This excerpt taken from the HPQ 8-K filed Nov 12, 2008.
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.