Age of terminated employees

[Table of Contents](#ica158fb683c247fdb170955b492f9216_7)HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIESNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)Northern District of California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (collectively, "Defendants") alleging Defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business and Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers.  Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective action under the ADEA comprised of all individuals age 40 years and older who had their employment terminated by an HP entity pursuant to a work force reduction ("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 for individuals terminated in deferral states and on or after April 8, 2015 in non-deferral states. Plaintiffs also seek to certify a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by Defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012. Following the filing of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Class Certification on December 30, 2020. On April 14, 2021, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Class Certification was granted. The conditionally certified collective action consists of all individuals who had their employment terminated by Defendants pursuant to a WFR Plan on or after November 1, 2015, and who were 40 years or older at the time of such termination. The collective action excludes all individuals who signed a Waiver and General Release Agreement or an Agreement to Arbitrate Claims.Hewlett-Packard Company v. Oracle (Itanium). On June 15, 2011, HP Inc. filed suit against Oracle in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara in connection with Oracle's March 2011 announcement that it was discontinuing software support for HP Inc.'s Itanium-based line of mission critical servers. HP Inc. asserted, among other things, that Oracle's actions breached the contract that was signed by the parties as part of the settlement of the litigation relating to Oracle's hiring of Mark Hurd. Trial was bifurcated into two phases. HP Inc. prevailed in the first phase of the trial, in which the court ruled that the contract at issue required Oracle to continue to offer its software products on HP Inc.'s Itanium-based servers for as long as HP Inc. decided to sell such servers.  Phase 2 of the trial was then postponed by Oracle's appeal of the trial court's denial of Oracle's "anti-SLAPP" motion, in which Oracle argued that HP Inc.'s damages claim infringed on Oracle's First Amendment rights. On August 27, 2015, the California Court of Appeal rejected Oracle's appeal.  The matter was remanded to the trial court for Phase 2 of the trial, which began on May 23, 2016, and was submitted to the jury on June 29, 2016. On June 30, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of HP Inc., awarding HP Inc. approximately $3.0 billion in damages: $1.7 billion for past lost profits and $1.3 billion for future lost profits. On October 20, 2016, the court entered judgment for this amount with interest accruing until the judgment is paid. Oracle's motion for a new trial was denied on December 19, 2016, and Oracle filed its notice of appeal from the trial court's judgment on January 17, 2017. On February 2, 2017, HP Inc. filed a notice of cross-appeal challenging the trial court's denial of prejudgment interest. On May 16, 2019, HP Inc. filed its application to renew the judgment. As of May 16, 2019, the renewed judgment is approximately $3.8 billion. Daily interest on the renewed judgment is now accruing at $1 million and will be recorded upon receipt. On June 14, 2021, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Oracle filed a Petition for Rehearing with the California Court of Appeal, which was denied on July 8, 2021. On July 26, 2021, Oracle filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court denied the petition on September 29, 2021, and the California Court of Appeal issued the remittitur on September 30, 2021. On October 12, 2021, Oracle paid $4.66 billion, reflecting all amounts owed on the judgment plus accrued interest. Pursuant to the terms of the Separation and Distribution Agreement between HP Inc. and HPE, this amount was split evenly between the parties following the reimbursement of approximately $48 million in pre-separation legal costs incurred by HPE in prosecution of the litigation. In total, HPE has received payment of approximately $2.35 billion. On October 27, 2021, HP Inc. filed an acknowledgement of full satisfaction of judgment. Oracle has until December 28, 2021 to file a petition for certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court for review. Review by the United States Supreme Court is discretionary, and we believe the likelihood the award of damages will be reduced or reversed is remote.Oracle America, Inc., et al. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (Terix copyright matter). On March 22, 2016, Oracle filed a complaint against HPE in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging copyright infringement, interference with contract, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and unfair competition. Oracle’s claims arise out of HPE's prior use of a third-party maintenance provider named Terix Computer Company, Inc. ("Terix"). Oracle contends that in connection with HPE's use of Terix as a subcontractor for certain customers of HPE's multivendor support business, Oracle's copyrights were infringed, and HPE is liable for vicarious and contributory infringement and related claims. The lawsuit against HPE follows a prior lawsuit brought by Oracle against Terix in 2013 relating to Terix's alleged unauthorized provision of Solaris patches to customers on Oracle hardware. On January 29, 2019, the court granted HPE's Motion for Summary Judgment as to all of Oracle's claims. On February 20, 2019, the court entered judgment in favor of HPE, dismissing Oracle's claims in their entirety. Oracle appealed the trial court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On August 20, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling, affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of HPE. On October 6, 2020, the matter was remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On 126
