AMD 2006 Annual Report Download - page 52

Table of Contents
the United States and lost sales abroad that would have originated from the United States. The Court also set an immovable trial date of April 27, 2009. The
discovery process is ongoing.
Other Related Proceedings
On June 30, 2005, our Japanese subsidiary, AMD Japan K.K., or AMD Japan, filed an action in Japan against Intel Corporation’s Japanese subsidiary,
Intel Kabushiki Kaisha, or Intel K.K., in the Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court for damages arising from violations of Japan’s Antimonopoly Act.
Through its suit in the Tokyo High Court, AMD Japan seeks US$50 million in damages, following on the Japan Fair Trade Commission’s (JFTC) findings
in its March 8, 2005 Recommendation, or the JFTC Recommendation, that Intel K.K. committed violations of Japan’s Antimonopoly Act. The JFTC
Recommendation concluded that Intel K.K. interfered with AMD Japan’s business activities by providing large amounts of funds to five Japanese PC
manufacturers (NEC, Fujitsu, Toshiba, Sony, and Hitachi) on the condition that they refuse to purchase AMD’s microprocessors. The suit alleges that as a result
of these illegal acts, AMD Japan suffered serious damages, losing all of its sales of microprocessors to Toshiba, Sony, and Hitachi, while sales of
microprocessors to NEC and Fujitsu also fell precipitously.
Through its suit in the Tokyo District Court, AMD Japan seeks US$55 million in damages for various anticompetitive acts in addition to those covered in
the scope of the JFTC Recommendation. The suit alleges that these anticompetitive acts also had the effect of interfering with AMD Japan’s right to engage in
normal business and marketing activities.
In re ATI Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation.
In August and September 2005, five class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against ATI
and certain of its directors and officers on behalf of shareholders who purchased ATI common shares between October 7, 2004 and on or about June 23, 2005.
The claims allege that ATI and certain of its directors and officers violated United States securities laws by failing to disclose material facts and making
statements that contained misrepresentations about its business and future outlook. It is alleged that as a result of the failure to disclose material facts and the
alleged misrepresentations, ATI’s common stock traded at artificially inflated prices until the stock price dropped on the news of ATI’s third quarter results in
June 2005. The claims further allege that while in possession of material undisclosed information, certain of ATI’s directors and officers sold a portion of their
common shares at inflated prices. On May 23, 2006, the Court dismissed one of the five actions because the plaintiff failed to serve the summons and complaint.
The four remaining lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, and on September 8, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. ATI filed
its Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on December 4, 2006. On January 25, 2007, class plaintiffs filed their opposition to ATI’s motion to
dismiss.
U.S. Consumer Class Action Lawsuits
In February and March 2006, two consumer class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against ATI
and three of its subsidiaries. The complaints allege that ATI had misrepresented its graphics cards as being “HDCP ready” when they were not, and on that basis
alleged violations of state consumer protection statutes, breach of express and implied warranty, negligent 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.
47
Source: ADVANCED MICRO DEVIC, 10-K, March 01, 2007