HP 2012 Annual Report Download - page 164

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)
Note 18: Litigation and Contingencies (Continued)
•A.J. Copeland v. Raymond J. Lane, et al. is a lawsuit filed on March 7, 2011 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets in connection with HP’s
alleged violations of the FCPA, HP’s severance payments made to Mr. Hurd, and HP’s
acquisition of 3PAR Inc. The lawsuit also alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act
in connection with HP’s 2010 and 2011 proxy statements. On February 8, 2012, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On October 10, 2012, the Court granted the defendants’
motion to dismiss with leave to file an amended complaint. On November 1, 2012, plaintiff filed
an amended complaint adding an unjust enrichment claim and claims that the defendants
violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with HP’s 2012 proxy statement.
•Richard Gammel v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class action filed on
September 13, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging, among other things, that from November 22, 2010 to August 18, 2011, the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and
making false statements about HP’s business model, the future of the webOS operating system,
and HP’s commitment to developing and integrating webOS products, including the TouchPad
tablet PC. On April 11, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On
September 4, 2012, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and gave plaintiff
30 days to file an amended complaint. On October 19, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that asserts the same causes of action but drops one of the defendants and shortens
the period that the alleged violations of the Exchange Act occurred to February 9, 2011 to
August 18, 2011.
•Ernesto Espinoza v. L´ eo Apotheker, et al. and Larry Salat v. L´ eo Apotheker, et al. are consolidated
lawsuits filed on September 21, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California alleging, among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements about HP’s
business model and the future of webOS, the TouchPad and HP’s PC business. The lawsuits also
allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets and were
unjustly enriched when they authorized HP’s repurchase of its own stock on August 29, 2010 and
July 21, 2011.
•Luis Gonzalez v. L´ eo Apotheker, et al. and Richard Tyner v. L´ eo Apotheker, et al. are consolidated
lawsuits filed on September 29, 2011 and October 5, 2011, respectively, in California Superior
Court alleging, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted
corporate assets and were unjustly enriched by concealing material information and making false
statements about HP’s business model and the future of webOS, the TouchPad and HP’s PC
business and by authorizing HP’s repurchase of its own stock on August 29, 2010 and July 21,
2011. The lawsuits are currently stayed pending resolution of the Espinoza/Salat consolidated
action in federal court.
•Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a
putative securities class action filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from November 13, 2007 to
August 6, 2010 the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making
156