Number of plaintiffs

[Table of Contents](#i43adbcd383bc4dc48977980bcb999d17_79) HP INC. AND SUBSIDIARIESNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)Note 14: Litigation and Contingencies (Continued)  
additionally named as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph Schell. HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court granted HP’s motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, which no longer names Christoph Schell as a defendant, alleges, among other things, that from February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements about HP’s printing supplies business. It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly selling shares of HP common stock during this period while in possession of material, non-public adverse information about HP’s printing supplies business. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On September 15, 2021, the court granted HP’s motion. Plaintiffs are appealing the decision.York County on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund v. HP Inc., et al., and related proceedings. On November 5, 2020, York County, on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund, filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, and Catherine Lesjak in federal court in the Northern District of California. The court appointed Maryland Electrical Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which additionally names as defendants Enrique Lores and Richard Bailey. The complaint alleges, among other things, that from November 5, 2015 to June 21, 2016, HP and the named current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements about HP’s printing supplies business. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief. HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. That motion is fully briefed. On May 17, 2021, stockholder Scott Franklin filed a derivative complaint against certain current and former officers and directors in federal court in the District of Delaware. Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of HP, which he has named as a nominal defendant, and it makes substantially the same factual allegations as in the York County securities complaint, bringing claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of securities laws. The derivative plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, governance reforms, and other relief. By court order following stipulations by the parties, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the case was stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in York County.Legal Proceedings re Authentication of Supplies. Civil litigation or government investigations involving supplies authentication protocols used in certain HP printers are pending, have concluded, or may be filed or opened in multiple geographies, including but not limited to the United States, Italy, Israel, and the Netherlands. The supplies authentication protocols are often referred to as Dynamic Security. The core allegations in these proceedings claim misleading or inadequate consumer notifications and permissions pertaining to the use of Dynamic Security, the impact of firmware updates, or the potential inability of cartridges with clone chips or circuitry to work in HP printers with Dynamic Security.123Inkt Foundation litigation (Netherlands). On November 23, 2016, a foundation known as Stichting 123Inkt-Huismerk Klanten (the “Foundation”) filed a complaint in district court in Amsterdam against HP Nederland B.V. and HP Inc. arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. Digital Revolution B.V. (trading as 123Inkt) established the Foundation to pursue the interests of approximately 960 of its customers who transferred their claims to it. The complaint alleges that HP’s use of Dynamic Security was unlawful, asserts a variety of claims, and seeks injunctive relief to prohibit use of Dynamic Security, damages, and attorneys’ fees. In December 2019, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal rejected the Foundation’s argument that Dynamic Security is unlawful but ruled that error messages displayed on HP printers in September 2016 without providing prior warning regarding Dynamic Security were misleading. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. In July 2021, the Attorney General issued a non-binding opinion concluding that both parties’ appeals should be rejected. The Supreme Court has scheduled its final decision to be delivered on January 7, 2022.Gensin v. HP Inc. (Israel). HP is named in a consolidated, consumer class action pending in the District Court in Jerusalem relating to HP’s use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers, which was initially filed on October 25,2017. Plaintiff asserts consumer protection, tort and other statutory claims primarily on the basis that no information on Dynamic Security was available in Hebrew, and plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees. HP has reached an agreement to settle this case, which has been submitted to the Court for approval. The Court has scheduled a hearing for January 13, 2022 to address any issues that may arise with the settlement.Parziale v. HP Inc. (United States). In August 2019, HP was named in this purported nationwide consumer class action in federal court in the Northern District of California arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint alleged claims under Florida Consumer Protection statutes, the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and for trespass to chattels. Plaintiff sought class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. On September 29, 2020, the court granted HP’s motion to dismiss, dismissing the case in 108
