HP 2013 Annual Report Download - page 161

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)
Note 17: Litigation and Contingencies (Continued)
Stockholder Litigation. As described below, HP is involved in various stockholder litigation
matters commenced against certain current and former HP executive officers and/or certain current and
former members of the HP Board of Directors in which the plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages
related to HP’s allegedly inflated stock price, certain compensation paid by HP to the defendants, other
damages and/or injunctive relief:
•Saginaw Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Marc L. Andreessen, et al. is a lawsuit filed on October 19,
2010 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among
other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched by
consciously disregarding HP’s alleged violations of the FCPA. On August 15, 2011, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On March 21, 2012, the court granted the
defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the court entered judgment in the defendants’ favor and
closed the case on May 29, 2012. On June 28, 2012, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
•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 Mark Hurd (a former HP
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer), and HP’s acquisition of 3PAR Inc. The lawsuit also
alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (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. On December 13, 14 and 17, 2012, the defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint. On December 28, 2012, plaintiff moved for leave to file a third
amended complaint. On May 6, 2013, the court denied the motion for leave to amend, granted
the motions to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the defendants’ favor. On
May 31, 2013, plaintiff filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
•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 asserting the same causes of action but dropping one of the defendants and
shortening the period that the alleged violations of the Exchange Act occurred to February 9,
2011 to August 18, 2011. On December 3, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On May 8, 2013, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and
denied it in part. As a result of the court’s ruling, the alleged class period in the action runs
153