all outstanding issues for the period 1999-2002 consistent with the Companys tax reserves as of December 31, 2007.
Pending Litigation and Proceedings
On December 19, 2003, Sky Subscribers Services Limited (SSSL) and British Sky Broadcasting Limited (BSkyB), a former client of the Company, served a draft pleading seeking redress for the Companys alleged failure to perform pursuant to a contract between the parties. Under applicable legal procedures, the Company responded to the allegations. Despite the response, on August 17, 2004, SSSL and BSkyB issued and served upon the Company a pleading alleging the following damages, each presented as an alternative cause of action: (1) pre-contract deceit in 2000 in the amount of £320 million (approximately $635 million); (2) pre-contract negligent misrepresentation in 2000 in the amount of £127 million (approximately $250 million); (3) deceit inducing the Letter of Agreement in July 2001 in the amount of £261 million (approximately $520 million); (4) negligent misrepresentation inducing the Letter of Agreement in July 2001 in the amount of £116 million (approximately $230 million); and (5) breach of contract from 2000 through 2002 in the amount of £101 million (approximately $200 million). On November 12, 2004, the Company filed its defense and counterclaim denying the claims and seeking damages in the amount of £4.7 million (approximately $9.3 million). On December 21, 2005, SSSL and BSkyB filed a Re-Amended Particulars of Claim alleging the following damages, still as alternative causes of action: (1) pre-contract deceit in the amount of £480 million (approximately $955 million); (2) pre-contract negligent misrepresentation and negligent misstatement in the amount of £480 million (approximately $955 million); (3) deceit inducing the Letter of Agreement and negligent misrepresentation inducing the Letter of Agreement of £415 million (approximately $825 million); and (4) breach of contract in the amount of £179 million (approximately $355 million). The principal stated reason for the increases in amount of damages was that the claimants had taken the opportunity to re-assess their alleged lost profits and increased costs to deliver the project in light of the extended timetable they then required to complete delivery of the project that was the subject of the contract. Claimants said then that they would further re-assess these alleged losses prior to trial. In April 2007, the claimants served on EDS in draft further amendments to the Particulars of Claim, and the Court conditionally granted claimants request to amend. The claimants have increased the damages claim still further, as follows: (1) pre-contract deceit, negligent misrepresentation and negligent misstatement in the sum of £711.4 million (approximately $1.4 billion); (2) deceit, negligent misrepresentation and negligent misstatement inducing the Letter of Agreement in the sum of £582.9 million (approximately $1.2 billion); and (3) breach of contract in the amount of £160.3 million (approximately $320 million). These heads of claim are still pleaded in the alternative. The principal stated reason for the increases in the amount of damages is that the claimants say they have re-assessed their alleged losses in the light of expert witness evidence. Weeks later, and immediately prior to a hearing on May 25, 2007, the claimants made further revisions to the quantum of their damages claims, as follows: (1) pre-contract deceit, negligent misrepresentation and negligent misstatement in the sum of £709.3 million (approximately $1.4 billion); (2) deceit, negligent misrepresentation and negligent misstatement inducing the Letter of Agreement in the sum of £523 million (approximately $1.0 billion); and (3) breach of contract remained unchanged in the amount of £160.3 million (approximately $320 million). These heads of claim are still pleaded in the alternative. The stated reason for the revisions of the damages claims in (1) and (2) above is that the claimants made arithmetical errors in the preceding amendments a few weeks earlier. A hearing was held on May 25, 2007 at which the court granted claimants leave to amend their pleaded case. BSkyB has since made further amendments to points of detail in the particulars of claim, however the pleaded quantum of the claim remains unchanged. The dispute surrounds a contract the Company entered into with BSkyB in November 2000, which was terminated by the Company in January 2003 for BSkyBs failure to pay its invoices. The contract had an initial total contract value of approximately £48 million which rose to just over £60 million during the term of the contract. The Company intends to defend against these allegations vigorously. The trial for this matter commenced in October 2007 and is scheduled to continue until the end of May 2008. Although there can be no assurance as to the outcome of this matter, the Company does not believe it will have a material adverse impact on its consolidated results or financial position.
There are other various claims and pending actions against the Company arising in the ordinary course of its business. Certain of these actions seek damages in significant amounts. The amount of the Companys liability for such claims and pending actions at December 31, 2007 was not determinable. However, in the opinion of management, the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from such claims and pending actions will not have a material adverse affect on the Companys consolidated results of operations or financial position.