|
Notes to consolidated financial statements (audited)
International Business Machines Corporation and Subsidiary Companies
O. Contingencies and commitments (audited)
The company is involved in a variety of claims, suits, investigations and proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business, including actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property (IP), product liability, employment, benefits, securities, and environmental matters. These actions may be commenced by a number of different constituents, including competitors, partners, clients, current or former employees, government and regulatory agencies, stockholders, and representatives of the locations in which we do business. The following is a discussion of some of the more significant legal matters involving the company.
On July 31, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, in Cooper et al. vs. The IBM Personal Pension Plan and IBM Corporation, held that the company’s pension plan violated the age discrimination provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). On September 29, 2004, the company announced that IBM and plaintiffs agreed in principle to resolve certain claims in the litigation. That agreement was finalized by the parties in May 2005, and received final approval from the District Court on August 16, 2005. Under the terms of the agreement, plaintiffs will receive an incremental pension benefit in exchange for the settlement of some claims and a stipulated remedy on remaining claims if plaintiffs prevail on appeal. This settlement, together with a previous settlement of a claim referred to as the partial plan termination claim resulted in the company taking a one-time charge of $320 million in the third quarter of 2004.
This agreement ends the litigation on all claims except the two claims associated with IBM’s cash balance formula. The company continues to believe that its pension plan formulas are fair and legal. The company has reached this agreement in the interest of the business and the company’s shareholders, and to allow for a review of its cash balance formula by the Court of Appeals. The company continues to believe it is likely to be successful on appeal.
The agreement stipulates that if the company is not successful on appeal of the two remaining claims, the agreed remedy will be increased by up to $1.4 billion—$780 million for the claim that the company’s cash balance formula is age discriminatory, and $620 million for the claim that the method used to establish opening account balances during the 1999 conversion discriminated on the basis of age (referred to as the “always cash balance” claim). The maximum additional liability the company could face in this case if it is not successful on appeal is therefore capped at $1.4 billion.
On August 30, 2005, the company filed its Notice of Appeal of the liability rulings on the cash balance claims with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the matter was subsequently fully briefed. On February 16, 2006 oral arguments on the appeal were heard by the Court of Appeals, and the company estimates that the appeals process should conclude in 2006.
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. 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. In October 2005, the company withdrew its patent counterclaims in an effort to simplify and focus the issues in the case and to expedite their resolution. Trial is currently scheduled for February 2007.
In May 2005, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the company’s motion to review and reverse a Louisiana State Court’s certification of a nationwide class in a case filed against the company in 1995. The class consists of certain former employees who left the company in 1992, and their spouses. They claim damages based on the company’s termination of an education assistance program. The company has a pending summary judgment motion in the trial court. No date has been set for trial.
On June 2, 2003 the company announced that it received notice of a formal, nonpublic investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC is seeking information relating to revenue recognition in 2000 and 2001 primarily concerning certain types of client transactions. The company believes that the investigation arises from a separate investigation by the SEC of Dollar General Corporation, a client of the company’s Retail Stores Solutions unit, which markets and sells point-of-sale products.
On January 8, 2004, the company announced that it received a “Wells Notice” from the staff of the SEC in connection with the staff’s investigation of Dollar General Corporation, which as noted above, is a client of the company’s Retail Stores Solutions unit. It is the company’s understanding that an employee in the company’s Sales & Distribution unit also received a Wells Notice from the SEC in connection with this matter. The Wells Notice notifies the company that the SEC staff is considering recommending that the SEC bring a civil action against the company for possible violations of the U.S. securities laws relating to Dollar General’s accounting for a specific transaction, by participating in and aiding and abetting Dollar General’s misstatement of its 2000 results. In that transaction, the company paid Dollar General $11 million for certain used equipment as part of a sale of IBM replacement equipment in Dollar General’s 2000 fourth fiscal quarter. Under the SEC’s procedures, the company responded to the SEC staff regarding whether any action should be brought against the company by the SEC. The separate SEC investigation noted above, relating to the recognition of revenue by the company in 2000 and 2001 primarily concerning certain types of client transactions, is not the subject of this Wells Notice.
On June 27, 2005, the company announced that it had received a request to voluntarily comply with an informal investigation by the staff of the SEC concerning the company’s disclosures relating to the company’s first quarter 2005 earnings and expensing of equity compensation. On January 12, 2006, the company announced that it received notice of a formal, nonpublic investigation by the SEC of this matter. The company has been cooperating with the SEC, and will continue to do so. The SEC has informed the company that the investigation should not be construed as an indication that any violations of law have occurred.
In July 2005, two lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the company’s disclosures concerning first-quarter 2005 earnings and the expensing of equity compensation. One lawsuit named as defendants IBM and IBM’s Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. The other lawsuit named as defendants IBM, IBM’s Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and IBM’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Both complaints alleged that defendants made certain misrepresentations in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On September 6, 2005, counsel in one of these lawsuits filed a motion seeking to have the lawsuits consolidated, and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. In their motion, counsel purport to be acting on behalf of shareholders who purchased or acquired the securities of IBM between January 19, 2005 and April 15, 2005. On October 6, 2005, the Court approved an agreement between plaintiffs and the named defendants in the lawsuits pursuant to which plaintiffs will serve defendants with a Consolidated Amended Complaint within 60 days of the Court issuing an Order naming lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Pursuant to this agreement, defendants will be required to Answer, file a Motion to Dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Consolidated Amended Complaint within 60 days of receipt of the Consolidated Amended Complaint.
In January 2004, the Seoul District Prosecutors Office in South Korea announced it had brought criminal bid-rigging charges against several companies, including IBM Korea and LG IBM (a joint venture between IBM Korea and LG Electronics, which has since been dissolved, effective January, 2005) and had also charged employees of some of those entities with, among other things, bribery of certain officials of government-controlled entities in Korea, and bid rigging. IBM Korea and LG IBM cooperated fully with authorities in these matters. A number of individuals, including former IBM Korea and LG IBM employees, were subsequently found guilty and sentenced. IBM Korea and LG IBM were also required to pay fines. Debarment orders were imposed at different times, covering a period of no more than a year from the date of Issuance, which barred IBM Korea from doing business directly with certain government controlled entities in Korea. All debarment orders have since expired and when they were in force did not prohibit IBM Korea from selling products and services to business partners who sold to government-controlled entities in Korea. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice and the SEC have both contacted the company in connection with this matter.
On January 24, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against IBM in federal court in San Francisco on behalf of technical support workers whose primary responsibilities are or were to install and maintain computer software and hardware. The suit, Rosenburg, et. al., v. IBM, alleges the company failed to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and State Law, and asserts violations of California recordkeeping and meal-break provisions. The suit also asserts certain violations of ERISA. Relief sought includes back wages, corresponding 401K and pension plan credits, interest, and attorneys’ fees.
On June 30, 2005, the company and Microsoft Corp. reached an agreement to resolve certain antitrust claims. The company also agreed, subject to certain limitations, that it will not assert antitrust claims for damages related to its server hardware and server software businesses for two years and, in any case, will not seek to recover damages on such claims incurred prior to June 30, 2002. Microsoft also released antitrust claims. Under the agreement, Microsoft agreed to pay the company $775 million and extend $75 million in credits towards future purchases for internal deployment of Microsoft software at the company. The $775 million was reflected in Other (income) and expense in the Consolidated Statement of Earnings in the second quarter, with the cash received by the company in the third quarter.
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 or remediations at or in the vicinity of several current or former operating sites pursuant to permits, administrative orders or agreements with state environmental agencies, and is involved in lawsuits and claims concerning certain current or former operating sites.
In accordance with SFAS No. 5, “Accounting for Contingencies,” 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 provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and are adjusted to reflect the impact and status of settlements, rulings, advice of counsel and other information pertinent to a particular matter. Any recorded liabilities for the above items, including any changes to such liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2005, were not material to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Based on its experience, the company believes that the damage amounts claimed in the matters referred to above are not a meaningful indicator of the potential liability. Claims, suits, investigations and proceedings are inherently uncertain and it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of the matters previously discussed. While the company will continue to defend itself vigorously in all such matters, 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.
Whether any losses, damages or remedies finally determined in any such claim, suit, investigation or proceeding could reasonably have a material effect on the company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flow 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 on the company’s Consolidated Financial Statements, and the unique facts and circumstances of the particular matter which may give rise to additional factors.
The company’s extended lines of credit to third-party entities include unused amounts of $3,019 million and $2,714 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004, 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 $2,155 million and $1,686 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The change over the prior year is due to increased signings of long-term IT infrastructure arrangements in which financing is committed by the company to fund a client’s future purchases from the company.
The company has applied the provisions of FIN 45 to its agreements that contain guarantee or indemnification clauses. These provisions expand those required by SFAS No. 5, by requiring a guarantor to recognize and 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, 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, which procedures typically allow the company to challenge the other party’s claims. Further, the company’s obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of time and/or amount, 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. The company believes that if it were to incur a loss in any of these matters, such loss should not have 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 $39 million and $58 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The fair value of the guarantees recognized in the company’s Consolidated Statement of Financial Position (other than the $74 million for certain indemnities to Lenovo discussed in note C, “Acquisitions/divestitures”) is not material.
|
|
|
