HP 2013 Annual Report Download - page 164

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)
Note 17: Litigation and Contingencies (Continued)
of Autonomy and Autonomy’s IDOL technology and thereby violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, breached their fiduciary duties, engaged in ‘‘abuse of control’’ over HP and
corporate waste and were unjustly enriched. The litigation was stayed by agreement until July 31,
2013. On July 30, 2013, HP filed a motion to further stay the litigation until HP’s Board of
Directors decides whether to pursue any of the claims asserted in the litigation or the court rules
on HP’s motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the In re HP Securities Litigation
matter. On September 6, 2013, the court extended the stay of the litigation until January 17,
2014.
•In re HP ERISA Litigation consists of three consolidated putative class actions filed beginning on
December 6, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging, among other things, that from August 18, 2011 to November 22, 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 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended, by concealing negative information regarding the financial performance of Autonomy
and HP’s enterprise services business and by failing to restrict participants from investing in HP
stock. On August 16, 2013, HP filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
•Vincent Ho v. Margaret C. Whitman, et al. is a lawsuit filed on January 22, 2013 in California
Superior Court alleging, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
and wasted corporate assets in connection with HP’s acquisition of Autonomy and by causing
HP to repurchase its own stock at allegedly inflated prices between August 2011 and October
2012. On April 22, 2013, the court stayed the lawsuit pending resolution of the In re Hewlett-
Packard Shareholder Derivative Litigation matter in federal court. Two additional derivative
actions, James Gould v. Margaret C. Whitman, et al. and Leroy Noel v. Margaret C. Whitman, et
al., were filed in California Superior Court on July 26, 2013 and August 16, 2013, respectively,
containing substantially similar allegations and seeking substantially similar relief. Those actions
have been stayed pending resolution of the In re Hewlett-Packard Shareholder Derivative Litigation
matter.
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
156