| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
NOTE 17. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments See "Note 9. 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. As of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company recorded an estimated $9.75 million accrued loss related to the agreed in principle settlement of the In re Pegasystems Inc. Derivative Litigation matter, see additional discussion below. 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 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 Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act 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 issued a written opinion on July 30, 2024. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and ordered a new trade secrets claim trial. Appian filed a petition for appeal with the Supreme Court of Virginia on August 29, 2024, and the Company filed a response to the petition on October 21, 2024. On March 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of Virginia granted Appian’s petition for appeal and Pega’s assignments of cross-error. The Supreme Court of Virginia heard appellate oral argument on October 28, 2025. On January 8, 2026, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued a written opinion unanimously affirming the ruling of the Court of Appeals of Virginia. On January 13, 2026, the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia notified the parties that this case has been reassigned to Judge David A. Oblon for further proceedings. On January 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of Virginia remanded Appian’s trade secret case to the Court of Appeals with direction to remand to the Circuit Court of Fairfax County for further proceedings in accordance with its written opinion. Also on January 29, Judge Oblon scheduled a first status conference for the remanded trial proceedings for May 7, 2026. On February 27, 2026, the Court of Appeals of Virginia issued a mandate stating that the judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Circuit Court of Fairfax County for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in the written opinion of the Court of Appeals of Virginia. 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 a new trial resulting from the appellate proceedings. PS Lit Recovery, LLC v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell and Eminence Fund Long Master, Ltd., Eminence Fund Master, Ltd., Eminence Fund II Master, LP, Eminence Partners Long II, LP, Eminence Fund Leveraged Master, Ltd., Eminence Partners, L.P., Eminence Partners II, L.P. v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell Federal court cases On December 4, 2024, the shareholders representing approximately 3% of the settlement class that opted out of the court approved settlement in the class action matter 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 “Class Action”) filed two lawsuits 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 District of Massachusetts. The first is captioned Eminence Fund Long Master, Ltd., Eminence Fund Master, Ltd., Eminence Fund II Master, LP, Eminence Partners Long II, LP, Eminence Fund Leveraged Master, Ltd., Eminence Partners, L.P., and Eminence Partners II, L.P. v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell (Case 1:24-cv-12999-WGY); the second is captioned PS Lit Recovery, LLC v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell (Case 1:24-cv-11220-WGY). The complaints, which are substantially similar, generally allege, 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 complaints also assert claims for common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and seek unspecified damages. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaints on March 13, 2025 and on May 21, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court (i) granted the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs’ scheme liability claims; (ii) granted the motion to dismiss as to certain claims against Ken Stillwell; and (iii) took the motion to dismiss under advisement as to all other claims. On January 8, 2026, the Court issued a written order granting the motion to dismiss as to the Section 10(b) and common law fraud claims against Ken Stillwell and denying the motion to dismiss as to the remaining claims. The Court also entered a scheduling order setting trial for February 2027. State court cases On February 26, 2025, the same shareholders filed two lawsuits against the Company, the Company’s chief executive officer, and the Company’s chief operating and financial officer in Massachusetts Superior Court. The first is captioned Eminence Fund Long Master, Ltd., Eminence Fund Master, Ltd., Eminence Fund II Master, LP, Eminence Partners Long II, LP, Eminence Fund Leveraged Master, Ltd., Eminence Partners, L.P., and Eminence Partners II, L.P. v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell (Case No. 2584CV00541-BLS1); the second is captioned PS Lit Recovery, LLC v. Pegasystems, Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell (Case No. 2584CV00539-BLS1). The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege the same state law claims raised in the two federal lawsuits brought by the same plaintiffs in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On April 14, 2025, the court granted the parties’ joint stipulations to stay both cases pending the resolution of the parallel federal actions and ordered the plaintiffs to file periodic status reports regarding the federal cases showing cause why the state cases should remain open. The Company believes it has strong defenses to the claims brought against the defendants and intends to defend against these claims vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible damages or a range of possible damages in these matters given the stage of the lawsuits. In re Pegasystems Inc. Derivative Litigation Federal court cases 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). 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 (the “Consolidated Action”) and, after defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in the Consolidated Action on December 4, 2024, the plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss the Consolidated Action, and the Court granted the motion to dismiss on December 18, 2024. The Company separately received confidential demand letters raising substantially the same allegations set forth in the Consolidated Action. 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) were 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 (the “Demand Review Committee”). The Demand Review Committee, with the assistance of independent legal counsel, conducted an extensive investigation of the allegations raised in the demand letters and on October 7, 2024 issued a report concluding that there are no valid claims against the Company’s directors and officers with respect to the matters raised in the demands and that it would not be in the Company’s best interests to pursue litigation against them. On February 7, 2025, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a new complaint against the members of the Company’s board of directors, certain employees of the Company, and the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Mary Larkin and Dag Sagfors, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Pegasystems Inc. v. Alan Trefler, Peter Gyenes, Richard Jones, Christopher Lafond, Dianne Ledingham, Sharon Rowlands, Leon Trefler, Larry Weber, Kenneth Stillwell, Don Schuerman, Kerim Akgonul, and Benjamin Baril, (the “Defendants”), and Pegasystems Inc., nominal defendant (Case 1:25-cv-10303). The complaint asserts against Defendants claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Exchange Act relating to (i) the litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, described above; (ii) alleged misconduct by Company employees alleged in that litigation; and the Class Action, described above. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on April 28, 2025. On June 6, 2025, the plaintiffs in the consolidated derivative matter currently pending in Massachusetts Superior Court, Case No. 2484CV01734 (discussed below), moved to intervene in this matter and to stay it pending the resolution of the state derivative matter. The Court held a hearing on defendants’ motions to dismiss and state court plaintiffs’ motion to intervene on July 21, 2025. Following argument, the Court took the motions under advisement. On October 14, 2025, the parties jointly notified the Court that on October 2, 2025 the Massachusetts Superior Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the related state court derivative action (see below) and proposed that the Court refrain from issuing a decision on the motions to dismiss pending a joint submission by the parties of their respective positions on the impact of the state court dismissal on the federal court case within thirty (30) days. On December 17, 2025, the court entered an order administratively closing this action in light of the developments in the State court cases, described below. On January 7, 2026, the Collective Plaintiffs agreed in principle to a proposed settlement of the litigation. See discussion below within the “State court cases” subsection. State court cases 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”), and Pegasystems Inc., Nominal Defendant (Case 2484CV01734) (“Dwyer Action”). 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 settlement of the Class Action, and litigation costs from various proceedings. On November 22, 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 Jayne Birch and Robert Garfield, Plaintiffs, v. Alan Trefler, Peter Gyenes, Richard Jones, Christopher Lafond, Dianne Ledingham, Sharon Rowlands, Larry Weber, Kerim Akgonul, Don Schuerman, Leon Trefler, Douglas Kim, John Petronio, Benjamin Baril, and Kenneth Stillwell, (“Defendants”), and Pegasystems Inc., Nominal Defendant (Case 2484CV03076-BLS-1) (“Birch Action”). The complaint generally asserts the same claims asserted in the Dwyer Action. On February 12, 2025, after submission by the parties of a stipulation and proposed order, an order was entered consolidating the Dwyer and Birch Actions and approving the schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint and a motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in Case No. 2484CV01734. The consolidated 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 in connection with the investigation conducted and the report issued by the Demand Review Committee of the Company’s board regarding the same. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and after briefing by the parties, the Court held a hearing on defendants’ motion on September 4, 2025. On October 2, 2025, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 13, 2026, the court entered final judgment in defendants’ favor. On January 7, 2026, the parties to the federal and state court cases agreed in principle to a proposed settlement of the litigation. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs in the federal and state court cases (“Collective Plaintiffs”) agreed to the dismissal of all claims upon the Company adopting certain governance reforms and payment of an estimated aggregate sum of $9.75 million, inclusive of a $7 million special dividend to shareholders (excluding defendants) and Collective Plaintiffs’ attorney fees. On January 23, 2026, the parties jointly moved the court for relief from the final judgment in this action for the sole purpose of permitting the parties to seek Court approval of the proposed settlement. On February 10, 2026, the plaintiffs submitted the proposed settlement to the Court for preliminary approval. On March 18, 2026, the Court held a preliminary approval hearing and granted the parties relief from the final judgment. On April 16, 2026, the Court held a further preliminary approval hearing. The Court has preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and scheduled a final approval hearing for June 25, 2026. Although the outcome of the litigation is not certain until final court approval, the Company has recorded an estimated $9.75 million accrued loss as of December 31, 2025. However, it is possible that actual future losses related to the litigation could exceed the accrual amount if and to the extent that the court does not approve the proposed settlement. Pegasystems v. Appian Defamation Litigation On August 2, 2023, the Company filed a complaint against Appian in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Pegasystems Inc. v. Appian Corporation, 1:23-cv-11776-LTS (D. Mass.). The complaint asserts claims for defamation, trade libel, and violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) based on statements Appian made following the verdict in the litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, described above. In response to a motion to dismiss filed by Appian on August 18, 2023, the Company amended the complaint to add additional factual allegations in support of the same claims. On September 22, 2023, Appian moved to dismiss the amended complaint, which the Court denied on January 5, 2024. On February 20, 2024, Appian answered the complaint, asserted counterclaims against the Company for defamation, trade libel, violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A §§ 2 and 11, and sought a declaratory judgment that the Company was not entitled to the recovery sought in the amended complaint. On April 11, 2024, the Company moved for a more definite statement and to partially strike the counterclaims, which the Court denied on August 1, 2024. On August 15, 2024, the Company moved to dismiss the counterclaims, which the Court allowed in part and denied in part on October 8, 2024; specifically, the Court allowed the Company’s motion to dismiss the trade libel counterclaim with respect to Appian’s allegations regarding the Company’s Code of Conduct. On November 26, 2024, Appian moved for judgment on the pleadings. On March 11, 2025, the Court allowed the motion for judgment on the pleadings in part and entered judgment for Appian on the basis of a statement made by Appian’s chief executive officer, but otherwise denied the motion. The parties exchanged opening expert reports in March 2026. The Company claims $41.9 million in damages from Appian’s conduct. Appian seeks $31.8 million in lost profits damages and further requests that the Company be required to disgorge $109.5 million in profits as unjust enrichment arising from business contracts Appian contends it competed with Pegasystems on from 2022-2025. Apart from Company revenues in which Appian contends it competed with Pegasystems for business, Appian further seeks that the Company be forced to disgorge the entirety of its profits ($2.33 billion) from 2022-2025. The Company vehemently disagrees with Appian’s entitlement to any recovery, and believes the disgorgement claim is consistent with Appian’s efforts to denigrate the Company that are the subject of the Company’s claims asserted in this litigation. The Company remains confident in the merits of its claims against Appian and the damages claimed, and disputes Appian’s counterclaims, including the amount of and legal basis for the damages sought, believes it has strong defenses to the counterclaims, and intends to vigorously defend against the counterclaims. Motions for summary judgment are due in June 2026, at which time the Company also expects to file Daubert motions. A jury trial is currently scheduled for November 2026. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate likelihood of success for either party or a range of possible gain or loss given the uncertainty as to the likelihood, amount, and timing of any potential gain or loss related to its claims or Appian’s counterclaims.
|