| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
NOTE 15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments See "Note 7. Leases" for additional information. Legal proceedings In addition to the matters below, the Company is or may become 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 the Company’s business, including actions concerning contracts, intellectual property, employment, benefits, and securities matters. Regardless of the outcome, legal disputes can have a material effect on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors. In addition, as the Company is a party to ongoing litigation, it is at least reasonably possible that the Company’s estimates will change in the near term, and the effect may be material. The Company had no accrued losses for litigation for the below matters as of June 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023. Appian Corp. v. Pegasystems Inc. & Youyong Zou The Company is a defendant in litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia (the “Court”) titled Appian Corp. v. Pegasystems Inc. & Youyong Zou, No. 2020-07216 (Fairfax Cty. Ct.). On May 9, 2022, the jury rendered its verdict finding that the Company had misappropriated one or more of Appian’s trade secrets, that the Company had violated the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, and that the trade secret misappropriation was willful and malicious. The jury awarded damages of $2,036,860,045 for trade secret misappropriation and $1.00 for violating the Virginia Computer Crimes Act. On September 15, 2022, the circuit court of Fairfax County entered judgment of $2,060,479,287, consisting of the damages previously awarded by the jury plus attorneys’ fees and costs, and stating that the judgment is subject to post-judgment interest at a rate of 6.0% per annum, from the date of the jury verdict (May 9, 2022) as to the amount of the jury verdict and from September 15, 2022 as to the amount of the award of attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 15, 2022, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the judgment. On September 29, 2022, the circuit court of Fairfax County approved a $25,000,000 letter of credit obtained by the Company to secure the judgment and entered an order suspending the judgment during the pendency of the Company’s appeal. A panel of the Court of Appeals of Virginia heard oral arguments on November 15, 2023, and will issue a written opinion in the future. Although it is not possible to predict timing, the entirety of the appeals process could potentially take years to complete. The Company continues to believe that it did not misappropriate any alleged trade secrets and that its sales of the Company’s products at issue were not caused by, or the result of, any alleged misappropriation of trade secrets. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible damages because of, among other things, uncertainty as to the outcome of appellate proceedings and/or any potential new trial resulting from the appellate proceedings. City of Fort Lauderdale Police and Firefighters’ Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell On May 19, 2022, a lawsuit was filed against the Company, the Company’s chief executive officer, and the Company’s chief operating and financial officer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Alexandria Division, captioned City of Fort Lauderdale Police and Firefighters’ Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell (Case 1:22-cv-00578-LMB-IDD). The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, in each case by allegedly making materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as allegedly failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, which caused the Company’s securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s securities between May 29, 2020 and May 9, 2022. The litigation has since been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case 1:22-cv-11220-WGY), and lead plaintiff class representatives - Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund - Defined Benefit Plan, Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund - Retirement Income Plan 1987, and Construction Industry Laborers Pension Fund - have been appointed. On October 18, 2022, a consolidated amended complaint was filed that does not add any new parties or legal claims, is based upon the same general factual allegations as the original complaint, and now seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s securities between June 16, 2020 and May 9, 2022. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December 19, 2022. The hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss took place on May 17, 2023. After hearing argument from both sides, the Court denied the Company’s motion from the bench and stated that a written opinion would follow. On June 30, 2023, the Company filed its Answer to the complaint. On July 24, 2023, the Court issued its written opinion denying the motion to dismiss as to the Company and Defendant Trefler but granting the motion without prejudice as to Mr. Stillwell. On March 4, 2024, the parties agreed in principle to a proposed settlement of the litigation for an aggregate sum of $35 million. On April 23, 2024, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement. On April 23, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement. On May 15, 2024, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a settlement hearing for September 19, 2024. The deadline for the proposed class of shareholders to object to the proposed settlement is August 29, 2024. In May 2024, the Company paid $32.4 million and the Company’s insurance carriers paid $2.6 million pending final approval of the settlement. It is possible that actual future losses related to the litigation could exceed the settlement amount if and to the extent that the court does not approve the proposed settlement. In re Pegasystems Inc., Derivative Litigation On November 21, 2022, a lawsuit was filed against the members of the Company’s board of directors, the Company’s chief operating and financial officer and the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Mary Larkin, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Pegasystems Inc. v. Peter Gyenes, Richard Jones, Christopher Lafond, Dianne Ledingham, Sharon Rowlands, Alan Trefler, Larry Weber, and Kenneth Stillwell, defendants, and Pegasystems Inc., nominal defendant (Case 1:22-cv-11985). The complaint generally alleges the defendants sold shares of the Company while in possession of material nonpublic information relating to (i) the litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, described above, and (ii) alleged misconduct by Company employees alleged in that litigation. On April 28, 2023, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Dag Sagfors, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Pegasystems Inc., asserting breach of fiduciary duty and related claims relating to the Virginia Appian litigation against the same defendants as the Larkin lawsuit. On May 17, 2023, the Larkin and Sagfors cases were consolidated and a joint motion to stay the consolidated case is pending before the Court. The Company also has received confidential demand letters raising substantially the same allegations set forth in the foregoing derivative complaints. On April 12, 2023, the Company’s board of directors (other than Mr. Trefler, who recused himself), formed a committee consisting solely of independent directors, to review, analyze, and investigate the matters raised in the demands and to determine in good faith what actions (if any) are reasonably believed to be appropriate under similar circumstances and reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the Company in response to the demand letters. On June 28, 2024, a lawsuit was filed against members of the Company’s board of directors, certain employees of the Company and the Company in the Business Litigation Section of the Superior Court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, captioned John Dwyer and Ray Gerber, Plaintiffs, v. Alan Trefler, Peter Gyenes, Richard Jones, Christopher Lafond, Dianne Ledingham, Sharon Rowlands, Larry Weber, Leon Trefler, Don Schuerman, Kerim Akgonul, and Benjamin Baril, Defendants, Pegasystems Inc., Nominal Defendant (Case 2484CV01734). The complaint generally alleges the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with alleged misconduct by Company employees alleged in the litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, described above, and alleges damages from the approximately $2 billion verdict in the litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, described above, the recent class action settlement, and litigation costs from various proceedings. On July 17, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation with the court in which they agreed to extend defendants’ time to respond to the operative complaint to 45 days following a decision from the Virginia Court of Appeals. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible damages or a range of possible damages in these matters given the stage of the lawsuits and there being no specified quantum of damages sought in the complaints. SEC Inquiry Beginning in March 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has requested certain information relating to, among other things, the accounting treatment of the Company’s above-described litigation with Appian Corporation. The Company is fully cooperating with the SEC’s requests.
|