The Company records accruals for legal contingencies to the extent that it has concluded that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. No estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this time regarding the matters specifically described below because the inherently unpredictable nature of legal proceedings may be exacerbated by various factors, including: (i) the damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; (ii) discovery is not complete; (iii) the proceeding is in its early stages; (iv) the matters present legal uncertainties; (v) there are significant facts in dispute; (vi) there are a large number of parties (including where it is uncertain how liability, if any, will be shared among multiple defendants); or (vii) there is a wide range of potential outcomes.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company is involved in litigation, claims, government inquiries, investigations and proceedings, including, but not limited to, those identified below, relating to intellectual property, commercial, employment, environmental and regulatory matters.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in connection with its current lawsuits and material claims and disputes, and intends to vigorously contest each of them.

Based on the Company's experience, management believes that the damages amounts claimed in a case are not a meaningful indicator of the potential liability. Claims, suits, investigations and proceedings are inherently uncertain and it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of cases.

Other than as described below, in the opinion of the Company's management based upon information currently available to the Company, while the outcome of these lawsuits, claims and disputes is uncertain, the likely results of these lawsuits, claims and disputes are not expected, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows, although the effect could be material to the Company's consolidated results of operations or consolidated cash flows for any interim reporting period.

In 2006, the Company instituted an action in the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, against defendants Telecom Labs, Inc., TeamTLI.com Corp. and Continuant Technologies, Inc. (“TLI/Continuant”) and subsequently amended its complaint to include certain individual officers of these companies as defendants. Defendants purportedly provide maintenance services to customers who have purchased or leased the Company's communications equipment. The Company asserted in its amended complaint that, among other things, defendants, or each of them, engaged in tortious conduct by improperly accessing and utilizing the Company's proprietary software, including passwords, logins and maintenance service permissions, to perform certain maintenance services on the Company's customers' equipment. TLI/Continuant filed counterclaims against the Company alleging that the Company has violated the Sherman Act's prohibitions against anticompetitive conduct through the manner in which the Company sells its products and services. TLI/Continuant sought to recover the profits they claim they would have earned from maintaining Avaya's products, and asked for injunctive relief prohibiting the conduct they claim is anticompetitive. 

Following the jury verdict, TLI/Continuant sought an injunction regarding the Company’s ongoing business operations. On June 30, 2014, a federal judge rejected the demands of TLI/Continuant’s proposed injunction and stated that “only a narrow injunction is appropriate.” Instead, the judge issued an order relating to customers who purchased an Avaya PBX system between January 1, 1990 and April 30, 2008 only. Those customers and their agents will have free access to the on demand maintenance commands that were installed on their systems at the time of the purchase transaction. The court specified that this right “does not extend to access on a system purchased after April 30, 2008.” Consequently, the injunction affected only systems sold prior to April 30, 2008. The judge denied all other requests TLI/Continuant made in its injunction filing. The Company complied with the injunction although it has now been vacated by the September 30, 2016 decision discussed below.

As a result of the Third Circuit’s opinion, on November 23, 2016, the Company filed a Notice of Motion to Release the Supersedeas Bonds, which the court granted on December 23, 2016. On December 12, 2016, the Court issued an Order Upon Mandate and For Status Conference, which i) vacated the Court’s January 7, 2014 order dismissing Avaya’s claims against TLI/Continuant and the order of judgment entered on September 17, 2014 and ii) scheduled a status conference for January 6, 2017 to discuss the Joint Plan for Retrial. On January 13, 2017, the Court entered an Order staying the matter pending mediation.

In September 2011, Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. (“Network-1”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company and other corporations in the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler Division), alleging infringement of its patent with respect to power over Ethernet technology. Network-1 seeks to recover for alleged reasonable royalties, enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees. In January 2017, the Company filed a Notice of Suggestion of Pendency of Bankruptcy, which informed the Court of the Company’s voluntary bankruptcy petition filing and stay of proceedings. On October 16, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving a settlement agreement with Network-1 and on November 7, 2017 the Tyler Division district court entered an order dismissing the lawsuit, with prejudice. The Company considers this matter closed, except for distribution of the pre-petition allowed claim in accordance with the general unsecured claims procedure in the Company's Plan of Reorganization.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company is involved in litigation alleging it has infringed upon third parties’ intellectual property rights, including patents and copyrights; some litigation may involve claims for infringement against customers, distributors and resellers by third parties relating to the use of Avaya’s products, as to which the Company may provide indemnifications of varying scope to certain parties. The Company is also involved in litigation pertaining to general commercial disputes with customers, suppliers, vendors and other third parties including royalty disputes. Much of the litigation against the Debtors was stayed as result of the Chapter 11 filing and was subject to resolution in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code and the orders of the Bankruptcy Court. Based on discussions with parties that have filed claims against the Debtors, the Company provided loss provisions for certain matters. However, these matters are ongoing and the outcomes are subject to inherent uncertainties. As a result, the Company cannot be assured that any such matter will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company purchases components from a variety of suppliers and uses several contract manufacturers to provide manufacturing services for its products. During the normal course of business, in order to manage manufacturing lead times and to help assure adequate component supply, the Company enters into agreements with contract manufacturers and suppliers that allow them to produce and procure inventory based upon forecasted requirements provided by the Company. If the Company does not meet these specified purchase commitments, it could be required to purchase the inventory, or in the case of certain agreements, pay an early termination fee. Historically, the Company has not been required to pay a charge for not meeting its designated purchase commitments with these suppliers, but has been obligated to purchase certain excess inventory levels from its outsourced manufacturers due to actual sales of product varying from forecast and due to transition of manufacturing from one vendor to another.

In addition, in connection with the distribution, the Company and Lucent entered into a Tax Sharing Agreement that governs Nokia’s and the Company’s respective rights, responsibilities and obligations after the distribution with respect to taxes for the periods ending on or before the distribution. Generally, pre-distribution taxes or benefits that are clearly attributable to the business of one party will be borne solely by that party and other pre-distribution taxes or benefits will be shared by the parties based on a formula set forth in the Tax Sharing Agreement. The Company may be subject to additional taxes or benefits pursuant to the Tax Sharing Agreement related to future settlements of audits by state and local and foreign taxing authorities for the periods prior to the Company’s separation from Nokia.