AMD 2006 Annual Report Download - page 148

Table of Contents
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. On April 18, 2006, the Court entered an order consolidating the two actions. On June 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint, alleging violations of California’s consumer protection laws, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. On June 21, 2006, a
third consumer class action that was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in May 2006 alleging claims that are
substantially the same was transferred to the Northern District of California, and on July 31, 2006, that case was also consolidated into the consolidated action
pending in the Northern District of California. ATI filed an answer to the consolidated complaint on August 7, 2006.
Department of Justice Subpoena
On November 29, 2006, AMD received a subpoena for documents and information in connection with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) criminal
investigation into potential antitrust violations related to graphics processing units and cards. AMD entered the graphics processor business following our
acquisition of ATI on October 25, 2006. The DOJ has not made any specific allegations against AMD or ATI. AMD is cooperating with the investigation.
GPU Class Actions
Currently approximately thirty-six related antitrust actions have been filed against AMD, ATI and Nvidia Corporation, including in the Northern District
of California, the Central District of California, the District of Massachusetts, the Western District of Wisconsin, the District of South Carolina, the District of
Kansas and the District of Vermont. According to the complaints, plaintiffs filed each of the actions after reading press reports that AMD and Nvidia had
received subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division in connection with the DOJ’s investigation into potential antitrust violations related to
graphics processing units and cards. All of the actions appear to allege that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of graphics
processing units and cards in violation of federal antitrust law and/or state antitrust law. Further, each of the complaints is styled as a putative class action and
alleges a class of plaintiffs (either indirect or direct purchasers) who purportedly suffered injury as a result of the defendants’ alleged conduct. The majority of
the complaints propose a class period from November or December 2002 to the present.
143
Source: ADVANCED MICRO DEVIC, 10-K, March 01, 2007