Motorola 2004 Annual Report Download - page 34

26
Also on December 22, 2003, Motorola was named as a defendant in Stocke v. John J. Rigas, et al. This case
was originally Ñled in Pennsylvania and was subsequently transferred to the Southern District of New York as
related to the Adelphia MDL. Several other individual and corporate defendants are also named in the amended
complaint along with Motorola. As to Motorola, the complaint alleges a federal law claim arising under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a state law
claim of aiding and abetting fraud relating to Adelphia securities. The complaint seeks return of the consideration
paid by plaintiÅ for Adelphia securities, punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of litigation and other relief. Motorola Ñled a motion to dismiss this complaint on April 12, 2004.
On July 23, 2004, Motorola was named as a defendant in Argent Classic Convertible Arbitrage Fund L.P.,
et al. v. ScientiÑc-Atlanta, Inc., et al. (the ""Argent Complaint''). The Argent Complaint was Ñled against ScientiÑc
Atlanta and Motorola in the Southern District of New York. The Argent Complaint alleges a federal law claim
arising under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
relating to Adelphia securities. On October 12, 2004, Motorola Ñled a motion to dismiss the Argent Complaint.
On September 15, 2004, Motorola was named in a complaint Ñled in state court in Los Angeles, California,
naming Motorola and ScientiÑc Atlanta and certain oÇcers of ScientiÑc Atlanta, Los Angeles County Employees
Retirement Association et al. v. Motorola, Inc., et al. The complaint raises claims under California law for aiding
and abetting fraud and conspiracy to defraud and generally makes the same allegations as the other previously-
disclosed cases relating to the In re Adelphia Communications Corp. Securities and Derivative Litigation that have
been transferred to the Southern District of New York. There are no new substantive allegations. On October 8,
2004, Motorola Ñled a motion to remove the California state court case to federal court in California. On
December 1, 2004, the Multi-District Litigation Panel issued a conditional transfer order transferring the case to
federal court in New York. PlaintiÅs did not object to the conditional transfer order, and the order transferring the
case to New York is now Ñnal.
On October 25, 2004, Motorola was named in a complaint Ñled in state court in Fulton County, Georgia,
naming Motorola and ScientiÑc Atlanta and certain oÇcers of ScientiÑc Atlanta, AIG DKR SoundShore Holdings,
Ltd., et al. v. ScientiÑc Atlanta, et al. The complaint raises claims under Georgia law of conspiracy to defraud and
generally makes the same allegations as the other previously disclosed cases relating to the In re Adelphia
Communications Corp. Securities and Derivative Litigation that have already been Ñled and transferred or are in
the process of being transferred to the Southern District of New York. On November 22, 2004, Motorola Ñled a
petition to remove the state court case to federal court in Georgia and a notice with the Multi District Panel
requesting the case be transferred to New York. On January 5, 2005, the Multi-District Panel issued a conditional
transfer order, transferring the case to federal court in New York. On January 20, 2005, the plaintiÅs Ñled an
objection before the Multi District Panel, contesting the conditional transfer order. Motorola has Ñled an
opposition brief to their objection.
Motorola is a defendant in various other suits, claims and investigations that arise in the normal course of
business. In the opinion of management, and other than discussed above with respect to the Iridium cases, the
ultimate disposition of the Company's pending legal proceedings will not have a material adverse eÅect on the
consolidated Ñnancial position, liquidity or results of operations.