Oracle 2009 Annual Report Download - page 136

Table of Contents
ORACLE CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
May 31, 2010
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. On July 26, 2007, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment against all defendants and a motion for summary judgment against our Chief Executive Officer. On August 7, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended
versions of these motions. On October 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a default judgment against defendants or various other sanctions because of
defendants’ alleged destruction of evidence. A hearing on all these motions was held on December 20, 2007. On April 7, 2008, the case was reassigned to a new
judge. On June 27, 2008, the court ordered supplemental briefing on plaintiffs’ sanctions motion. On September 2, 2008, the court issued an order denying
plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment against all defendants. The order also denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. The
court denied plaintiffs’ request that judgment be entered in plaintiffs’ favor due to the alleged destruction of evidence, and the court found that no sanctions were
appropriate for several categories of evidence. The court found that sanctions in the form of adverse inferences were appropriate for two categories of evidence:
e-mails from our Chief Executive Officer’s account, and materials that had been created in connection with a book regarding our Chief Executive Officer. The
court then denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against our Chief Executive Officer and directed the
parties to revise and re-file these motions to clearly specify the precise contours of the adverse inferences that should be drawn, and to take these inferences into
account with regard to the propriety of summary judgment. The court also directed the parties to address certain legal issues in the briefing.
On October 13, 2008, the parties participated in a court-ordered mediation, which did not result in a settlement. On October 20, 2008, defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment, and plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment against our Chief Executive Officer. The parties also filed several motions
challenging the admissibility of the testimony of various expert witnesses. Opposition briefs were filed on November 17, 2008, and reply briefs were filed on
December 12, 2008. A hearing on all these motions was held on February 13, 2009.
On June 16, 2009, the court issued an order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against
our Chief Executive Officer, and it entered a judgment dismissing the entire case with prejudice. On July 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs
filed their opening appellate brief on November 30, 2009. Defendants filed their opposition brief on February 4, 2010, and plaintiffs filed their reply on
March 15, 2010. The court has scheduled oral argument on this appeal for July 13, 2010. 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.
EpicRealm/Parallel Networks Intellectual Property Litigation
On June 30, 2006, we filed a declaratory judgment action against EpicRealm Licensing, LP (“EpicRealm”) in the United States District Court, District of
Delaware, seeking a judicial declaration of noninfringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,894,554 (the ‘554 Patent) and 6,415,335B1 (the ‘335 Patent).
We filed the
132
Source: ORACLE CORP, 10-K, July 01, 2010 Powered by Morningstar® Document Research℠