Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

From time to time, we may be involved in legal proceedings and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business. For information regarding certain current legal proceedings, see note 15 of the notes to our consolidated financial statements, which is incorporated herein by reference.

California Non-Compete Matter.

On July 17, 2017, we filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Alameda against Medidata, IQVIA, and Sparta Systems, Inc. (Veeva Systems Inc. v. Medidata Solutions, Inc., Quintiles IMS Incorporated, IMS Software Services, LTD., and Sparta Systems, Inc., Case No. RG17868081). Our lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the use of non-compete, confidentiality, and non-disparagement agreements by these companies. Since the original complaint was filed, there has been extensive motion practice. Medidata and Sparta have appealed the superior court’s decisions finding that the case may proceed, and Veeva has cross-appealed. The court has not ruled on these appeals.

On October 31, 2019, as to Veeva's claims against IQVIA, the trial court's earlier dismissal was reversed by the court of appeals and the case was reassigned to a new trial court judge. On February 26, 2020, IQVIA answered our complaint. A hearing as to IQVIA's motion to stay the case pending the outcome of the appeals file by Medidata and Sparta and Veeva's motion to dismiss certain affirmative defenses in IQVIA's answer to our complaint is set for April 22, 2020.

On December 03, 2019, IQVIA filed an action against Veeva and a former employee in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland entitled IQVIA Inc. v. Kahn, et. al., Case No. 8:19-cv-03462-DKC. This case alleges that Veeva’s California lawsuit (and California law generally outlawing contracts in restraint of trade) violate the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The case also alleges state law contract and tort claims arising from Veeva’s employment of an employee whom IQVIA contends is its former employee. Veeva filed a motion to dismiss, IQVIA amended its complaint, and Veeva has answered this amended complaint. On March 5, 2020, IQVIA moved for a preliminary injunction. The District Court has since ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. No hearing dates have been set.

Although the results of legal proceedings and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe we are not currently a party to any other legal proceedings, the outcome of which, if determined adversely to us, would individually or taken together have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, cash flows, or financial position. Regardless of the outcome, such proceedings can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of resources and other factors, and there can be no assurances that favorable outcomes will be obtained.