NCR Voyix Corporation - 10-Q quarterly report FY2013 Q3

In 2012, NCR received anonymous allegations from a purported whistleblower regarding certain aspects of the Company's business practices in China, the Middle East and Africa. The principal allegations received in 2012 relate to the Company's compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and federal regulations that prohibit U.S. persons from engaging in certain activities in Syria.  NCR promptly retained experienced outside counsel and began an internal investigation that was completed in January 2013.  On August 31, 2012, the Board of Directors received a demand letter from an individual shareholder demanding that the Board investigate and take action in connection with certain of the whistleblower allegations.  The Board formed a Special Committee to investigate those matters, and that Special Committee also separately retained experienced outside counsel, and completed an investigation in January 2013. On January 23, 2013, upon the recommendation of the Special Committee following its review, the Board of Directors adopted a resolution rejecting the shareholder demand. As part of its resolution, the Board determined, among other things, that the officers and directors named in the demand had not breached their fiduciary duties and that the Company will not commence litigation against the named officers and directors. The Board further resolved to review measures proposed and implemented by management to strengthen the Company's compliance with trade embargos, export control laws and anti-bribery laws. In March 2013, the shareholder who sent the demand filed a derivative action in a Georgia state court, naming as defendants three Company officers, five members of the Board of Directors, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The Company and the officers and directors will vigorously contest the allegations.

With respect to Syria, in 2012 NCR voluntarily notified the U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of potential violations and ceased operations in Syria, which were commercially insignificant. The notification related to confusion stemming from the Company's failure to register in Syria the transfer of the Company's Syrian branch to a foreign subsidiary and to deregister the Company's legacy Syrian branch, which was a branch of NCR Corporation. The Company received a license from OFAC on January 3, 2013, and a subsequent license on April 29, 2013, that permit the Company to take measures required to wind down its past operations in Syria. The Company also submitted a detailed report to OFAC regarding this matter, including a description of the Company's comprehensive export control program and related remedial measures.

With respect to the FCPA, the Company made a presentation in 2012 to the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) providing the facts known to the Company related to the whistleblower's FCPA allegations, and advising the government that many of these allegations were unsubstantiated. The Company is responding to subpoenas of the SEC and requests of the DOJ for documents and information related to the FCPA, including matters related to the whistleblower's FCPA allegations. The Company's investigations of the whistleblower's FCPA allegations identified a few opportunities to strengthen the Company's comprehensive FCPA compliance program, and remediation measures were proposed and are being implemented.

The Company is fully cooperating with the authorities with respect to all of these matters. There can be no assurance that the Company will not be subject to fines or other remedial measures as a result of OFAC's, the SEC's or the DOJ's investigations.

In relation to a patent infringement case filed by a company known as Automated Transactions LLC (ATL) the Company agreed to defend and indemnify its customers, 7-Eleven and Cardtronics. On behalf of those customers, the Company won summary judgment in the case in March 2011. ATL's appeal of that ruling was decided in favor of 7-Eleven and Cardtronics in 2012, and its petition for review by the United States Supreme Court was denied in January 2013. (There are further proceedings to occur in the trial court on the indemnified companies' counterclaims against ATL, such that the case is not fully resolved, although ATL's claims of infringement in that case have now been fully adjudicated.) ATL contends that Vcom terminals sold by the Company to 7-Eleven (Cardtronics ultimately purchased the business from 7-Eleven) infringed certain ATL patents that purport to relate to the combination of an ATM with an Internet kiosk, in which a retail transaction can be realized over an Internet connection provided by the kiosk. Independent of the litigation, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected the parent patent as invalid in view of certain prior art, although related continuation patents were not reexamined by the USPTO. ATL filed a second suit against the same companies with respect to a broader range of ATMs, based on the same patents plus a more recently issued patent; that suit has been consolidated with the first case.

During the past several years, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) (together, the Governments) assessed and developed clean-up plans for the upper and lower parts of the Fox River and for portions of the Bay of Green Bay, contained in various Records of Decisions (RODs) issued in January 2003, July 2003 and June 2007 (the last is referred to as the Amended ROD). In general, the clean-up plan or remedy calls for a combination of dredging and capping to remediate the sediments in the river, and for monitored natural attenuation in the Bay of Green Bay. Since 2004, the Company has been involved in certain aspects of the clean-up project, including performance, with GP, of engineering design work for the clean-up under an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) entered into with the Governments. In addition, the Company, with U.S. Paper Mills, performed specific remedial action involving an area of elevated PCB incidence downriver of the De Pere Dam (Phase 1 work), pursuant to a consent decree with the Governments that was approved in November 2006.

On November 13, 2007, the Governments issued a unilateral administrative order (the 2007 Order) under Section 106 of CERCLA to all eight of the original PRPs identified above. The 2007 Order required these PRPs to implement the remedial work in the lower river in accordance with the requirements of the Amended ROD. NCR and, until April 2012, API has worked with the Governments to implement certain provisions of the 2007 Order. In-water work began on schedule in April 2009, following construction of a facility to house the remediation operations in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

In 2008, NCR and API filed a lawsuit in federal court in Green Bay, Wisconsin, seeking a judicial ruling determining the allocable responsibility of several PRPs for the cost of performing the remedial work at the Fox River (the “allocation litigation”). A number of counterclaims seeking contribution under CERCLA and under various state law theories were filed against NCR and API. On September 23, 2008, the court issued a Case Management Decision and Scheduling Order setting a “Phase I trial” limited to the questions of (i) when each party knew or should have known that recycling NCR-brand carbonless copy paper would result in the discharge of PCBs to a waterbody, thereby risking environmental damage; and (ii) what, if any, actions each party took upon acquiring such knowledge to avoid the risk of further PCB contamination. The court's order also limited initial discovery proceedings to the same questions.

On December 16, 2009, the court issued a ruling canceling the Phase I trial and granting motions for summary judgment filed by certain of the defendants with respect to NCR's and API's claims. The court held that NCR and API could not recover from these defendants any costs that NCR and API have incurred in the Fox River cleanup (the ruling does not affect the Governments' potential claims against such parties).  In a further ruling dated February 28, 2011, the court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants on certain of their contribution counterclaims against NCR and API, with respect to certain Fox River response costs incurred by them. The Company intends to appeal both rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, after entry of a final judgment in the case. A trial in that case took place in February 2012 to address what were then the primary remaining issues in the case, including whether the Company has so-called "arranger" liability in the portion of the Fox River that is upriver of the area where the Company's former facilities were located, the amount of certain insurance setoffs to be applied to the counterclaims, and the amount of recoverable counterclaim damages. The trial was to the judge, without a jury.

On July 3, 2012, the Wisconsin federal court issued its ruling on the issues that were the subject of the February 2012 trial. The court ruled in NCR's favor on the issue of “arranger” liability as applied to Operable Unit 1 of the Fox River, and held, among other things, that the Company's predecessor companies at the Fox River did not, in the sale of carbonless copy paper “broke,” intend to arrange for the disposal of hazardous substances. The court issued other rulings regarding insurance offsets and certain aspects of counterclaim damages. The court's decision required no additions to the Company's Fox River reserve. Additional issues were resolved by further court orders later in 2012 and by party stipulations in 2013. The court has indicated that it expects to issue a final judgment in the allocation litigation after it reaches a decision in the phase 1 trial of the separate Government enforcement action described below. When a final judgment is entered, the Company will pursue an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit with respect to certain of the court's orders, including the orders of December 2009 and February 2011.

federal agencies for certain carbonless copy paper recycling activities). All of those entities are defendants in the allocation litigation case described above. The GP settlement, which has received court approval, releases GP from liability for, and provides contribution protection for, claims relating to government oversight costs and certain claims relating to clean-up actions upriver of GP's facilities (it does not affect claims for clean-up actions in that portion of the river near those facilities). The settlement with Brown County, the City of Green Bay and the United States, if approved, would release those entities and provide contribution protection for all claims relating to the Fox River site.

The extent of NCR's potential liability remains subject to many uncertainties. NCR's eventual remediation liability, which is expected to be paid out over a period extending through approximately 2017, followed by long-term monitoring for several decades, will depend on a number of factors. In general, the most significant factors include: (1) the total clean-up costs for the remaining segments of the river; (2) the total natural resource damages for the site; (3) the share NCR (and, whether directly or indirectly, API) will bear of future clean-up costs and natural resource damages; (4) the share of NCR's payments for such clean-up costs and natural resource damages that API or B.A.T Industries p.l.c., will bear; and (5) NCR's transaction and litigation costs to defend itself in this matter, including participation in the allocation litigation, the Government enforcement actions, and the arbitration against API. In establishing the reserve, NCR attempts to estimate a range of reasonably possible outcomes for each of these factors, although each range is itself highly uncertain. NCR uses its best estimate within the range, if that is possible. Where there is a range of equally possible outcomes, and there is no amount within that range that is considered to be a better estimate than any other amount, NCR uses the low end of the range. These factors are discussed below.

Third, for the NCR share of NRD, which is discussed above, NCR uses a best estimate. In a ruling dated September 30, 2011, the Wisconsin federal court ruled that the defendants in the allocation litigation could seek recovery against NCR and API for overpayments of NRD. Whether the federal government is entitled to NRD recovery on behalf of NRD trustees is an issue that is not expected to be determined before later in 2013 or 2014, when that phase of the Government enforcement action is reached.

Fourth, for the payment by API of its share of payments made by NCR, as discussed above relative percentage shares were established by a 1998 agreement between NCR and API and by a subsequent award in a 2005 allocation arbitration, which was subsequently confirmed as a judgment. (The 1998 agreement and the 2005 arbitration award resolved disputes that arose out of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's 1978 sale of the facilities on the Fox River to API.) As a result of unrelated transactions, API is itself indemnified by Windward Prospects Limited, which has funded and managed most of API's liability to date. NCR's analysis of this factor assumes that API is financially viable and pays its percentage share. As noted above, in April 2012 the court ruled that API has no direct CERCLA liability to the Governments. The Company believes that the court's ruling on this point has no effect on API's contractual and judgment-based obligations to contribute to NCR's funding for the remediation, nor on the Company's Fox River reserve. API's obligation to NCR is shared on a joint and several basis by a third

party, B.A.T Industries p.l.c., which, by virtue of various prior corporate transactions and other agreements not specifically directed to the Fox River matter, is a co-party to the same 1998 agreement and the subsequent arbitration award to which API is a party. This analysis also assumes that B.A.T Industries p.l.c. would be financially viable and willing to pay the joint and several obligation if API does not.

Finally, NCR estimated the transaction costs it is likely to incur to defend this matter through approximately 2017, the time period NCR's engineering consultants believe it will take to implement the remedy for the river. This estimate is based on an analysis of NCR's costs since this matter first arose in 1995 and estimates of what NCR's defense and transaction costs will be in the future. NCR expects that the bulk of these transaction costs have been and will be incurred in the 2008-2014 time period. The costs incurred and expected to be incurred during that period include, in particular, transaction costs and fees related to completion of the design work, equipment purchases, commencement and continuation of clean-up activities in the river, and the allocation litigation, Government enforcement action, the API arbitration, and other legal matters discussed above.

In light of several factors, among them, the remedial design work conducted by NCR and GP; settlement possibilities; the efforts to implement the 2007 Order for clean-up of the lower river; the pending allocation litigation and the prospective appeals; whether there will be judicial recognition of divisible harm at the Fox River site and thus of allocable shares of liability among the various parties; the extent to which the Governments press claims against the parties in the Government enforcement actions or otherwise for NRD, government oversight costs and remediation liability; change orders, cost overruns or contractor disputes that may result from the ongoing remediation efforts; the continued viability and willingness to pay of NCR's various indemnitors and co-obligors, and the outcome of any related disputes; and the subsequent value engineering efforts designed to make the cleanup more efficient and less costly, calculation of the Company's Fox River reserve has become subject to added layers of complexities, and it is possible there could be additional changes to some elements of the reserve over upcoming periods, although we are unable to predict or estimate such changes at this time. There can be no assurance that the clean-up and related expenditures will not have a material effect on NCR's capital expenditures, earnings, financial condition, cash flows, or competitive position.

In November 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a "general notice letter" to NCR with respect to the Allied Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River Superfund Site (Kalamazoo River Site) in Michigan. Three other parties - International Paper, Mead Corporation, and Consumers Energy - also received general notice letters at or about the same time. The EPA asserts that the site is contaminated by various substances, primarily PCBs as a result of discharges by various paper

mills located along the river. The EPA does not claim that the Company made direct discharges into the Kalamazoo River, but indicated that "NCR may be liable under Section 107 of CERCLA ... as an arranger, who by contract or agreement, arranged for the disposal, treatment and/or transportation of hazardous substances at the Site." The EPA stated that it "may issue special notice letters to [NCR] and other PRPs for future RI/FS [remedial investigation / feasibility studies] and RD/RA [remedial design / remedial action] negotiations." The Company disagrees that it may have liability at the Kalamazoo River Site, and will dispute such claims if formally asserted by the EPA. If the Company were to be found liable with respect to the Kalamazoo River, it would have claims against API and B.A.T Industries p.l.c. under the agreement, arbitration award and judgment discussed above in connection with the Fox River matter.

It is difficult to estimate the future financial impact of environmental laws, including potential liabilities. NCR records environmental provisions when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount or range of the liability is reasonably estimable. Provisions for estimated losses from environmental restoration and remediation are, depending on the site, based primarily on internal and third-party environmental studies (except for the Fox River site, where the estimated costs and natural resource damages are estimated as described above), estimates as to the number and participation level of any other PRPs, the extent of the contamination, estimated amounts for attorney and other fees and the nature of required clean-up and restoration actions. Reserves are adjusted as further information develops or circumstances change. Management expects that the amounts reserved from time to time will be paid out over the period of investigation, negotiation, remediation and restoration for the applicable sites. The amounts provided for environmental matters in NCR's Consolidated Financial Statements are the estimated gross undiscounted amounts of such liabilities, without deductions for insurance, third-party indemnity claims or recoveries from the other PRPs, except as qualified in the following sentences. Except for the sharing agreement with API described above with respect to a particular insurance settlement, in those cases where insurance carriers or third-party indemnitors have agreed to pay any amounts and management believes that collectibility of such amounts is probable, the amounts are recorded in the Consolidated Financial Statements. For the Fox River site, as described above, assets relating to the AT&T and Alcatel-Lucent indemnity and to the API/BAT joint and several obligation, are recorded because payment is considered probable and is supported by contractual agreements and/or public filings.