Intel 2001 Annual Report Download - page 17

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 17 of the 2001 Intel 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 62

  • 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

alleged purpose of this payment to the insiders was to obtain DSP Communications insiders' endorsement of Intel's tender offer in violation of
the anti-discrimination provision of Section 14(d)(7) and Rule 14d-10. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages for the class, and
unspecified costs and expenses. The suit is currently scheduled for trial in July 2002; however, the presiding judge has retired and the case has
been reassigned. The company disputes the plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
VIA Technologies, Inc. and Centaur Technology, Inc. v. Intel
U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas
On September 10, 2001, VIA Technologies, Inc. and Centaur Technology, Inc. sued Intel in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, alleging that the Intel Pentium 4 processor infringes a VIA Technologies microprocessor-related patent. The suit
seeks injunctive relief
19
and damages in an unspecified amount. The company disputes the plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
Hawaii Reinforcing Iron Workers Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Intel, U.S. Dist. Court., Northern Calif.
George Pinel, et al v. Intel, U.S. Dist. Court., Northern Calif.
Fairland Management Corp., et al v. Intel, U.S. Dist. Court., Northern Calif.
Dr. Jayant S. Patel, et al v. Intel, et al, Calif. Superior Court, Santa Clara County
In September, October and November 2001, various plaintiffs filed lawsuits against Intel alleging violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The five class-action complaints allege that purchasers of Intel stock between July 19, 2000 and September 29, 2000 were misled
by false and misleading statements by Intel and certain of its officers and directors concerning the company's business and financial condition.
In addition, stockholder derivative complaints have been filed in California Superior Court and Delaware Chancery Court against the
company's directors and certain officers, alleging that they have mismanaged the company and otherwise breached their fiduciary obligations to
the company. All complaints seek unspecified damages. The company disputes the plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the lawsuits
vigorously.
We currently are a party to various legal proceedings, including those noted above. While management, including internal counsel,
currently believes that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on
our financial position or overall trends in results of operations, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties. Were an unfavorable ruling to
occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the net income of the period in which the ruling occurs. The estimate of the
potential impact on our financial position or overall results of operations for the above legal proceedings could change in the future.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS
We have been named to the California and U.S. Superfund lists for three of our sites and have completed, along with two other companies,
a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility study with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate the groundwater in areas adjacent
to one of our former sites. The EPA has issued a Record of Decision with respect to a groundwater cleanup plan at that site, including expected
costs to complete. Under the California and U.S. Superfund statutes, liability for cleanup of this site and the adjacent area is joint and several.
We have reached agreement, however, with those same two companies that significantly limits our liabilities under the proposed cleanup plan.
In addition, we have completed extensive studies at our other sites and are engaged in cleanup at several of these sites. In the opinion of
management, including internal counsel, the potential losses to us in excess of amounts already accrued arising out of these matters would not
have a material adverse effect on our financial position or overall trends in results of operations, even if joint and several liability were to be
assessed.
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
None.
20
PART II **
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS