Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.FIS
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. Commitments Disclosure
Commitments and Contingencies
Securities and Shareholder Matters
On March 6, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida by a shareholder of the Company. The action was consolidated with another action and the consolidated case is now captioned In re Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. Securities Litigation. Lead plaintiffs were appointed, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on August 2, 2023. The consolidated amended complaint named the Company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants and sought damages for alleged violations of federal securities laws in connection with our disclosures relating to our former Merchant Solutions segment, including with respect to its valuation, integration, and synergies. On September 30, 2024, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. In the fourth quarter of 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation voluntarily dismissing the claims against Stephanie Ferris. Also in the fourth quarter of 2025, the parties reached an agreement to settle the matter. The settlement amount is expected to be substantially paid by insurance and is not expected to materially impact our results of operations or financial condition. On December 19, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The court entered a preliminary approval order on February 18, 2026, and has scheduled a hearing for July 9, 2026, to determine whether a final approval order should be entered.
On April 27, 2023, a shareholder derivative action captioned Portia McCollum, derivatively on behalf of Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. Gary Norcross et al., was filed in the same court by a stockholder of the Company. Subsequently, that stockholder dismissed the suit without prejudice and sent a demand pursuant to Georgia Code § 14-2-742 (the "McCollum Demand"). Another stockholder, City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System, sent a similar demand (the "Hialeah Demand"), and three other stockholders, City of Southfield Fire and Police Retirement System, Young Family Living Trust, and Michele Luthin, also subsequently sent similar demands (the "Southfield Demand," the "Young Demand," and the "Luthin Demand," respectively). The Southfield Demand was subsequently withdrawn. The demands claim that FIS officers and directors violated federal securities laws and breached fiduciary duties, including with respect to the valuation, integration, and synergies of our former Merchant Solutions segment, and they demand that the Board investigate and commence legal proceedings against officers and directors in connection with the purported wrongdoing. On August 25, 2023, the Board established a Demand Review Committee to consider the McCollum and Hialeah Demands and any related demands that are received (such as the Young Demand and the Luthin Demand) and make recommendations to the Board with respect to the demands. The Demand Review Committee has hired independent counsel.
On October 18, 2023, a shareholder derivative action captioned City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Stephanie L. Ferris et al. (the "Hialeah Action") was filed in the same court by the stockholder that previously had sent the Hialeah Demand. The complaint in the Hialeah Action, which names certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants (the "Individual Defendants"), seeks to assert claims on behalf of the Company for violations of federal securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and contribution and indemnification, including with respect to the valuation, integration, and synergies of our former Merchant Solutions segment. On March 29, 2024, the Company and the Individual Defendants filed a motion to stay or dismiss the action without prejudice pending the completion of the Board's consideration of the demands (the "Motion to Stay"), and the Individual Defendants concurrently filed a separate motion to dismiss (the "Individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss"). On March 21, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Stay, and denied the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Individual Defendants filed answers to the complaint on April 29, 2025, and the case was partially stayed pending completion of the Demand Review Committee's investigation.
On October 22, 2024, another shareholder derivative action was filed in the same court by the stockholder who previously sent the McCollum Demand, captioned Portia McCollum, derivatively on behalf of Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
v. Gary Norcross et al. (the "McCollum Action"). The complaint in the McCollum Action, which names certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors as defendants, seeks to assert claims on behalf of the Company for violations of federal securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment, including with respect to the valuation, integration, and synergies of our former Merchant Solutions segment. On November 7, 2024, the court entered an order staying the McCollum Action.
The Demand Review Committee provided a report on August 28, 2025, recommending that the independent members of the Board reject the demands and direct the Company to seek dismissal of the Hialeah Action and the McCollum Action, and the independent members of the Board have unanimously voted to adopt the Committee’s recommendations. On November 24, 2025, the Company moved to dismiss the Hialeah Action and the McCollum Action based on the Board's determination.
Indemnifications and Warranties
The Company generally indemnifies its clients, subject to certain limitations and exceptions, against damages and costs resulting from claims of patent, copyright, or trademark infringement associated solely with its customers' use of the Company's solutions. Historically, the Company has not made any material payments under such indemnifications but continues to monitor the conditions that are subject to the indemnifications to identify whether it is probable that a loss has occurred, in which case it would recognize any such losses when they are estimable. In addition, the Company warrants to customers that its software operates substantially in accordance with the software specifications. Historically, no material costs have been incurred related to software warranties, and no accruals for warranty costs have been made.
Purchase Commitments
The Company has agreements with various vendors, generally with - to five-year terms, principally for software, maintenance, and consulting and outsourced services, including cloud hosting and data centers. The Company's estimated aggregate contractual obligation remaining under these agreements is approximately $1.2 billion as of December 31, 2025. However, this amount could be more or less depending on various factors such as the inflation rate, foreign exchange rates, the introduction of significant new technologies, or changes in the Company's processing needs. The foregoing amounts do not include obligations of the Company under operating leases.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Feb 24, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Feb 13, 2025 | |
| 2023 | Feb 26, 2024 | |
| 2022 | Feb 27, 2023 | |
| 2021 | Feb 23, 2022 | |
| 2020 | Feb 18, 2021 | |
| 2019 | Feb 20, 2020 | |
| 2018 | Feb 21, 2019 | |
| 2017 | Feb 22, 2018 | |
| 2016 | Feb 23, 2017 | |
| 2015 | Feb 26, 2016 | |
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.