Get Started for Free Contexxia identifies hard-to-find pieces of information in SEC filings. No more highlighters, no more redlining, no more poring over huge documents. JOHNSON CONTROLS INC (53669) 10-K published on Nov 23, 2016 at 2:42 pm
Reporting Period: Sep 29, 2016
Our customers include many U.S. Federal, state and local government authorities. Doing business with the U.S. government and state and local authorities subjects us to unusual risks, including dependence on the level of government spending and compliance with and changes in governmental procurement and security regulations. Agreements relating to the sale of products to government entities may be subject to termination, reduction or modification, either at the convenience of the government or for failure to perform under the applicable contract. We are subject to potential government investigations of business practices and compliance with government procurement and security regulations, which can be expensive and burdensome. If we were charged with wrongdoing as a result of an investigation, we could be suspended from bidding on or receiving awards of new government contracts, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations. In addition, various U.S. federal and state legislative proposals have been made that would deny governmental contracts to U.S. companies that have moved their corporate location abroad. We are unable to predict the likelihood that, or final form in which, any such proposed legislation might become law, the nature of regulations that may be promulgated under any future legislative enactments, or the effect such enactments and increased regulatory scrutiny may have on our business.
We rely on a combination of trademarks, trade secrets, patents, copyrights, know-how, confidentiality provisions and licensing arrangements to establish and protect our proprietary rights. We cannot guarantee, however, that the steps we have taken to protect our intellectual property will be adequate to prevent infringement of our rights or misappropriation of our technology, trade secrets or know-how. For example, effective patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret protection may be unavailable or limited in some of the countries in which we operate. In addition, while we generally enter into confidentiality agreements with our employees and third parties to protect our trade secrets, know-how, business strategy and other proprietary information, such confidentiality agreements could be breached or otherwise may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets and know-how related to the design, manufacture or operation of our products. If it became necessary for us to resort to litigation to protect our intellectual property rights, any proceedings could be burdensome and costly, and we may not prevail. Further, adequate remedies may not be available in the event of an unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets and manufacturing expertise. Finally, for those products in our portfolio that rely on patent protection, once a patent has expired, the product is generally open to competition. Products under patent protection usually generate significantly higher revenues than those not protected by patents. If we fail to successfully enforce our intellectual property rights, our competitive position could suffer, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
The Company's estimate of the liability for pending and future claims and defense costs is based on the Company's historical claim experience, and estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed and is discounted to present value from 2049 (which is the Company's reasonable best estimate of the actuarially determined time period through which asbestos-related claims will be filed against Company affiliates). Asbestos related defense costs are included in the asbestos liability. The Company's legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts these estimates. The Company considers various trends and developments in evaluating the period of time (the look-back period) over which historical claim and settlement experience is used to estimate and value claims reasonably projected to be made through 2049. Annually, the Company assesses the sufficiency of its estimated liability for pending and future claims and defense costs by evaluating actual experience regarding claims filed, settled and dismissed, and amounts paid in settlements. In addition to claims and settlement experience, the Company considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as changes in legislation, the legal environment, and the Company's defense strategy. The Company evaluates all of these factors and determines whether a change in the estimate of its liability for pending and future claims and defense costs is warranted.
On August 16, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, naming Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of directors at the time of the merger with JCI plc’s merger subsidiary and certain of its officers, JCI plc and JCI plc’s merger subsidiary as defendants. The complaint asserted various causes of action under the federal securities laws, state law and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II, including that the individual defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties and unjustly enriched themselves by structuring the merger among the JCI plc, Tyco and the merger subsidiary in a manner that would result in a United States federal income tax realization event for the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders and allegedly result in certain benefits to the defendants, as well as related claims regarding alleged misstatements in the proxy statement/prospectus distributed to the Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders, conversion and breach of contract. The complaint also asserted that Johnson Controls, Inc., JCI plc and JCI plc’s merger subsidiary aided and abetted the individual defendants in their breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other things, disgorgement of profits, damages and to enjoin the closing of the merger. On September 30, 2016, approximately one month after the closing of the merger, plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking, among other items, to compel Johnson Controls, Inc. to make certain intercompany payments that plaintiffs contend will impact the United States federal income tax consequences of the merger to the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders and to enjoin Johnson Controls, Inc. from reporting to the Internal Revenue Service the capital gains taxes payable by this putative class as a result of the closing of the merger. A hearing on the preliminary injunction motion is currently scheduled for January 2017.
The Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with numerous other companies are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. The Company's estimate of the liability for pending and future claims and defense costs is based on the Company's historical claim experience, and estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed and is discounted to present value from 2049 (which is the Company's reasonable best estimate of the actuarially determined time period through which asbestos-related claims will be filed against Company affiliates). Asbestos related defense costs are included in the asbestos liability. The Company's legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts these estimates. The Company considers various trends and developments in evaluating the period of time (the look-back period) over which historical claim and settlement experience is used to estimate and value claims reasonably projected to be made through 2049. Annually, the Company assesses the sufficiency of its estimated liability for pending and future claims and defense costs by evaluating actual experience regarding claims filed, settled and dismissed, and amounts paid in settlements. In addition to claims and settlement experience, the Company considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as changes in legislation, the legal environment, and the Company's defense strategy. The Company evaluates all of these factors and determines whether a change in the estimate of its liability for pending and future claims and defense costs is warranted.