Litigation Settlement Amount Awarded From Other Party, Actual Damages

[Table of Contents](#i3788981a52d64e719f4aa81d6ab63fcb_7)

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Note 10— Commitments and Contingencies |

We are involved in various claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We accrue a liability when a loss is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. When a material loss contingency is reasonably possible but not probable, we do not record a liability, but instead disclose the nature and the amount of the claim, and an estimate of the loss or range of loss, if such an estimate can be made. Legal fees are expensed as incurred. While we do not expect that the ultimate resolution of any existing claims and proceedings (other than the specific matters described below, if decided adversely), individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, an unfavorable outcome in some or all of these proceedings could have a material adverse impact on results of operations or cash flows for a particular period. This assessment is based on our current understanding of relevant facts and circumstances. As such, our view of these matters is subject to inherent uncertainties and may change in the future.  
On January 15, 2015, Syntel sued TriZetto and Cognizant in the USDC-SDNY. Syntel’s complaint alleged breach of contract against TriZetto, and tortious interference and misappropriation of trade secrets against Cognizant and TriZetto, stemming from Cognizant’s hiring of certain former Syntel employees. Cognizant and TriZetto countersued on March 23, 2015, for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference, based on Syntel’s misuse of TriZetto confidential information and abandonment of contractual obligations. Cognizant and TriZetto subsequently added federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and copyright infringement claims for Syntel’s misuse of TriZetto’s proprietary technology. The parties’ claims were narrowed by the court and the case was tried before a jury, which on October 27, 2020 returned a verdict in favor of Cognizant in the amount of $855 million, including $570 million in punitive damages. On April 20, 2021, the USDC-SDNY issued a post-trial order that, among other things, affirmed the jury’s award of $285 million in actual damages, but reduced the award of punitive damages from $570 million to $285 million, thereby reducing the overall damages award from $855 million to $570 million. The USDC-SDNY subsequently issued a final judgment consistent with the April 20th order. On May 26, 2021, Syntel filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit, and on June 3, 2021 the USDC-SDNY stayed execution of judgment pending appeal. We will not record the gain in our financial statements until it becomes realizable.On February 28, 2019, a ruling of the SCI interpreting the India Defined Contribution Obligation altered historical understandings of the obligation, extending it to cover additional portions of the employee’s income. As a result, the ongoing contributions of our affected employees and the Company were required to be increased. In the first quarter of 2019, we accrued $117 million with respect to prior periods, assuming retroactive application of the SCI’s ruling, in "Selling, general and administrative expenses" in our unaudited consolidated statement of operations. There is significant uncertainty as to how the liability should be calculated as it is impacted by multiple variables, including the period of assessment, the application with respect to certain current and former employees and whether interest and penalties may be assessed. Since the ruling, a variety of trade associations and industry groups have advocated to the Indian government, highlighting the harm to the information technology sector, other industries and job growth in India that would result from a retroactive application of the ruling. It is possible the Indian government will review the matter and there is a substantial question as to whether the Indian government will apply the SCI’s ruling on a retroactive basis. As such, the ultimate amount of our obligation may be materially different from the amount accrued.On October 31, 2016, November 15, 2016 and November 18, 2016, three putative shareholder derivative complaints were filed in New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County, naming us, all of our then current directors and certain of our current and former officers at that time as defendants. These actions were consolidated in an order dated January 24, 2017. The complaints assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, mismanagement, and/or insider selling by defendants. On April 26, 2017, the New Jersey Superior Court deferred further proceedings by dismissing the consolidated putative shareholder derivative litigation without prejudice but permitting the parties to file a motion to vacate the dismissal in the future. On February 22, 2017, April 7, 2017 and May 10, 2017, three additional putative shareholder derivative complaints alleging similar claims were filed in the USDC-NJ, naming us and certain of our current and former directors and officers at that time as defendants. These complaints asserted claims similar to those in the previously-filed putative shareholder derivative actions. In an order dated June 20, 2017, the USDC-NJ consolidated these actions into a single action, appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and stayed all further proceedings pending a final, non-appealable ruling on the motions to dismiss a consolidated putative securities class action that was resolved on December 21, 2021, when the USDC-NJ granted final approval of the settlement of the consolidated putative securities class action and entered a judgment dismissing the consolidated putative securities class action with prejudice. On October 30, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated verified derivative complaint.  
On March 11, 2019, a seventh putative shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the USDC-NJ, naming us and certain of our current and former directors and officers at that time as defendants. The complaint in that action asserts claims similar to   
  
  
  
  


|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Cognizant Technology Solutions | 19 | September 30, 2022 Form 10-Q |

                         
