AMD 2007 Annual Report Download - page 147

Table of Contents
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. On September 28, 2007, the Court entered an order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification without
prejudice, granting plaintiffs additional time to conduct class discovery and granting plaintiffs certain fees and costs. The discovery process is ongoing.
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, or DOJ, criminal
investigation into potential antitrust violations related to graphics processing units and cards, with a focus on the business that AMD acquired from ATI on
October 26, 2006. 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 over fifty related antitrust actions have been filed against AMD, ATI and Nvidia Corporation, all of which were consolidated and transferred to
the Northern District of California in the action In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation including twenty-eight actions in the Northern District of
California, eleven in the Central District of California, two in Massachusetts, one in the Western District of Wisconsin, three in South Carolina, one in Vermont,
one in Kansas, two in the District of Columbia, one in the Eastern District of New York, one in the Eastern District of Arkansas, one in South Dakota, one in the
Middle District of Tennessee and one in the Eastern District of Tennessee. 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. Class plaintiffs (direct and indirect) filed amended consolidated complaints in June 2007. The amended consolidated complaints proposed a
class period from December 2002 to the present. On September 27, 2007, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to
dismiss. Pursuant to the court’s order, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their complaints on October 11, 2007, and defendants filed oppositions to plaintiffs’
motions on October 18, 2007. On November 7, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion in part and denied it in part and ordered plaintiffs immediately to file
their amended complaints in conformity with the court's order. On November 7 and November 8, 2007, plaintiffs (indirect and direct purchasers) filed their
amended complaints. In addition to AMD and ATI, the amended complaints named AMD US Finance, Inc. and 1252986 Alberta ULC as defendants. On
November 27 and 28, 2007, the defendants filed their answers to the indirect and direct purchasers’ amended complaints. The discovery process in ongoing. The
court has scheduled a jury trial to begin on January 12, 2009.
142
Source: ADVANCED MICRO DEVIC, 10-K, February 26, 2008