Oracle 2006 Annual Report Download - page 115

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 115 of the 2006 Oracle 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 133

  • 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
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133

Table of Contents
ORACLE CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
May 31, 2007
executive officers of such companies. A member of our Board of Directors was previously an executive
officer of one such company until July 2005. Transactions with this company from June 2005 to the date of
this Board member’s departure in July 2005 have been included in the preceding disclosure. Our fiscal 2007
transactions were not significant.
21. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Securities Class Action
Stockholder class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
against us and our Chief Executive Officer on and after March 9, 2001. Between March 2002 and March
2003, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and a revised second
amended complaint. The last dismissal was with prejudice. On September 1, 2004, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The
revised second amended complaint named our Chief Executive Officer, our then Chief Financial Officer (who
currently is Chairman of our Board of Directors) and a former Executive Vice President as defendants. This
complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of our stock during the period from December 14, 2000
through March 1, 2001. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements about our
actual and expected financial performance and the performance of certain of our applications products, while
certain individual defendants were selling Oracle stock in violation of federal securities laws. Plaintiffs
further alleged that certain individual defendants sold Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public
information. Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged in accounting violations. Currently, the parties
are conducting discovery. The court has set a trial date of November 26, 2007. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief. We believe that we have
meritorious defenses against this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it.
Siebel Securities Class Action
On March 10, 2004, William Wollrab, on behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of a class of
stockholders of Siebel, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against Siebel and certain of its officers relating to predicted adoption rates of Siebel v7.0 and
certain customer satisfaction surveys. This complaint was consolidated and amended on August 27, 2004,
with the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago being appointed to serve as lead plaintiff. The
consolidated complaint also raised claims regarding Siebel’s business performance in 2002. In October 2004,
Siebel filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on January 28, 2005 with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint on March 1, 2005. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys’ fees
and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief. Siebel filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
April 27, 2005, and on December 28, 2005, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. On January 17, 2006,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and on September 18, 2006, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief.
Defendants’ responsive brief was filed on December 15, 2006. Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on January 16,
2007. The court has not yet set a date for oral argument on this appeal. We believe that we have meritorious
defenses against this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it.
Intellectual Property Litigation
Mangosoft, Inc. and Mangosoft Corporation filed a patent infringement action against us in the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire on November 22, 2002. Plaintiffs alleged that we are
willfully infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,148,377 (the ‘377 patent) and 5,918,229 (the ‘229 patent), which they
claim to own. Plaintiffs seek damages based on our license sales of the Real Application Clusters database
option, the 9i and 10g databases, and the Application Server, and seek injunctive relief. We denied
infringement and asserted affirmative defenses and counterclaimed against plaintiffs for declaratory judgment
that the ‘377 and ‘229 patents are invalid, unenforceable and not infringed by us. On May 19, 2004, the court
held a claims construction (Markman) hearing,
108
Source: ORACLE CORP, 10-K, June 29, 2007 Powered by Morningstar® Document Research℠