HP 2015 Annual Report Download - page 173

Table of Contents



and agreed to post a provisional bond in exchange for the DRI's agreement to not seize HP India products and spare parts and to not interrupt the transaction
of business by HP India.
On April 11, 2012, the Bangalore Commissioner of Customs issued an order on the products-related show cause notice affirming certain duties and
penalties against HP India and the named individuals of approximately $386 million, of which HP India had already deposited $9 million. On December 11,
2012, HP India voluntarily deposited an additional $10 million in connection with the products-related show cause notice. The differential duty demand is
subject to interest. On April 20, 2012, the Commissioner issued an order on the parts-related show cause notice affirming certain duties and penalties against
HP India and certain of the named individuals of approximately $17 million, of which HP India had already deposited $7 million. After the order, HP India
deposited an additional $3 million in connection with the parts-related show cause notice so as to avoid certain penalties.
HP India filed appeals of the Commissioner's orders before the Customs Tribunal along with applications for waiver of the pre-deposit of remaining
demand amounts as a condition for hearing the appeals. The Customs Department has also filed cross-appeals before the Customs Tribunal. On January 24,
2013, the Customs Tribunal ordered HP India to deposit an additional $24 million against the products order, which HP India deposited in March 2013. The
Customs Tribunal did not order any additional deposit to be made under the parts order. In December 2013, HP India filed applications before the Customs
Tribunal seeking early hearing of the appeals as well as an extension of the stay of deposit as to HP India and the individuals already granted until final
disposition of the appeals. On February 7, 2014, the application for extension of the stay of deposit was granted by the Customs Tribunal until disposal of the
appeals. On October 27, 2014, the Customs Tribunal commenced hearings on the cross-appeals of the Commissioner's orders. The Customs Tribunal rejected
HP India's request to remand the matter to the Commissioner on procedural grounds. The hearings scheduled to reconvene on April 6, 2015 and again on
November 3, 2015 were cancelled at the request of the Customs Tribunal. A new hearing date has not been set.
 The German Public Prosecutor's Office ("German PPO") has been conducting an investigation
into allegations that current and former employees of HP engaged in bribery, embezzlement and tax evasion relating to a transaction between Hewlett-
Packard ISE GmbH in Germany, a former subsidiary of HP, and the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation. The approximately €35 million
transaction, which was referred to as the Russia GPO deal, spanned the years 2001 to 2006 and was for the delivery and installation of an IT network. The
German PPO issued an indictment of four individuals, including one current and two former HP employees, on charges including bribery, breach of trust and
tax evasion. The German PPO also requested that HP be made an associated party to the case, and, if that request is granted, HP would participate in any
portion of the court proceedings that could ultimately bear on the question of whether HP should be subject to potential disgorgement of profits based on the
conduct of the indicted current and former employees. The Regional Court of Leipzig will determine whether the matter should be admitted to trial. The
Polish Central Anti-Corruption Bureau is also investigating potential corrupt actions by a former employee of Hewlett-Packard Polska Sp. z o.o., a former
indirect subsidiary of HP, in connection with certain public-sector transactions in Poland. HP is cooperating with these investigating agencies.
On December 2, 2014, plaintiffs Petroleos Mexicanos and Pemex Exploracion filed a complaint against HP and HP Mexico in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California
171
Source: HP INC, 10-K, December 16, 2015 Powered by Morningstar® Document Research℠
The information contained herein may not be copied, adapted or distributed and is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. The user assumes all risks for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information,
except to the extent such damages or losses cannot be limited or excluded by applicable law. Past financial performance is no guarantee of future results.