Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to various proceedings, lawsuits, claims and other matters, including, for example, those that relate to the environment and health and safety, labor and employment, employee benefits, import/export compliance, patents or other intellectual property, data privacy and security, product liability, commercial disputes and regulatory compliance, among others. Additionally, the Company is subject to diverse and complex laws and regulations, including those relating to corporate governance, public disclosure and reporting, environmental safety and the discharge of materials into the environment, product safety, import and export compliance, data privacy and security, antitrust and competition, government contracting, anti-corruption, and labor and human resources, which are rapidly changing and subject to many possible changes in the future. Compliance with these laws and regulations, as well as changes in accounting standards, taxation requirements, and federal securities laws among others, may create a substantial burden on, and substantially increase costs to the Company or could have an impact on the Company’s future operating results. The Company has reflected all liabilities when a loss is considered probable and reasonably estimable in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. We do not believe there is a reasonable possibility that losses exceeding amounts already recognized have been incurred, but there can be no assurances that the amounts required to satisfy alleged liabilities from such matters will not impact future operating results. Other than as stated below, the Company does not currently expect to incur material costs related to such matters. However, there can be no assurances that the actual amounts required to satisfy alleged liabilities from various lawsuits, claims, legal proceedings and other matters, including, but not limited to the Kalamazoo River environmental matter and other matters discussed above and below, and to comply with applicable laws and regulations, will not exceed the amounts reflected in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements or will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, capital expenditures, competitive position, financial condition or cash flows.

Other Litigation In November 2015, several participants and beneficiaries in five “nonqualified” deferred compensation retirement plans sponsored by the Company (collectively, the “Plans”) filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and other named defendants. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the Company breached the terms of the Plan agreements when, upon termination of the Plans, the Company paid lump sum payments based on mortality tables and actuarial calculations. In September 2017, the court certified a class.

On February 6, 2024, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the Company breached the terms of the Plans when it paid the lump sums in lieu of actuarially equivalent replacement life annuities and ordered that the Company provide class members the amount reflecting the difference between the lump sums they received and the cost of the replacement life annuities. The court further ordered the parties to brief as to what the appropriate relief should have been based on the benefits due to each Plan participant (the “Requested Relief Order”). On April 16, 2024, the Company filed its position on the Requested Relief Order.

On June 10, 2024, the Court ruled against the Company’s position to the Requested Relief Order, entered a final judgment against the Company, and ordered the Company to calculate the “benefits due” to the Plan participants, including pre-judgment interest, based on the sum that would have been sufficient to allow each participant to purchase a replacement annuity using discount rates prescribed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in effect as of the February 25, 2013 termination date.

The Company is contesting this matter vigorously. On July 2, 2024, the Company filed a notice of appeal. Given that an estimate or range of possible loss was not ordered in this equitable judgment and moreover cannot be determined at this time in light of the uncertainty regarding the ultimate form of relief and complexities in the methodology and quantification of loss, if any, the parties stipulated to a $45 million supersedeas bond, which is an amount the Company believes may not be correlated to the actual loss (if any). On September 12, 2024, the supersedeas bond was filed and a stay was issued. The appellate court will hear oral arguments in August 2025. Any amount sustained following an appeal of this matter is subject to an indemnity obligation by NCR Atleos to contribute 50% of any award. The Company has concluded that, as of March 31, 2025, a loss is reasonably possible but that an estimate or range of possible loss cannot be determined at this time given uncertainty regarding the ultimate form of relief and complexities in the methodology and quantification of damages, if any.

Environmental Matters The Company’s facilities and operations are subject to a wide range of environmental protection laws, and the Company has investigatory and remedial activities underway at a number of facilities that it currently owns or operates, or formerly owned or operated, to comply, or to determine compliance, with such laws. Also, the Company has been identified, either by a government agency or by a private party seeking contribution to site clean-up costs, as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) at a number of sites pursuant to various state and federal laws, including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and comparable state statutes. Following the Spin-Off, the Company retains the responsibility to manage the identified environmental liabilities and

remediations, subject however to an indemnity obligation by NCR Atleos to contribute 50% of the costs of certain environmental liabilities after an annual $15 million funding threshold is met. Other than the Kalamazoo River matter discussed below, we currently do not anticipate material expenses and liabilities from these environmental matters.

Fox River The Company was one of eight entities that was formally notified by governmental and other entities that it was a PRP for environmental claims (under CERCLA and other statutes) arising out of the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) in sediments in the lower Fox River and in the Bay of Green Bay in Wisconsin. The Company was identified as a PRP because of alleged PCB discharges from two carbonless copy paper manufacturing facilities it previously owned, which were located along the Fox River, and carbonless copy paper “broke” the Company allegedly sold to other mills as raw material. In 2017, the Company entered into a Consent Decree with the federal and state governments for the clean-up of the Fox River, which was approved on August 22, 2017 by the federal district court in Wisconsin presiding over this matter. The Consent Decree resolved the Company’s disputes with the enforcement agencies as well as the other PRPs.

All litigation relating to the contribution and enforcement of remediation obligations on the Fox River has been concluded. On October 3, 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency issued the Company a Certificate of Completion certifying that all of the Company’s remedial obligations under the Consent Decree have been completed.

The cost of the Fox River remediation has been shared with three parties (a previous party, API, fully satisfied its obligations in 2016 and is now bankrupt): B.A.T. Industries p.l.c. (“BAT”) as co-obligor, and AT&T Corp. (“AT&T”) and Nokia (as the successor to Lucent Technologies and Alcatel-Lucent USA) as indemnitors. Under a 1998 Cost Sharing Agreement and subsequent 2005 arbitration award (collectively, the “Cost Sharing Agreement”), from 2008 through 2014, BAT paid 60% of the cost of the Fox River clean-up and natural resource damages. Pursuant to a September 30, 2014 funding agreement (the “Funding Agreement”), BAT funded 50% of the Company’s Fox River remediation costs from October 1, 2014 forward. The Funding Agreement also provides the Company contractual avenues for a future payment of, via direct and third-party sources, (1) the difference between BAT’s 60% obligation under the Cost Sharing Agreement on the one hand and their ongoing (since September 2014) 50% payments under the Funding Agreement on the other, and (2) the difference between the amount the Company received under the Funding Agreement and the amount owed to it under the Cost Sharing Agreement for the period from April 2012 through September 2014 (collectively, the “Funding Agreement Receivable”). Pursuant to a 2015 Letter Agreement, the Company’s contractual avenue for direct payment by BAT was effectively stayed pending completion of other unrelated lawsuits by BAT against third-parties. As of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Funding Agreement Receivable was approximately $54 million and was included in Other assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The timing of collection of sums related to the receivable is uncertain and is subject and pursuant to the terms of the Funding Agreement and related agreements. This receivable is not taken into account in calculating the Company’s Fox River remaining reserve.

Additionally, under a 1996 Divestiture Agreement, the Company, AT&T and Nokia have mutual several (not joint) responsibility for indemnifying each other for certain environmental matters, including the Fox River and the Kalamazoo River discussed below, after defined dollar expenditures are met. AT&T and Nokia have been reimbursing the Company for certain portions of the amounts paid by the Company for the Fox River matter over the defined threshold for Fox River subject to certain offsets for insurance recoveries and net tax benefits (the “Divestiture Agreement Offsets”), if any. The Divestiture Agreement governs certain aspects of AT&T’s divestiture of the Company and of what was then known as Lucent Technologies. Those companies have generally made the payments requested of them by the Company on an ongoing basis. The Company, AT&T and Nokia are currently discussing a final reconciliation of the Divestiture Agreement Offsets, but the timing for a final reconciliation is uncertain.

The final reconciliation of the Funding Agreement Receivable and the Divestiture Agreement Offsets could result in additional expenditures and liabilities for the Company that could be material. As of March 31, 2025 we have no remaining liability for environmental remedial obligations for the Fox River matter. As of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the liability subject to final reconciliation with indemnitors under the Divestiture Agreement was approximately $23 million.

Kalamazoo River In November 2010, The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) issued a “general notice letter” to the Company with respect to the Allied Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River Superfund Site (“Kalamazoo River site”) in Michigan. USEPA asserted that the site is contaminated by various substances, primarily PCBs, as a result of discharges by various paper mills located along the river. USEPA did not claim that the Company made direct discharges into the Kalamazoo River, and the Company never had facilities at or near the Kalamazoo River site, but USEPA indicated that “NCR may be liable under Section 107 of CERCLA ... as an arranger, who by contract or agreement, arranged for the disposal, treatment and/or transportation of hazardous substances at the Site.” USEPA stated that it “may issue special notice letters to

[NCR] and other PRPs for future RI/FS [remedial investigation / feasibility studies] and RD/RA [remedial design / remedial action] negotiations.”

In December 2010, the Company, along with two other defendants, was sued in federal court by three Georgia-Pacific (“GP”) affiliate corporations in a private-party contribution and cost recovery action for alleged pollution at the Kalamazoo River site. On September 26, 2013, the court issued a decision that held the Company was liable as an “arranger” as of at least March 1969. (PCB-containing carbonless copy paper was produced from approximately 1954 to April 1971, and the majority of contamination at the Kalamazoo River site had occurred prior to 1969). In a ruling following a second trial on the allocation of liability issued on March 29, 2018, the court fixed the past cost amount at approximately $50 million (plus interest to be determined) and the Company and GP were each assigned a 40% share of those costs, and the other two companies were assigned 15% and 5% as their allocations. The court entered final judgment in the case on June 19, 2018, in which it indicated that it would not allocate future costs, but would enter a declaratory judgment that the four companies together had responsibility for future costs, in amounts and shares to be determined.

In July 2018, the Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both the 2013 court decision and the 2018 court decision on various legal grounds. The Company filed a bond to stay execution of the judgment pending appeal and execution of the judgment was stayed until the Company filed its dismissal of the appeal on December 31, 2020 pursuant to the Consent Decree noted below.

During the pendency of the Sixth Circuit stay, the Company negotiated a settlement of the Kalamazoo River matter with the USEPA and other government agencies having oversight over the river.

On December 5, 2019, the Company entered into a Consent Decree with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) and other government agencies having oversight over the Kalamazoo River and the District Court having jurisdiction over this matter approved the Consent Decree later that month. The Consent Decree requires the Company to pay GP a 40% share of past costs, to pay the USEPA and state agencies their past and future administrative costs, and take responsibility for the remediation of a portion, but not all, of the Kalamazoo River. The Consent Decree further required the Company to dismiss the pending Sixth Circuit appeal. The Consent Decree provides the Company protection from other potentially responsible parties, including GP, seeking contribution for their costs associated with the clean-up anywhere on the Kalamazoo River, thereby resolving the allocation of future costs left unresolved by prior litigation.

The Company believes it has meritorious claims against BAT under the Cost Sharing Agreement, discussed above, for the Kalamazoo River remediation expenses as a so-called “future site.” To date, BAT disputes that the Kalamazoo River is a “future site.” In February 2023, the Company filed an action against BAT in the Southern District of New York seeking a declaration that the Kalamazoo River is indeed a “future site” under the Cost Sharing Agreement. In June 2023, BAT filed an answer asserting counterclaims in the proceedings. On September 14, 2024, the Court entered an opinion stating that the Kalamazoo River is a “future site” within the meaning of the Cost Sharing Agreement. The case remains pending with respect to BAT’s remaining counterclaims and affirmative defenses. In December 2022, the Company met the contractual threshold set forth in the 1996 Divestiture Agreement for the Kalamazoo River matter and as a result also has indemnity or reimbursement claims against AT&T and Nokia.

In November 2023, the USEPA issued a conditional approval for a work plan to remediate one area of the Kalamazoo River (referred to by USEPA as Area 4) for which the Company has remediation responsibility. The conditional approval provided the Company with sufficient information to estimate the cost of the first phase of remediation for this area of the river and necessitated an increase in the Kalamazoo reserve. Subsequently, USEPA provided further clarification about the conditions with respect to completing the second phase of the work plan that could substantially increase the costs of remediation. The Company does not believe the scope of work for this second phase is its responsibility under the Consent Decree or the National Contingency Plan. In March 2024, the Company filed a Notice of Dispute with the USEPA objecting to the scope of work for Area 4 as being inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan and contrary to the requirements of the Consent Decree. In June 2024, the Company reached a tentative agreement with the USEPA that will satisfactorily address the Company’s cost concerns and in October 2024, the Company submitted a work plan to the USEPA for approval. In connection with the submittal of the work plan, an updated engineering estimate was developed, which necessitated an increase in the Kalamazoo reserve. USEPA approval of the submitted work plan remains pending. If an Area 4 work plan cannot be finalized, the costs to remediate Area 4 could increase substantially.

As of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the total reserve for the Kalamazoo River was $141 million and $148 million, respectively. The reserve is reported on a basis that is net of expected contributions from the Company’s co-obligors and

indemnitors, subject to when the applicable threshold is reached. While the Company believes its co-obligors’ and indemnitors’ obligations are as previously reported, the reserve may be adjusted from time to time to reflect changes in our estimates of remediation costs and recoverability from co-obligors and indemnitors with respect to the Kalamazoo River.

As many aspects of the costs of remediation will not be determined for several years (and thus the high end of a range of possible costs for many areas of the site cannot be quantified at this time), the Company has made what it considers to be reasonable estimates of the low end of a range for such costs where remedies are identified, and/or estimates of the costs of investigations and studies for areas of the Kalamazoo River where remedies have not yet been determined, and the reserve is informed by those estimates. The extent of the Company’s potential liability remains subject to many uncertainties, notwithstanding the Consent Decree noted above, particularly in as much as remedy decisions and cost estimates will not be generated until future time periods and as most of the work to be performed will take place through the 2030s. Under other assumptions and estimates for possible costs of remediation, which the Company does not at this point consider to be reasonably estimable or verifiable, it is possible that the reserve the Company has taken to discontinued operations with respect to the Kalamazoo River could more than approximately double the reflected reserve.

Environmental-Related Insurance Recoveries In connection with the Fox River, Kalamazoo River and other environmental sites, through March 31, 2025, the Company has received a combined gross total of approximately $212 million in settlements reached with various of its insurance carriers. Some of the settlements cover not only the Fox River but also other environmental sites; some are limited to either the Fox River or the Kalamazoo River site. Some of the settlements are directed to defense costs and some are directed to indemnity; some settlements cover both defense costs and indemnity. The Company does not anticipate that further material insurance recoveries specific to Kalamazoo River remediation costs will be available in the future.

Environmental Remediation Estimates It is difficult to estimate the future financial impact of environmental laws, including potential liabilities. The Company records environmental provisions when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount or range of the liability is reasonably estimable; in accordance with accounting guidance, where liabilities are not expected to be quantifiable or estimable for a period of years, the estimated costs of investigating those liabilities are recorded as a component of the reserve for that particular site. Provisions for estimated losses from environmental restoration and remediation are, depending on the site, based generally on internal and third-party environmental studies, estimates as to the number and participation level of other PRPs, the extent of contamination, estimated amounts for attorney and other fees, and the nature of required clean-up and restoration actions. Reserves are adjusted as further information develops or circumstances change. Management expects that the amounts reserved from time to time will be paid out over the period of investigation, negotiation, remediation and restoration for the applicable sites. The amounts recorded for environmental matters in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements are the estimated gross undiscounted amounts of such liabilities, without deductions for indemnity insurance, third-party indemnity claims or recoveries from other PRPs, except in the event certain criteria supporting the probability of receipt of payment from such third parties is met. For the Fox River and Kalamazoo River sites, as described above, assets relating to the AT&T and Nokia indemnities and the BAT obligations recorded as payments are supported by contractual agreements, public filings, payment history, or other factors.

Guarantees and Product Warranties In the ordinary course of business, the Company may issue performance guarantees on behalf of its subsidiaries to certain of its customers and other parties. Some of those guarantees may be backed by standby letters of credit, surety bonds, or similar instruments. In general, under the guarantees, the Company would be obligated to perform, or cause performance, over the term of the underlying contract in the event of an unexcused, uncured breach by its subsidiary, or some other specified triggering event, in each case as defined by the applicable guarantee. The Company believes the likelihood of having to perform under any such guarantee is remote. As of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company had no material obligations related to such guarantees, and therefore its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements do not have any associated liability balance.

The Company provides its customers a standard manufacturer’s warranty and records, at the time of the sale, a corresponding estimated liability for potential warranty costs. Estimated future obligations due to warranty claims are based upon historical factors, such as labor rates, average repair time, travel time, number of service calls per machine and cost of replacement parts. When a sale is consummated, the total customer revenue is recognized, provided that all revenue recognition criteria are otherwise satisfied, and the associated warranty liability is recorded using pre-established warranty percentages for the respective product classes. Warranty reserve liabilities are presented in Other current liabilities and Other liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

From time to time, product design or quality corrections are accomplished through modification programs. When identified, associated costs of labor and parts for such programs are estimated and accrued as part of the warranty reserve.

In addition, the Company provides its customers with certain indemnification rights, subject to certain limitations and exceptions. In some cases, the Company agrees to defend and indemnify its customers from third-party lawsuits alleging patent or other infringement of Company solutions based on its customers’ use of them. On limited occasions the Company will undertake to indemnify a customer for business, rather than contractual, reasons. From time to time, the Company also enters into agreements in connection with its acquisition and divestiture activities that include indemnification obligations by the Company. The fair value of these indemnification obligations is not readily determinable due to the conditional nature of the Company’s potential obligations, certain limitations to liability and indemnity exclusions that appear in certain of the Company’s agreements, and the specific facts and circumstances involved with each particular agreement. Historically, the Company has not recorded a liability in connection with these indemnifications. From time to time the Company has provided indemnification under these circumstances, none of which has resulted in material liabilities, and the Company expects these indemnities will continue to arise in the future.

Purchase Commitments The Company has purchase commitments for materials, supplies, services, and property, plant and equipment as part of the normal course of business. This includes a long-term service agreement with Accenture, under which many of the Company’s key transaction processing activities and functions are performed.

NCR Voyix Corp 10-Q