AMD 2007 Annual Report Download - page 47

Table of Contents
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.
Environmental Matters
We are named as a responsible party on Superfund clean-up orders for three sites in Sunnyvale, California that are on the National Priorities List. Since
1981, we have discovered hazardous material releases to the groundwater from former underground tanks and proceeded to investigate and conduct remediation
at these three sites. The chemicals released into the groundwater were commonly used in the semiconductor industry in the United States in the wafer fabrication
process prior to 1979.
In 1991, we received Final Site Clean-up Requirements Orders from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board relating to the three sites. We
have entered into settlement agreements with other responsible
42
Source: ADVANCED MICRO DEVIC, 10-K, February 26, 2008