LensCrafters 2008 Annual Report Download - page 99

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 99 of the 2008 LensCrafters 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 120

  • 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

Amounts paid to settle this litigation and related costs incurred for the years ended December 31, 2008,
2007 and 2006 were not material.
Cole consumer class action lawsuit.
In June 2006, Cole and its subsidiaries were sued by a consumer in
a class action that alleged various statutory violations related to the operations of Pearle Vision, Inc. and
Pearle Vision Care, Inc. in California. The claims and remedies sought are similar to those asserted in the
LensCrafters and EYEXAM case. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, which provides for a
store voucher at Pearle Vision or LensCrafters for each class member and the payment of attorneys’ fees
and costs. On December 19, 2008, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered final
judgment. The settlement became final on March 17, 2009.
Amounts paid to settle this litigation and related costs incurred for the years ended December 31, 2008,
2007 and 2006 were not material.
Oakley shareholder lawsuit.
On June 26, 2007, the Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan filed a
class action complaint, on behalf of itself and all other shareholders of Oakley, Inc. (“Oakley”), against
Oakley and its Board of Directors in California Superior Court, County of Orange. The complaint alleged,
among other things, that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties to shareholders by approving
Oakley’s merger with Luxottica and claimed that the price per share fixed by the merger agreement was
inadequate and unfair. The defendants filed demurrers to the complaint, which the Court granted without
prejudice. On September 14, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint containing the same
allegations as the initial complaint and adding purported claims for breach of the duty of candor.
Because the Company believed the allegations were without merit, on October 9, 2007, the defendants
filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. Rather than respond to that demurrer, the plaintiff admitted
that its claims were moot and on January 4, 2008 filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses. The
hearing for this motion took place on April 17, 2008. On May 29, 2008, the Court issued a ruling denying
the plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses in its entirety. The court did not rule on the
defendants’ demurrer to the amended complaint. On July 11, 2008, the Court entered an order
dismissing the action with prejudice and denying the plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses.
The plaintiff has appealed the Court’s May 29, 2008 ruling and the July 11, 2008 order.
Costs associated with this litigation incurred for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, were not
material. Management believes, based in part on advice from counsel, that no estimate of the range of
possible losses, if any, can be made at this time.
Fair credit reporting act litigation.
In January 2007, a complaint was filed against Oakley and certain of
its subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging willful
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act related to the inclusion of credit card
expiration dates on sales receipts. Plaintiff brought suit on behalf of a class of Oakley’s customers. Oakley
denied any liability, and later entered into a settlement arrangement with Plaintiff that resulted in a
complete release in favor of the Oakley defendants, with no cash payment to the class members but
rather an agreement by Oakley to issue vouchers for the purchase of products at Oakley retail stores
during a limited period of time. The settlement also provided for the payment of attorneys’ fees and
claim administration costs by the Oakley defendants. An order approving this settlement was entered on
November 24, 2008.
Amounts paid to settle this litigation and related costs incurred for the years ended December 31, 2008
and 2007, were not material.
Texas LensCrafters class action lawsuit.
In May 2008, two individual optometrists commenced an action
against LensCrafters, Inc. and Luxottica Group S.p.A. in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, alleging violations of the Texas Optometry Act (“TOA”) and the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and tortious interference with customer relations. The suit alleges that LensCrafters has
attempted to control the optometrists’ professional judgment and that certain terms of the optometrists’
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS |97 <