Litigation, Contingencies, and Commitments	6 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation, Contingencies, and Commitments	Litigation, Contingencies, and Commitments Litigation HPE is involved in various lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings including those consisting of intellectual property, commercial, securities, employment, employee benefits, and environmental matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business. In addition, as part of the Separation and Distribution Agreement (the “Separation and Distribution Agreement”) entered into in connection with HPE’s spin-off from HP Inc. (formerly known as “Hewlett-Packard Company”) (the “Separation”), HPE and HP Inc. agreed to cooperate with each other in managing certain existing litigation related to both parties' businesses. The Separation and Distribution Agreement included provisions that allocate liability and financial responsibility for pending litigation involving the parties, as well as provide for cross-indemnification of the parties against liabilities to one party arising out of liabilities allocated to the other party. The Separation and Distribution Agreement also included provisions that assign to the parties responsibility for managing pending and future litigation related to the general corporate matters of HP Inc. arising prior to the Separation. HPE records a liability when it believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required to determine both the probability of having incurred a liability and the estimated amount of the liability. HPE reviews these matters at least quarterly and adjusts these liabilities to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other updated information and events pertaining to a particular matter. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. However, HPE believes it has valid defenses with respect to legal matters pending against us. Nevertheless, cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of these contingencies. HPE believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any such matters and, as of April 30, 2026, it was not reasonably possible that a material loss had been incurred in connection with such matters in excess of the amounts recognized in its financial statements. Litigation, Proceedings, and Investigations DOJ Action on the Proposed Acquisition of Juniper Networks. As previously disclosed, on January 9, 2024, the Company entered into the Merger Agreement with Juniper Networks and Jasmine Acquisition Sub, Inc., providing for the acquisition of Juniper Networks by HPE. On January 30, 2025, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking to enjoin the closing of the Merger, alleging that the Merger is likely to substantially lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. On February 10, 2025, HPE and Juniper Networks filed answers to the DOJ’s complaint, disputing these claims. On June 27, 2025, HPE, Juniper, and the DOJ filed an Asset Preservation and Hold Separate Stipulation and Order (“Stipulation”) and Proposed Final Judgment with the Court. Pursuant to the Stipulation, HPE has agreed to divest its global Instant On campus and branch business. HPE also has agreed to grant up to two licenses to the Mist AIOps source code, with the licensees determined through an auction process. In exchange, the DOJ agreed to dismiss its action to enjoin the Merger, subject to the Court’s approval of the Proposed Final Judgment under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (the “Tunney Act”). On June 30, 2025, the Court signed the Stipulation, allowing the Merger to proceed to closing. On October 14, 2025, the Attorneys General of twelve states and the District of Columbia (the “Attorneys General”) filed a motion to intervene in the Court’s Tunney Act process. Following a November 18, 2025 hearing, the Court issued an order granting the Attorneys General’s motion to intervene and set a status conference for December 16, 2025 to determine next steps, including the scope of the Attorneys General’s intervention rights under the Tunney Act. On November 18, 2025, the Attorneys General filed a motion to hold separate, seeking to enjoin further integration and consolidation of HPE and Juniper during the pendency of the Tunney Act proceedings. Following a January 8, 2026 hearing, the Court denied the Attorneys General’s motion to hold separate, allowing further integration of the companies to proceed. The Tunney Act hearing was held on March 23, 2026 to determine whether the Court will approve the settlement between HPE and the DOJ. The Court has taken the matter under advisement. The parties are awaiting the Court’s ruling. India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Proceedings. On April 30 and May 10, 2010, the India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (the “DRI”) issued notices to Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Ltd (“HP India”), a subsidiary of HP Inc., seven HP India employees and one former HP India employee alleging that HP India underpaid customs duties while importing products and spare parts into India and seeking to recover an aggregate of approximately $370 million, plus penalties. On April 11, 2012, the Bangalore Commissioner of Customs issued an order on the products-related notices affirming duties and penalties against HP India and the named individuals for approximately $386 million (plus interest). On April 20, 2012, the Commissioner issued an order on the spare parts-related notice affirming duties and penalties against HP India and certain of the named individuals for approximately $17 million. HP India filed appeals of the Commissioner’s orders before the Customs Tribunal. The Customs Department filed cross-appeals before the Customs Tribunal. On October 27, 2014, the Customs Tribunal commenced hearings on the cross-appeals of the Commissioner's orders. The Customs Tribunal rejected HP India's request to return the matter to the Commissioner on procedural grounds. After multiple delays and postponements over the last decade, the Customs Tribunal began hearing the parties’ cross-appeals on April 21, 2025. The hearing on the cross-appeals were completed in June 2025. The Company expects a ruling from the Customs Tribunal by 2026. Either party may appeal the ruling to the India Supreme Court. ECT Proceedings. In January 2011, the postal service of Brazil, Empresa Brasileira de Correios e Telégrafos (“ECT”), notified a former subsidiary of HP Inc. in Brazil (“HP Brazil”) that it had initiated administrative proceedings to consider whether to suspend HP Brazil's right to bid and contract with ECT related to alleged improprieties in the bidding and contracting processes whereby employees of HP Brazil and employees of several other companies allegedly coordinated their bids and fixed results for three ECT contracts in 2007 and 2008. In late July 2011, ECT notified HP Brazil it had decided to apply the penalties against HP Brazil and suspend HP Brazil's right to bid and contract with ECT for five years, based upon the evidence before it. In August 2011, HP Brazil appealed ECT’s decision. In April 2013, ECT rejected HP Brazil’s appeal, and the administrative proceedings were closed with the penalties against HP Brazil remaining in place. In parallel, in September 2011, HP Brazil filed a civil action against ECT seeking to have ECT’s decision revoked. HP Brazil also requested an injunction suspending the application of the penalties until a final ruling on the merits of the case, which was denied. HP Brazil appealed the denial of its request for injunctive relief to the intermediate appellate court, which issued a preliminary ruling denying the request for injunctive relief but reducing the length of the sanctions from five to two years. HP Brazil appealed that decision and, in December 2011, obtained a ruling staying enforcement of ECT’s sanctions until a final ruling on the merits of the case. In September 2025, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of HPE’s Civil Appeal, annulling the previously-stayed sanctions that, if enforced, would have barred HPE Brazil from participating in public tenders for five years. HPE has filed a motion to recover legal costs incurred during the appeal. ECT has filed a motion requesting the Court to clarify the merits. Autonomy-Related Legal Proceedings. In 2015, four HPE subsidiaries (Autonomy Corporation Limited, Hewlett Packard Vision BV, Autonomy Systems Limited, and Autonomy, Inc., hereinafter the “Claimants”) initiated civil proceedings in the U.K. High Court of Justice against two members of Autonomy’s former management, Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain, for breach of their fiduciary duties in causing Autonomy group companies to engage in improper transactions and accounting practices before and in connection with the 2011 acquisition of Autonomy. Trial concluded in January 2020. In May 2022, the court issued its liability judgment, finding that the Claimants had succeeded on substantially all claims against Messrs. Lynch and Hussain, and dismissing a counterclaim filed by Mr. Lynch. In February 2024, the court held a two-week trial on damages. The Claimants sought recovery for $4 billion in losses. In May 2025, Claimants reached an agreement with Mr. Hussain to resolve claims against him. On July 22, 2025, the court issued its ruling on the quantum of damages, finding that the Lynch estate owed £740 million. The court held a hearing during the week of November 17, 2025, addressing a number of matters including costs (including attorneys’ fees), pre-judgment interest, issues relating to the currency in which the judgment should be paid, and the Lynch Estate’s right to appeal discrete issues in the Court’s May 2022 liability judgment and its July 2025 quantum judgment. On March 24, 2026, the U.K. High Court entered a ruling that provides a total judgment against the Lynch Estate of approximately $1.24 billion when adding interest and currency effects. The judgment amount reflects an approximately $145 million offset for amounts previously recovered by HPE and does not include attorneys’ fees, which will be determined at a later time. The U.K. High Court also rejected the Estate’s request for permission to appeal the liability and damages judgments. On April 14, 2026, the Lynch Estate filed a request with the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the liability and damages judgments. A ruling is expected in 2026. Pursuant to the terms of the 2015 Separation and Distribution Agreement, HP and HPE will share equally in any recovery. Shared Litigation with HP Inc., DXC Technology Company and Micro Focus International plc. As part of the Separation and Distribution Agreements between HPE and HP Inc., HPE and DXC, and HPE and Seattle SpinCo, the parties to each agreement agreed to cooperate with each other in managing certain existing litigation related to both parties’ businesses. The Separation and Distribution Agreements also included provisions that assign to the parties responsibility for managing pending and future litigation related to the general corporate matters of HP Inc. (in the case of the separation of HPE from HP Inc.) or of HPE (in the case of the separation of DXC from HPE and the separation of Micro Focus from HPE), in each case arising prior to the applicable separation. Environmental The Company's operations and products are or may in the future become subject to various federal, state, local, and foreign laws and regulations concerning the environment, including laws addressing the discharge of pollutants into the air and water; supply chain due diligence; and sustainability, environment, and emissions-related reporting; environmental claims and statements; the management, movement, and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes; the clean-up of contaminated sites; product safety and compliance; the energy consumption of products, services, and operations; and the operational or financial responsibility for recycling, treatment, and disposal of those products. This includes legislation that makes producers of electrical goods, including servers and networking equipment, responsible for repairability requirements or financially responsible for specified collection, recycling, treatment, and disposal of past and future covered products (sometimes referred to as “product take-back legislation”). The Company could incur substantial costs, its products could be restricted from entering certain jurisdictions, and it could face other sanctions, if it were to violate or become liable under environmental laws, including those related to addressing climate change, sustainability, and other environmental related issues, or if its products become non-compliant with such environmental laws. The Company's potential exposure includes impacts on revenue, fines and civil or criminal sanctions, third-party environmental or property damage or personal injury claims or actions, and clean-up costs. The amount and timing of costs to comply with environmental laws are difficult to predict. In particular, the Company may become a party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by U.S. or state environmental agencies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), known as “Superfund,” or other federal, state or foreign laws and regulations addressing the clean-up of contaminated sites, and may become a party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by private parties for contribution towards clean-up costs. The Company is also contractually obligated to make financial contributions to address actions related to certain environmental liabilities, both ongoing and arising in the future, pursuant to its Separation and Distribution Agreement with HP Inc. Unconditional Purchase Obligations As of April 30, 2026, the Company had unconditional purchase obligations of approximately $5.7 billion. These unconditional purchase obligations include agreements to purchase goods or services that are enforceable and legally binding on the Company and that specify all significant terms, including fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased, fixed, minimum or variable price provisions and the approximate timing of the transaction, as well as settlements that the Company has reached with third parties, requiring it to pay determined amounts over a specified period of time. These unconditional purchase obligations are related principally to inventory purchases, software maintenance and support services and other items. Unconditional purchase obligations exclude agreements that are cancellable without penalty. The Company expects the commitments to total $3.4 billion, $1.1 billion, $568 million, $426 million, $187 million, and $96 million for fiscal years 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, and thereafter, respectively. Guarantees In the ordinary course of business, the Company may issue performance guarantees to certain of its clients, customers, and other parties pursuant to which the Company has guaranteed the performance obligations of third parties. Some of those guarantees may be backed by standby letters of credit or surety bonds. In general, the Company would be obligated to perform over the term of the guarantee in the event a specified triggering event occurs as defined by the guarantee. The Company believes the likelihood of having to perform under a material guarantee is remote. The Company has entered into service contracts with certain of its clients that are supported by financing arrangements. If a service contract is terminated as a result of the Company's non-performance under the contract or failure to comply with the terms of the financing arrangement, the Company could, under certain circumstances, be required to acquire certain assets related to the service contract. The Company believes the likelihood of having to acquire a material amount of assets under these arrangements is remote. The maximum potential future payments under performance guarantees and financing arrangements was $353 million as of April 30, 2026. Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into contractual arrangements under which the Company may agree to indemnify a third party to such arrangement from any losses incurred relating to the services they perform on behalf of the Company or for losses arising from certain events as defined within the particular contract, which may include, for example, litigation or claims relating to past performance. The Company also provides indemnifications to certain vendors and customers against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use by such vendors and customers of the Company's software products and support services and certain other matters. Some indemnifications may not be subject to maximum loss clauses. Historically, payments made related to these indemnifications have been immaterial.

HPE is involved in various lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings including those consisting of intellectual property, commercial, securities, employment, employee benefits, and environmental matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business. In addition, as part of the Separation and Distribution Agreement (the “Separation and Distribution Agreement”) entered into in connection with HPE’s spin-off from HP Inc. (formerly known as “Hewlett-Packard Company”) (the “Separation”), HPE and HP Inc. agreed to cooperate with each other in managing certain existing litigation related to both parties' businesses. The Separation and Distribution Agreement included provisions that allocate liability and financial responsibility for pending litigation involving the parties, as well as provide for cross-indemnification of the parties against liabilities to one party arising out of liabilities allocated to the other party. The Separation and Distribution Agreement also included provisions that assign to the parties responsibility for managing pending and future litigation related to the general corporate matters of HP Inc. arising prior to the Separation. HPE records a liability when it believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required to determine both the probability of having incurred a liability and the estimated amount of the liability. HPE reviews these matters at least quarterly and adjusts these liabilities to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other updated information and events pertaining to a particular matter. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. However, HPE believes it has valid defenses with respect to legal matters pending against us. Nevertheless, cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of these contingencies. HPE believes it has

DOJ Action on the Proposed Acquisition of Juniper Networks. As previously disclosed, on January 9, 2024, the Company entered into the Merger Agreement with Juniper Networks and Jasmine Acquisition Sub, Inc., providing for the acquisition of Juniper Networks by HPE. On January 30, 2025, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking to enjoin the closing of the Merger, alleging that the Merger is likely to substantially lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. On February 10, 2025, HPE and Juniper Networks filed answers to the DOJ’s complaint, disputing these claims. On June 27, 2025, HPE, Juniper, and the DOJ filed an Asset Preservation and Hold Separate Stipulation and Order (“Stipulation”) and Proposed Final Judgment with the Court. Pursuant to the Stipulation, HPE has agreed to divest its global Instant On campus and branch business. HPE also has agreed to grant up to two licenses to the Mist AIOps source code, with the licensees determined through an auction process. In exchange, the DOJ agreed to dismiss its action to enjoin the Merger, subject to the Court’s approval of the Proposed Final Judgment under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (the “Tunney Act”). On June 30, 2025, the Court signed the Stipulation, allowing the Merger to proceed to closing. On October 14, 2025, the Attorneys General of twelve states and the District of Columbia (the “Attorneys General”) filed a motion to intervene in the Court’s Tunney Act process. Following a November 18, 2025 hearing, the Court issued an order granting the Attorneys General’s motion to intervene and set a status conference for December 16, 2025 to determine next steps, including the scope of the Attorneys General’s intervention rights under the Tunney Act. On November 18, 2025, the Attorneys General filed a motion to hold separate, seeking to enjoin further integration and consolidation of HPE and Juniper during the pendency of the Tunney Act proceedings. Following a January 8, 2026 hearing, the Court denied the Attorneys General’s motion to hold separate, allowing further integration of the companies to proceed. The Tunney Act hearing was held on March 23, 2026 to determine whether the Court will approve the settlement between HPE and the DOJ. The Court has taken the matter under advisement. The parties are awaiting the Court’s ruling.

India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Proceedings. On April 30 and May 10, 2010, the India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (the “DRI”) issued notices to Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Ltd (“HP India”), a subsidiary of HP Inc., seven HP India employees and one former HP India employee alleging that HP India underpaid customs duties while importing products and spare parts into India and seeking to recover an aggregate of approximately $370 million, plus penalties. On April 11, 2012, the Bangalore Commissioner of Customs issued an order on the products-related notices affirming duties and penalties against HP India and the named individuals for approximately $386 million (plus interest). On April 20, 2012, the Commissioner issued an order on the spare parts-related notice affirming duties and penalties against HP India and certain of the named individuals for approximately $17 million. HP India filed appeals of the Commissioner’s orders before the Customs Tribunal. The Customs Department filed cross-appeals before the Customs Tribunal. On October 27, 2014, the Customs Tribunal commenced hearings on the cross-appeals of the Commissioner's orders. The Customs Tribunal rejected HP India's request to return the matter to the Commissioner on procedural grounds. After multiple delays and postponements over the last decade, the Customs Tribunal began hearing the parties’ cross-appeals on April 21, 2025. The hearing on the cross-appeals were completed in June 2025. The Company expects a ruling from the Customs Tribunal by 2026. Either party may appeal the ruling to the India Supreme Court.

ECT Proceedings. In January 2011, the postal service of Brazil, Empresa Brasileira de Correios e Telégrafos (“ECT”), notified a former subsidiary of HP Inc. in Brazil (“HP Brazil”) that it had initiated administrative proceedings to consider whether to suspend HP Brazil's right to bid and contract with ECT related to alleged improprieties in the bidding and contracting processes whereby employees of HP Brazil and employees of several other companies allegedly coordinated their bids and fixed results for three ECT contracts in 2007 and 2008. In late July 2011, ECT notified HP Brazil it had decided to apply the penalties against HP Brazil and suspend HP Brazil's right to bid and contract with ECT for five years, based upon the evidence before it. In August 2011, HP Brazil appealed ECT’s decision. In April 2013, ECT rejected HP Brazil’s appeal, and the administrative proceedings were closed with the penalties against HP Brazil remaining in place. In parallel, in September 2011, HP Brazil filed a civil action against ECT seeking to have ECT’s decision revoked. HP Brazil also requested an injunction suspending the application of the penalties until a final ruling on the merits of the case, which was denied. HP Brazil appealed the denial of its request for injunctive relief to the intermediate appellate court, which issued a preliminary ruling denying the request for injunctive relief but reducing the length of the sanctions from five to two years. HP Brazil appealed that decision and, in December 2011, obtained a ruling staying enforcement of ECT’s sanctions until a final ruling on the merits of the case. In September 2025, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of HPE’s Civil Appeal, annulling the previously-stayed

Autonomy-Related Legal Proceedings. In 2015, four HPE subsidiaries (Autonomy Corporation Limited, Hewlett Packard Vision BV, Autonomy Systems Limited, and Autonomy, Inc., hereinafter the “Claimants”) initiated civil proceedings in the U.K. High Court of Justice against two members of Autonomy’s former management, Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain, for breach of their fiduciary duties in causing Autonomy group companies to engage in improper transactions and accounting practices before and in connection with the 2011 acquisition of Autonomy. Trial concluded in January 2020. In May 2022, the court issued its liability judgment, finding that the Claimants had succeeded on substantially all claims against Messrs. Lynch and Hussain, and dismissing a counterclaim filed by Mr. Lynch. In February 2024, the court held a two-week trial on damages. The Claimants sought recovery for $4 billion in losses. In May 2025, Claimants reached an agreement with Mr. Hussain to resolve claims against him. On July 22, 2025, the court issued its ruling on the quantum of damages, finding that the Lynch estate owed £740 million. The court held a hearing during the week of November 17, 2025, addressing a number of matters including costs (including attorneys’ fees), pre-judgment interest, issues relating to the currency in which the judgment should be paid, and the Lynch Estate’s right to appeal discrete issues in the Court’s May 2022 liability judgment and its July 2025 quantum judgment. On March 24, 2026, the U.K. High Court entered a ruling that provides a total judgment against the Lynch Estate of approximately $1.24 billion when adding interest and currency effects. The judgment amount reflects an approximately $145 million offset for amounts previously recovered by HPE and does not include attorneys’ fees, which will be determined at a later time. The U.K. High Court also rejected the Estate’s request for permission to appeal the liability and damages judgments. On April 14, 2026, the Lynch Estate filed a request with the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the liability and damages judgments. A ruling is expected in 2026. Pursuant to the terms of the 2015 Separation and Distribution Agreement, HP and HPE will share equally in any recovery.

As part of the Separation and Distribution Agreements between HPE and HP Inc., HPE and DXC, and HPE and Seattle SpinCo, the parties to each agreement agreed to cooperate with each other in managing certain existing litigation related to both parties’ businesses. The Separation and Distribution Agreements also included provisions that assign to the parties responsibility for managing pending and future litigation related to the general corporate matters of HP Inc. (in the case of the separation of HPE from HP Inc.) or of HPE (in the case of the separation of DXC from HPE and the separation of Micro Focus from HPE), in each case arising prior to the applicable separation.

The Company's operations and products are or may in the future become subject to various federal, state, local, and foreign laws and regulations concerning the environment, including laws addressing the discharge of pollutants into the air and water; supply chain due diligence; and sustainability, environment, and emissions-related reporting; environmental claims and statements; the management, movement, and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes; the clean-up of contaminated sites; product safety and compliance; the energy consumption of products, services, and operations; and the operational or financial responsibility for recycling, treatment, and disposal of those products. This includes legislation that makes producers of electrical goods, including servers and networking equipment, responsible for repairability requirements or financially responsible for specified collection, recycling, treatment, and disposal of past and future covered products (sometimes referred to as “product take-back legislation”). The Company could incur substantial costs, its products could be restricted from entering certain jurisdictions, and it could face other sanctions, if it were to violate or become liable under environmental laws, including those related to addressing climate change, sustainability, and other environmental related issues, or if its products become non-compliant with such environmental laws. The Company's potential exposure includes impacts on revenue, fines and civil or criminal sanctions, third-party environmental or property damage or personal injury claims or actions, and clean-up costs. The amount and timing of costs to comply with environmental laws are difficult to predict.

In particular, the Company may become a party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by U.S. or state environmental agencies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), known as “Superfund,” or other federal, state or foreign laws and regulations addressing the clean-up of contaminated sites, and may become a party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by private parties for contribution towards clean-up costs. The Company is also contractually obligated to make financial contributions to address actions related to certain environmental liabilities, both ongoing and arising in the future, pursuant to its Separation and Distribution Agreement with HP Inc.

As of April 30, 2026, the Company had unconditional purchase obligations of approximately $5.7 billion. These unconditional purchase obligations include agreements to purchase goods or services that are enforceable and legally binding on the Company and that specify all significant terms, including fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased, fixed, minimum or variable price provisions and the approximate timing of the transaction, as well as settlements that the Company has reached with third parties, requiring it to pay determined amounts over a specified period of time. These unconditional purchase obligations are related principally to inventory purchases, software maintenance and support services and other items. Unconditional purchase obligations exclude agreements that are cancellable without penalty. The Company expects the commitments to total $3.4 billion, $1.1 billion, $568 million, $426 million, $187 million, and $96 million for fiscal years 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, and thereafter, respectively.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may issue performance guarantees to certain of its clients, customers, and other parties pursuant to which the Company has guaranteed the performance obligations of third parties. Some of those guarantees may be backed by standby letters of credit or surety bonds. In general, the Company would be obligated to perform over the term of the guarantee in the event a specified triggering event occurs as defined by the guarantee. The Company believes the likelihood of having to perform under a material guarantee is remote.

The Company has entered into service contracts with certain of its clients that are supported by financing arrangements. If a service contract is terminated as a result of the Company's non-performance under the contract or failure to comply with the terms of the financing arrangement, the Company could, under certain circumstances, be required to acquire certain assets related to the service contract. The Company believes the likelihood of having to acquire a material amount of assets under these arrangements is remote.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into contractual arrangements under which the Company may agree to indemnify a third party to such arrangement from any losses incurred relating to the services they perform on behalf of the Company or for losses arising from certain events as defined within the particular contract, which may include, for example, litigation or claims relating to past performance. The Company also provides indemnifications to certain vendors and customers against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use by such vendors and customers of the Company's software products and support services and certain other matters. Some indemnifications may not be subject to maximum loss clauses. Historically, payments made related to these indemnifications have been immaterial.