Crucial 2012 Annual Report Download - page 25

24
Three putative class action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of DRAM products also have been filed against us in Quebec,
Ontario, and British Columbia, Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, asserting violations of the Canadian
Competition Act and other common law claims (collectively the "Canadian Cases"). The claims were initiated between
December 2004 (British Columbia) and June 2006 (Quebec). The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, restitution, costs, and
attorneys' fees. The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those asserted in the DRAM antitrust cases filed in the
United States. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in the British Columbia and Quebec cases in May and June
2008, respectively. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal of each of those decisions. On November 12, 2009, the British
Columbia Court of Appeal reversed, and on November 16, 2011, the Quebec Court of Appeal also reversed the denial of class
certification and remanded the cases for further proceedings. On October 16, 2012, we entered into a settlement agreement
resolving these three putative class action cases subject to certain conditions including final court approval of the settlement.
The settlement amount did not have a material effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.
On June 21, 2010, the Brazil Secretariat of Economic Law of the Ministry of Justice ("SDE") announced that it had
initiated an investigation relating to alleged anticompetitive activities within the DRAM industry. The SDE's Notice of
Investigation names various DRAM manufacturers and certain executives, including us, and focuses on the period from July
1998 to June 2002.
On September 24, 2010, Oracle America Inc. ("Oracle"), successor to Sun Microsystems, a DRAM purchaser that opted-
out of a direct purchaser class action suit that was settled, filed suit against us in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint alleged a conspiracy to increase DRAM prices and other violations of federal and state antitrust and
unfair competition laws based on purported conduct for the period from August 1, 1998 through at least June 15, 2002. Oracle
sought joint and several damages, trebled, as well as restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. On
March 23, 2012, we entered into a settlement agreement with Oracle pursuant to which we agreed to make a payment of $58
million to Oracle for a settlement and full release of all claims and a dismissal with prejudice of the litigation. The settlement
amount was paid in May 2012.
We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters, except as noted in the U.S. indirect purchasers cases, the Canadian
Cases and Oracle matter above. The final resolution of these alleged violations of antitrust laws could result in significant
liability and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.
Commercial Matters
On January 20, 2011, Dr. Michael Jaffé, administrator for Qimonda AG ("Qimonda") insolvency proceedings, filed suit
against us and Micron Semiconductor B.V., our Netherlands subsidiary, in the District Court of Munich, Civil Chamber. The
complaint seeks to void under Section 133 of the German Insolvency Act a share purchase agreement between us and Qimonda
signed in fall 2008 pursuant to which we purchased all of Qimonda's shares of Inotera Memories, Inc. and seeks an order
requiring us to retransfer the Inotera shares purchased from Qimonda to the Qimonda estate. The complaint also seeks to
terminate under Sections 103 or 133 of the German Insolvency Code a patent cross license between us and Qimonda entered
into at the same time as the share purchase agreement. A three-judge panel will render a decision after a series of hearings with
pleadings, arguments and witnesses. A first hearing was held on September 25, 2012. The next hearing is scheduled for
February 5, 2013. We are unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss.
The final resolution of this lawsuit could result in the loss of the Inotera shares or equivalent monetary damages and the
termination of the patent cross license, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation or
financial condition. As of August 30, 2012, the Inotera shares purchased from Qimonda had a net carrying value of $177
million.
(See "Item 1A. Risk Factors.")
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not Applicable.