Item 3. Legal Proceedings

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to threats of litigation and are involved in actual litigation and damage claims arising in the ordinary course of business, such as actions related to injuries, property damage, contract disputes, and handling or disposal of vehicles. The material pending legal proceedings to which we are party, or of which our property is subject, include the following matters.

On November 1, 2013, we filed suit against Sparta Consulting, Inc. (now known as KPIT) in the 44th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, alleging fraud, fraudulent inducement, and/or promissory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair business practices pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17200, breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and attorney’s fees. We seek compensatory and exemplary damages, disgorgement of amounts paid, attorney’s fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, and a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights, duties, and obligations under the Implementation Services Agreement dated October 6, 2011. The suit arises out of our September 17, 2013 decision to terminate the Implementation Services Agreement, under which KPIT was to design, implement, and deliver a customized replacement enterprise resource planning system for us. On January 2, 2014, KPIT removed this suit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On August 11, 2014, the Northern District of Texas transferred the suit to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California for convenience. On January 8, 2014, KPIT filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, account stated, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. KPIT seeks compensatory and exemplary damages, prejudgment interest, costs of suit, and a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights, duties, and obligations under the Implementation Services Agreement. On June 8, 2016, we amended our complaint to include claims that KPIT stole certain intellectual property owned by us and acted negligently in its provision of services. We are pursuing our claim for damages, and defending against KPIT’s claim for damages. We and KPIT filed competing motions for summary judgment in January 2017. The Court issued its ruling on the motions on September 25, 2017. The order granted some of the relief sought by us, and some of the relief sought by KPIT. Our core claims remain in the case after the ruling, including our claims for fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, professional negligence, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and computer hacking. KPIT’s claims are now limited to breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief.

We have provided for costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The effect of the outcome of these matters on our future consolidated results of operations and cash flows cannot be predicted because any such effect depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing of the resolution of such matters. We believe that any ultimate liability will not have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. However, the amount of the liabilities associated with these claims, if any, cannot be determined with certainty. We maintain insurance which may or may not provide coverage for claims made against us. There is no assurance that there will be insurance coverage available when and if needed. Additionally, the insurance that we carry requires that we pay for costs and/or claims exposure up to the amount of the insurance deductibles negotiated when the insurance is purchased.

Governmental Proceedings

The Georgia Department of Revenue, or DOR, conducted a sales and use tax audit of our operations in Georgia for the period from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011. As a result of their initial audit, the DOR issued a notice of proposed assessment for uncollected sales taxes in which it asserted that we failed to collect and remit sales taxes totaling $73.8 million, including penalties and interest.

Subsequently, we engaged a Georgia law firm and outside tax advisors to review the conduct of our business operations in Georgia, the notice of proposed assessment, and the DOR’s policy position. In particular, our outside legal counsel provided us with an opinion that the sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers should not be subject to Georgia sales and use tax. In rendering its opinion, our counsel noted that non-U.S. registered resellers are unable to comply strictly with technical requirements for a Georgia certificate of exemption but concluded that our sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers should not be subject to Georgia sales and use tax notwithstanding this technical inability to comply. Following our receipt of the notice of proposed assessment, we and our counsel engaged in active discussions with the DOR to resolve the matter.

On August 4, 2015, the DOR issued an official Assessment and Demand for Payment (the “Assessment”) for $96.1 million for sales taxes, penalties, and interest that the DOR alleged we owe to the State of Georgia. We filed an appeal of this Assessment from the DOR with the Georgia Tax Tribunal on September 3, 2015. On August 5, 2016, the DOR filed a response in which it denied all allegations noted in our appeal of the Assessment.

During an extended remand period, it was determined that grounds exist for a substantial reduction in the Official Assessment, on the basis that (i) the transactions and resulting tax at issue were erroneously double-counted by the DOR in the audit sales transaction work papers on which the Assessment was based; and (ii) we were ultimately able to provide documentation showing that most of the remaining transactions were sales at wholesale, therefore qualifying for the sale for resale exemption from Georgia Sales and Use Tax. After these reductions, the remaining amount of principal Georgia Sales and Use Tax still in dispute between the parties is $2.6 million, plus applicable interest. A Consent Order to this effect was entered by the Georgia Tax Tribunal on May 22, 2017. Since the date of entry of the Consent Order, we and the DOR have exchanged discovery requests and initial discovery responses. We expect that discovery will be completed in the fall of 2017. We and the DOR will then present the case to the Tax Tribunal for final disposition.

Based on the opinion from our outside law firm, advice from our outside tax advisors, and our best estimate of a probable outcome, we believe that we have adequately provided for the payment of any assessment in our consolidated financial statements. We believe we have strong defenses to the remaining tax liability set forth above and intend to continue to defend this matter. There can be no assurance that this matter will be resolved in our favor or that we will not ultimately be required to make a substantial payment to the DOR. We understand that litigating and defending the matter in Georgia could be expensive and time-consuming and result in substantial management distraction. If the matter were to be resolved in a manner adverse to us, it could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations and financial position.