HP 2012 Annual Report Download - page 167

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)
Note 18: Litigation and Contingencies (Continued)
•City of Birmingham Retirement & Relief System v. L´ eo Apotheker, et al. is a lawsuit filed on
December 18, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements related to HP’s
acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance of HP’s enterprise services business. The
lawsuit also alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets
and were unjustly enriched in connection with HP’s acquisition of Autonomy and the financial
performance of HP’s enterprise services business.
•Karyn Lustig v. Margaret C. Whitman, et al. is a putative class action filed on December 18, 2012
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other
things, that from August 19, 2011 to November 20, 2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary
obligations to HP’s 401(k) plan and its participants and thereby violated Sections 404(a)(1) and
405(a) of ERISA by concealing negative information regarding the financial performance of
Autonomy and HP’s enterprise services business and failing to restrict participants from investing
in HP stock.
Environmental
HP’s operations and products are subject to various federal, state, local and foreign laws and
regulations concerning environmental protection, including laws addressing the discharge of pollutants
into the air and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, the cleanup
of contaminated sites, the content of HP’s products and the recycling, treatment and disposal of those
products. In particular, HP faces increasing complexity in its product design and procurement
operations as it adjusts to new and future requirements relating to the chemical and materials
composition of its products, their safe use, and the energy consumption associated with those products,
including requirements relating to climate change. HP is also subject to legislation in an increasing
number of jurisdictions that makes producers of electrical goods, including computers and printers,
financially responsible for specified collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of past and future
covered products (sometimes referred to as ‘‘product take-back legislation’’). HP could incur substantial
costs, its products could be restricted from entering certain jurisdictions, and it could face other
sanctions, if it were to violate or become liable under environmental laws or if its products become
non-compliant with environmental laws. HP’s potential exposure includes fines and civil or criminal
sanctions, third-party property damage or personal injury claims and clean up costs. The amount and
timing of costs under environmental laws are difficult to predict.
HP is party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by U.S. or state environmental
agencies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(‘‘CERCLA’’), known as ‘‘Superfund,’’ or state laws similar to CERCLA and may become a party to, or
otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by private parties for contribution towards clean-up costs.
HP is also conducting environmental investigations or remediations at several current or former
operating sites pursuant to administrative orders or consent agreements with state environmental
agencies.
159