Cerence Inc.CRNC
Cerence Inc. Commitments Disclosure
Commitments and Contingencies
Litigation and Other Claims
Similar to many companies in the software industry, we are involved in a variety of claims, demands, suits, investigations and proceedings that arise from time to time relating to matters incidental to the ordinary course of our business, including at times actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, employment, benefits and securities matters. At each balance sheet date, we evaluate contingent liabilities associated with these matters in accordance with ASC 450 “Contingencies.” If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, we accrue a liability for the estimated loss. Significant judgments are required for the determination of probability and the range of the outcomes, and estimates are based only on the best information available at the time. Due to the inherent uncertainties involved in claims and legal proceedings and in estimating losses that may arise, actual outcomes may differ from our estimates. Contingencies deemed not probable or for which losses were not
estimable in one period may become probable, or losses may become estimable in later periods, which may have a material impact on our results of operations and financial position. As of September 30, 2025, accrued losses were not material to our consolidated financial statements, and we do not expect any pending matter to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.
City of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust Action
On February 25, 2022, a purported shareholder class action captioned as City Of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust v. Cerence Inc., et al. (the “Securities Action”) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and two of its former officers as defendants. Following the court’s selection of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, an amended complaint was filed on July 26, 2022 alleging classwide claims of material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the Company’s public disclosures during the period from November 16, 2020 to February 4, 2022, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On December 18, 2024, the Court granted final approval of a settlement of the claims in the Securities Action for $30.0 million, which was paid for by insurance proceeds.
Derivative Actions
On May 10 and 12, 2022, respectively, plaintiffs William Shafer and Peter Morse filed shareholder derivative complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of Cerence Inc. against defendants (and former officers) Sanjay Dhawan and Mark J. Gallenberger as well as board members Arun Sarin, Thomas Beaudoin, Marianne Budnik, Sanjay Jha, Kristi Ann Matus, Alfred Nietzel and then-current CEO and board member Stefan Ortmanns. These actions are premised on factual contentions substantially similar to those made in the Securities Action and contain substantially similar legal contentions. As such, on June 13, 2022, at the parties’ request, the court consolidated these derivative actions into a single action and appointed co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in that consolidated action. On February 3, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of demand futility and failure to state a claim. On June 18, 2025, the Court granted the motion without leave to amend.
Three shareholder derivative complaints making factual and legal contentions substantially similar to those raised in the consolidated federal derivative action were also filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery: the first filed on October 19, 2022 by plaintiff Melinda Hipp against the defendants named in the consolidated federal derivative action and board member Douglas Davis, the second filed on August 17, 2023 by plaintiff Catherine Fleming against the defendants named in the consolidated federal derivative action, and the third filed on July 10, 2024 by plaintiff Alberto Goncalves against the defendants named in the consolidated federal derivative action. On October 20, 2023, Ms. Hipp voluntarily dismissed her action with prejudice. On July 22, 2025, Mr. Goncalves's action was dismissed without prejudice at his request. On July 31, 2025, Ms. Fleming's action was dismissed without prejudice by stipulation of the parties.
A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena and Carlos Pena Action
On March 24, 2023, plaintiffs A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena, and Carlos Pena, each individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (Case. No. 2023CH02866 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. 2023)). The case was removed to Federal Court (Case No. 1:23CV2667 (N.D. Ill.)), and then severed and remanded back in part, so there are two pending cases. Plaintiffs subsequently amended the federal complaint twice, with the latest second amended complaint, filed on July 13, 2023, adding plaintiffs Randolph Freshour and Vincenzo Allan, each also filing individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals. Plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. through Cerence’s Drive Platform technology, which is integrated in various automobiles. The named plaintiffs allegedly drove or rode in a vehicle with Cerence’s Drive Platform technology. Across both cases, plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated: (1) BIPA Section 15(a) by possessing biometrics without any public written policy for their retention or destruction; (2) BIPA Section 15(b) by collecting, capturing, or obtaining biometrics without written notice or consent; (3) BIPA Section 15(c) by profiting from biometrics obtained from Plaintiffs and putative class members; and (4) BIPA Section 15(d) by disclosing biometrics to third party companies without consent. Cerence filed motions to dismiss both cases. On February 27, 2024, the Circuit Court issued an order denying Cerence's motion to dismiss. On April 16, 2024, Cerence filed its answer and affirmative defenses, a motion to certify the Court’s order on Cerence’s motion to dismiss, and a motion to stay. Thereafter, in exchange for Cerence withdrawing its motions to certify and stay, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in both the Circuit Court and Federal Court, which 1) dismissed some plaintiffs and 2) amended the class definition to include Illinois individuals who owned, leased, and/or created user profiles for vehicles with Cerence's "voice recognition technology" (rather than anyone in Illinois whose "voiceprint" was collected or stored by Cerence). Cerence filed its answers in both and the parties concluded fact discovery. The parties are now briefing class certification, which briefing is scheduled to be complete on December 15, 2025. On November 3, 2025, plaintiffs moved to stay the Federal Court case pending the Circuit Court's ruling on class certification. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory
damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation of BIPA and, alternatively, damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
On October 13, 2023, Cerence filed its first patent infringement complaint against Samsung alleging infringement of five Cerence patents (hereinafter referred to as “Samsung I”). On March 15, 2024, Cerence filed its second patent infringement complaint against Samsung alleging infringement of four additional Cerence patents (hereinafter referred to as “Samsung II”). In its responsive pleading to Samsung II, on July 10, 2024, Samsung asserted counterclaims, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,395,657; 10,720,162; 11,823,682; and 9,583,103 against the Cerence Assistant. Samsung sought damages, including trebled damages, and its costs and fees. On September 4, 2024, Cerence filed its answer denying the allegations and counterclaims of invalidity and noninfringement. Trial for Samsung I was scheduled to begin in October 2025 and trial for Samsung II was scheduled to begin in April 2026. On October 28, 2025 Samsung and Cerence resolved these disputes by entering into a cross-license agreement, which, among other things, resulted in Samsung agreeing to pay Cerence a one-time lump sum payment in the total amount of $49.5 million, due within 30 days. The cross-license agreement requires that each party is responsible for bearing their own costs for any associated legal fees incurred as a result of the alleged complaints and negotiations resulting in the dispute resolution. As a result, our final receipt of the one-time lump-sum payment will result in us incurring approximately $24.6 million in legal fees.
Guarantees and Other
We include indemnification provisions in the contracts we enter with customers and business partners. Generally, these provisions require us to defend claims arising out of our products’ infringement of third-party intellectual property rights, breach of contractual obligations and/or unlawful or otherwise culpable conduct. The indemnity obligations generally cover damages, costs and attorneys’ fees arising out of such claims. In most, but not all cases, our total liability under such provisions is limited to either the value of the contract or a specified, agreed-upon amount. In some cases, our total liability under such provisions is unlimited. In many, but not all cases, the term of the indemnity provision is perpetual. While the maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under all the indemnification provisions is unlimited, we believe the estimated fair value of these provisions is minimal due to the low frequency with which these provisions have been triggered.
We indemnify our directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law, which provides among other things, indemnification to directors and officers for expenses, judgments, fines, penalties and settlement amounts incurred by such persons in their capacity as a director or officer of the Company, regardless of whether the individual is serving in any such capacity at the time the liability or expense is incurred. Additionally, in connection with certain acquisitions, we agreed to indemnify the former officers and members of the boards of directors of those companies, on similar terms as described above, for a period of six years from the acquisition date. In certain cases, we purchase director and officer insurance policies related to these obligations, which fully cover the six-year period. To the extent that we do not purchase a director and officer insurance policy for the full period of any contractual indemnification, and such directors and officers do not have coverage under separate insurance policies, we would be required to pay for costs incurred, if any, as described above.
As of September 30, 2025, our letters of credit in connection with security deposits for facility leases totaled $0.7 million in the aggregate. These letters of credit have various terms and expire during fiscal year 2026 and beyond, while some of the letters of credit may automatically renew based on the terms of the underlying agreements.
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.