CONDUENT IncCNDT
CONDUENT Inc Commitments Disclosure
Contingencies and Litigation
As more fully discussed below, the Company is involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings concerning a variety of matters, including: governmental entity contracting, servicing and procurement law; intellectual property law; employment law; commercial and contracts law; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"); and other laws and regulations. The Company determines whether an estimated loss from a contingency should be accrued by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company assesses its potential liability by analyzing its litigation and regulatory matters using available information. The Company develops its view on estimated losses in consultation with outside counsel handling its defense in these matters, which involves an analysis of potential results, assuming a combination of litigation and settlement strategies. Should developments in any of these matters cause a change in the Company's determination as to an unfavorable outcome and result in the need to recognize a material accrual, or should any of these matters result in a final adverse judgment or be settled for significant amounts in excess of any accrual for such matter or matters, this could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period or periods in which such change in determination, judgment or settlement occurs. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any such matters as of December 31, 2025. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters and such outcome in any such matters could be more than any amounts accrued and could be material to the Company's results of operations, cash flows or financial position in any reporting period.
Additionally, guarantees, indemnifications and claims arise during the ordinary course of business from relationships with suppliers, customers and non-consolidated affiliates when the Company undertakes an obligation to guarantee the performance of others if specified triggering events occur. Nonperformance under a contract could trigger an obligation of the Company. These potential claims include actions based upon alleged exposures to products, real estate, intellectual property such as patents, environmental matters and other indemnifications. The ultimate effect on future financial results is not subject to reasonable estimation because considerable uncertainty exists as to the outcome of these claims. However, while the ultimate liabilities resulting from such claims may be significant to results of operations in the period recognized, management does not anticipate they will have a material adverse effect on the Company's Consolidated Financial position or liquidity. As of December 31, 2025, the Company had accrued its estimate of liability incurred under its indemnification arrangements and guarantees.
Litigation Against the Company
Skyview Capital LLC and Continuum Global Solutions, LLC v. Conduent Business Services, LLC: On February 3, 2020, plaintiffs Skyview Capital LLC and Continuum Global Solutions LLC (collectively "Skyview") filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against Conduent Business Services, LLC ("CBS"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. The lawsuit relates to the sale of a portion of CBS's select standalone customer care call center business to plaintiffs, which sale closed in February 2019. Under the terms of the sale agreement, CBS received approximately $23 million of promissory notes from plaintiffs (the "Notes"). The lawsuit alleges various causes of action in connection with the acquisition, including: indemnification for breaches of representations and warranties; indemnification for breaches of covenants; and fraud. Plaintiffs alleged that their obligation to mitigate damages and their contractual right of set-off permitted them to withhold and deduct from any amounts that are owed to CBS under the Notes, and plaintiffs sought a judgment that they had no obligation to pay the Notes. On August 20, 2020, CBS filed counterclaims against Skyview seeking the outstanding balance on the Notes, the amounts owed for operating certain Jamaica-based call centers on plaintiffs' behalf pending closing (the "Jamaica Deferred Closing"), other obligations under a transition services agreement and its amendments (the "TSAs"), and late rent payment obligations. CBS also moved to dismiss Skyview’s claims in 2020. In May 2021, the court denied the motion to dismiss and allowed Skyview's claims to proceed. Fact and expert discovery concluded and the parties filed summary judgment motions in July 2023. On December 8, 2023, the court rendered its decision on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, finding there were certain material issues of fact that required trial on Skyview's fraud claim, and also entering partial summary judgment for each side. On January 5, 2024, CBS filed a notice of appeal with the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department ("Appellate
Division") with respect to the portion of the ruling that did not grant CBS's summary judgment motion in its entirety and that granted certain limited relief in favor of Skyview. On January 23, 2024, Skyview filed its own notice of appeal, challenging the decision granting summary judgment on certain of CBS’s counterclaims.
In July 2024, Skyview informed CBS of its intention to sell a portion of its call center business. The parties reached an agreement on August 8, 2024, under which, contemporaneously with the closing of such a transaction, Skyview would pay the outstanding principal plus interest due on the outstanding Notes, fully discharging Skyview's obligations under the Notes, and would pay certain of CBS's litigation costs.
On September 24, 2024, Skyview and the buyer announced a signed and binding asset purchase agreement. Following regulatory review, the transaction closed in December 2024, at which point Skyview paid CBS approximately $33 million, representing all outstanding principal and interest due on the Notes and reimbursement of certain litigation costs. As a result, CBS dismissed its two counterclaims related to the Notes.
In May 2025, the Appellate Division heard arguments on the parties’ 2024 cross-appeals and issued a ruling in June 2025, finding predominantly in CBS’s favor. Specifically, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment as to Skyview’s fraud claim and dismissed such claim in its entirety (along with Skyview’s request for punitive damages). In addition, the Appellate Division reversed the grant of summary judgment to Skyview on its breach of contract claim, finding there to be issues of fact for trial. No trial date has yet been set. With respect to CBS’s counterclaims, the Appellate Division (i) affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the counterclaims concerning the TSAs and late rent payment amounts and (ii) instructed the trial court to adjudicate the final amount owed by Skyview to CBS on the Jamaica Deferred Closing counterclaim. The Appellate Division further found that the maximum amount that Skyview would have been entitled to set off against its liability on the Notes was $5 million (the contractual indemnification limit set forth in the sale agreement).
The trial court accordingly entered judgment on the TSA and late rent payment counterclaims on June 23, 2025, with final entry by the County Clerk on August 20, 2025.
On July 3, 2025, Skyview filed a motion to reargue the Appellate Division’s decision and, alternatively, for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. This motion was denied on September 4, 2025. Conduent is in the process of seeking to collect on the outstanding judgment and will continue to pursue the amount owed by Skyview to CBS on the Jamaica Deferred Closing counterclaim. No trial date has yet been set.
CBS continues to deny all of plaintiffs' allegations, believes that it has strong defenses to all plaintiffs’ claims, and will continue to defend the litigation vigorously. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or reasonably provide an estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in excess of currently recorded reserves.
In re: Conduent Business Services Data Breach Litigation
The Company and CBS (collectively, “Conduent”) are parties to several lawsuits in the U.S. asserted by or on behalf of individuals who allegedly received a notification letter that their personal information may have been affected by the January 2025 Cyber Event. Most of these lawsuits have been consolidated into one single action in the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey. Conduent continues to work on consolidating these lawsuits and responding accordingly. Conduent denies plaintiffs' allegations, believes that it has strong defenses to plaintiffs’ claims, and will continue to defend the litigations vigorously. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or reasonably provide an estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any.
Guarantees and Indemnifications
Indemnifications Provided as Part of Contracts and Agreements
Acquisitions/Divestitures:
The Company has indemnified, subject to certain deductibles and limits, the purchasers of businesses or divested assets for the occurrence of specified events under certain of its divestiture agreements. In addition, the Company customarily agrees to hold the other party harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations and covenants, including such matters as adequate title to assets sold, intellectual property rights and certain income taxes arising prior to the date of acquisition. Where appropriate, an obligation for such indemnifications is recorded as a liability at the time of the acquisition or divestiture. Since the obligated amounts of these types of
indemnifications are often not explicitly stated or are contingent on the occurrence of future events, the overall maximum amount, or range of amount of the obligation under such indemnifications cannot be reasonably estimated. Other than obligations recorded as liabilities at the time of divestiture, the Company has not historically made significant payments for these indemnifications. Additionally, under certain of the Company's acquisition agreements, it has provided for additional consideration to be paid to the sellers if established financial targets are achieved within specific timeframes post-closing. The Company has recognized liabilities for these contingent obligations based on an estimate of the fair value of these contingencies at the time of acquisition. Contingent obligations related to indemnifications arising from divestitures and contingent consideration provided for by acquisitions are not expected to be material to the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Other Agreements:
The Company is also party to the following types of agreements pursuant to which it may be obligated to indemnify the other party with respect to certain matters:
•Guarantees on behalf of the Company's subsidiaries with respect to real estate leases. These lease guarantees may remain in effect after the sale of the subsidiary.
•Agreements to indemnify various service providers, trustees and bank agents from any third-party claims related to their performance on the Company's behalf, except for claims that result from the third-party's own willful misconduct or gross negligence.
•Guarantees of the Company's performance in certain services contracts to its customers and indirectly the performance of third parties with whom the Company has subcontracted for their services. This includes indemnifications to customers for losses that may be sustained because of the Company's performance of services at a customer's location.
In each of these circumstances, payment is conditioned on the other party making a claim pursuant to the procedures specified in the particular contract and such procedures also typically allow the Company to challenge the other party's claims. In the case of lease guarantees, the Company may contest the liabilities asserted under the lease. Further, obligations under these agreements and guarantees may be limited in terms of time and/or amount, and in some instances, the Company may have recourse against third parties for certain payments it made.
Intellectual Property Indemnifications
The Company does not own all of the software that it uses to run its business. Instead, the Company licenses this software from a small number of primary vendors. The Company indemnifies certain software providers against claims that may arise as a result of the Company's use or its subsidiaries', customers' or resellers' use of their software in the Company's services and solutions. These indemnities usually do not include limits on the claims, provided the claim is made pursuant to the procedures required in the services contract.
Indemnification of Officers and Directors
The Company's corporate by-laws require that, except to the extent expressly prohibited by law, the Company must indemnify its officers and directors against judgments, fines, penalties and amounts paid in settlement and reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred in connection with civil or criminal action or proceedings or any appeal, as it relates to their services to the Company and its subsidiaries. Although the by-laws provide no limit on the amount of indemnification, the Company may have recourse against its insurance carriers for certain payments made by the Company. However, certain indemnification payments may not be covered under the Company's directors' and officers' insurance coverage. The Company also indemnifies certain fiduciaries of its employee benefit plans for liabilities incurred in their service as fiduciary whether or not they are officers of the Company. Finally, in connection with the Company's acquisition of businesses, it may become contractually obligated to indemnify certain former and current directors, officers and employees of those businesses in accordance with pre-acquisition by-laws or indemnification agreements or applicable state law.
Other Contingencies
Certain contracts, primarily in the Company's Government and Transportation segments, require the Company to provide a surety bond or a letter of credit as a guarantee of performance. As of December 31, 2025, the Company had $555 million of outstanding surety bonds issued to secure its performance of contractual obligations with its clients and $130 million of outstanding letters of credit issued to secure the Company's performance of contractual obligations to its clients as well as other corporate obligations. In general, the Company would only be liable for
these guarantees in the event of default in the Company's performance of its obligations under each contract. The Company believes it has sufficient capacity in the surety markets and liquidity from its cash flow and its various credit arrangements to allow it to respond to future requests for proposals that require such credit support.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Feb 19, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Feb 19, 2025 | |
| 2023 | Feb 21, 2024 | |
| 2022 | Feb 22, 2023 | |
| 2021 | Feb 23, 2022 | |
| 2020 | Feb 24, 2021 | |
| 2019 | Feb 27, 2020 | |
| 2018 | Feb 28, 2019 | |
| 2017 | Mar 1, 2018 | |
| 2016 | Mar 10, 2017 | |
About Commitments Disclosures
Commitments and contingencies disclosures catalog a company's off-balance-sheet obligations and legal exposures — purchase commitments, guarantee arrangements, pending litigation, and regulatory proceedings. These items represent potential future cash outflows that may not appear as liabilities on the balance sheet until they become probable and estimable.
Key signals: litigation reserves and disclosed loss ranges quantify management's estimate of legal exposure, but unquantified "reasonably possible" losses often represent the larger risk. Watch for changes in language around pending cases — shifts from "remote" to "reasonably possible" or increases in estimated loss ranges signal deteriorating outcomes. Unconditional purchase obligations and take-or-pay contracts create fixed cost structures that reduce operational flexibility. Guarantee arrangements for subsidiaries or joint ventures can create cascading obligations. Compare the total commitment schedule against projected free cash flow to assess whether the company can meet its obligations without additional financing.