Adaptec 2005 Annual Report Download - page 32

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 32 of the 2005 Adaptec annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 131

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131

Table of Contents
ITEM 2. Properties.
PMC leases properties in 23 locations worldwide. Approximately 35% of the space leased by PMC was excess at December 30, 2007. Approximately 63% of the
excess space has been subleased and we are actively pursuing opportunities to sublease or negotiate our exit from the remaining excess facilities.
We lease a total of 108,000 square feet in Santa Clara, California, to house our US design, engineering, sales and marketing operations. In 2007, we vacated
approximately 12,500 additional square feet of office space Santa Clara in connection with our workforce reduction activities.
Our Canadian operations are located in Burnaby, British Columbia where we lease 173,000 square feet of office space in three separate buildings. These
locations support a significant portion of our product development, manufacturing, marketing, sales and testing activities. In mid 2007, we vacated approximately
45,250 square feet in Burnaby, British Columbia, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Winnipeg, Manitoba and Montreal, Quebec in connection with operational
consolidation activities.
In addition to the two major sites in Santa Clara and Burnaby, during 2007 we also operated seven additional research and development centers: one in Canada,
three in the US, one in Bangalore, India, one in Herzliya, Israel and one in Shanghai, China.
We have fourteen sales/operations offices located in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and North America.
ITEM 3. Legal Proceedings.
Stockholder Derivative Lawsuits
Three derivative actions have been filed against the Company, as a nominal defendant, and various current and former officers and/or directors: (1) Meissner v.
Bailey, et al., Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 1-06-CV-071329 (filed September 18, 2006); (2) Beiser v. Bailey, et al., United States District Court for the
Northern District of California Case No. 5:06-CV-05330-RS (filed August 29, 2006); and (3) Barone v. Bailey, et al., United States District Court for the
Northern District of California Case No. 4:06-CV-06473-SBA (filed October 16, 2006). On November 21, 2006, the Beiser and Barone actions were
consolidated into one case. On January 18, 2007, the Santa Clara County Superior Court in California ordered that the Meissner action be stayed pending the
outcome of the consolidated, federal Beiser/Baron action. A consolidated complaint in the Beiser/Baron action was filed on January 29, 2007 (the “Consolidated
Complaint”).
The Consolidated Complaint generally alleged that various current and former Company directors and/or officers breached their duty of loyalty and/or duty of
care to the Company and its shareholders, that these purported breaches of fiduciary duties caused harm to the Company and the plaintiffs seek to recover
damages on behalf of the Company. The Consolidated Complaint also alleged violations of federal securities laws. The Company is a nominal defendant in the
cases, but any recovery in the litigation would be paid to the Company, rather than to its shareholders. The defendants have entered into joint defense
arrangements.
26
Source: PMC SIERRA INC, 10-K, February 22, 2008