I need help to answer these Questions

OTE 15 CONTINGENCIES

Patent and Intellectual Property Claims

There were 63 patent infringement cases pending against Microsoft as of June 30, 2021, none of which are material individually or in aggregate.

Antitrust, Unfair Competition, and Overcharge Class Actions

Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed against us in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada. All three have been certified on behalf of Canadian indirect purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating system software and/or productivity application software between 1998 and 2010.

The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016. Following a mediation, the parties agreed to a global settlement of all three Canadian actions and submitted the proposed settlement agreement to the courts in all three jurisdictions for approval. The final settlement and form of notice have been approved by the courts in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec. The ten-month claims period commenced on November 23, 2020 and will close on September 23, 2021.

Other Antitrust Litigation and Claims

China State Administration for Market Regulation Investigation

In 2014, Microsoft was informed that Chinas State Agency for Market Regulation (SAMR) (formerly State Administration for Industry and Commerce) had begun a formal investigation relating to Chinas Anti-Monopoly Law, and the SAMR conducted onsite inspections of Microsoft offices in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Chengdu. In 2019, the SAMR presented preliminary views as to certain possible violations of Chinas Anti-Monopoly Law.

Product-Related Litigation

U.S. Cell Phone Litigation

Microsoft Mobile Oy, a subsidiary of Microsoft, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in 46 lawsuits, including 45 lawsuits filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their brain tumors and other adverse health effects. We assumed responsibility for these claims in our agreement to acquire Nokias Devices and Services business and have been substituted for the Nokia defendants. Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining cases are stayed. In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines (FCC Guidelines) are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines.

In 2013, the defendants in the consolidated cases moved to exclude the plaintiffs expert evidence of general causation on the basis of flawed scientific methodologies. In 2014, the trial court granted in part and denied in part the defendants motion to exclude the plaintiffs general causation experts. The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals challenging the standard for evaluating expert scientific evidence. In October 2016, the Court of Appeals issued its decision adopting the standard advocated by the defendants and remanding the cases to the trial court for further proceedings under that standard. The plaintiffs have filed supplemental expert evidence, portions of which the defendants have moved to strike. In August 2018, the trial court issued an order striking portions of the plaintiffs expert reports. A hearing on general causation is scheduled for January and February of 2022.

88

PART II

Item 8

Other Contingencies

We also are subject to a variety of other claims and suits that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. Although management currently believes that resolving claims against us, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact in our consolidated financial statements, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and managements view of these matters may change in the future.

As of June 30, 2021, we accrued aggregate legal liabilities of $339 million. While we intend to defend these matters vigorously, adverse outcomes that we estimate could reach approximately $500 million in aggregate beyond recorded amounts are reasonably possible. Were unfavorable final outcomes to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact in our consolidated financial statements for the period in which the effects become reasonably estimable.

NOTE 16 STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY

Shares Outstanding

Shares of common stock outstanding were as follows:

(In millions)
Year Ended June 30,		2021				2020				2019
Balance, beginning of year			7,571				7,643				7,677
Issued			49				54				116
Repurchased			(101	)			(126	)			(150	)
Balance, end of year			7,519				7,571				7,643

Share Repurchases

On September 20, 2016, our Board of Directors approved a share repurchase program authorizing up to $40.0 billion in share repurchases. This share repurchase program commenced in December 2016 and was completed in February 2020.

On September 18, 2019, our Board of Directors approved a share repurchase program authorizing up to $40.0 billion in share repurchases. This share repurchase program commenced in February 2020, following completion of the program approved on September 20, 2016, has no expiration date, and may be terminated at any time. As of June 30, 2021, $8.7 billion remained of this $40.0 billion share repurchase program.

Help me with these Question

• Browse through the disclosure of contingencies in MS 10-K. According to the discussion in the notes, how much is the amount of litigation loss contingencies that should be classified as the first type of loss contingency (= the contingencies that are probable that loss had been sustained)?