Plantronics 2010 Annual Report Download - page 32

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 32 of the 2010 Plantronics 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 112

  • 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

24
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Six class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company alleging that our Bluetooth headsets may cause noise-induced hearing
loss. Shannon Wars et al. vs. Plantronics, Inc. was filed on November 14, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas. Lori Raines, et al. vs. Plantronics, Inc. was filed on October 20, 2006 in the U.S. District Court, Central District of
California. Kyle Edwards, et al vs. Plantronics, Inc. was filed on October 17, 2006 in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Florida. Ralph Cook vs. Plantronics, Inc. was filed on February 8, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia. Randy Pierce vs. Plantronics, Inc. was filed on January 10, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas. Bruce Schiller, et al vs. Plantronics, Inc. was filed on October 10, 2006 in the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of Los Angeles. The complaints state that they do not seek damages for personal injury to any individual. These
complaints seek various remedies, including injunctive relief requiring the Company to include certain additional warnings with its
Bluetooth headsets and to redesign the headsets to limit the volume produced, or, alternatively, to provide the user with the ability to
determine the level of sound emitted from the headset. Plaintiffs also seek unspecified general, special, and punitive damages, as well
as restitution. The federal cases have been consolidated for all pre-trial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
Los Angeles before Judge Fischer. The California State Court case was dismissed by the plaintiffs. The parties agreed in principle to
settle their claims. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of Los Angeles signed an order approving the final settlement of
the lawsuit entitled In Re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation brought against Plantronics, Inc., Motorola, Inc. and GN
Netcom, Inc. alleging that the three companies failed to adequately warn consumers of the potential for long term noise induced
hearing loss if they used Bluetooth headsets. The companies contested the claims of the lawsuit but settled the lawsuit on a
nationwide basis for an amount which we believe is less than the cost of litigating and winning the lawsuit. On September 25, 2009,
the Court signed a judgment in the case resolving all matters except the issue of outstanding attorneys’ fees, which will be split among
the three defendants. On October 22, 2009, the Court issued an order setting the class counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs and the
incentive award at the maximum amounts agreed to by the parties in their settlement. The objectors to the settlement have filed a
notice of appeal, and the appeal is in process. We believe that any loss related to these proceedings would not be material and have
adequately reserved for these costs in the consolidated financial statements.
In addition, we are presently engaged in various legal actions arising in the normal course of our business. We believe that it is
unlikely that any of these actions will have a material adverse impact on our operating results; however, because of the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of any of these actions could be unfavorable and could have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
ITEM 4. (REMOVED AND RESERVED)