AMD 2015 Annual Report Download - page 41

As of December 26, 2015, we also leased approximately 2.23 million square feet of space for research and
development, engineering, administrative and warehouse use, including our headquarters in Sunnyvale,
California, our principal administrative facilities in Austin, Texas, our main facility with respect to graphics and
chipset products located in Markham, Ontario, Canada and a number of smaller regional sales offices located in
commercial centers near customers, principally in the United States, Latin America, Europe and Asia. These
leases expire at varying dates through 2028, although some of these leases include optional renewals. The lease
for our headquarters in Sunnyvale, California expires in December 2018, and provides for two successive 10-year
optional renewals. The lease for our principal administrative facilities in Austin, Texas expires in March 2025,
and provides for one 10-year optional renewal. The lease for our facilities in Markham, Ontario, Canada expires
in February 2028, and provides for one 5-year optional renewal.
We currently do not anticipate difficulty in either retaining occupancy of any of our facilities through lease
renewals prior to expiration or through month-to-month occupancy, or replacing them with equivalent facilities.
We also have approximately 117,000 square feet of building space that is currently vacant. We continue to
have lease obligations with respect to portions of this space that expire at various dates through 2018. We are
actively marketing portions of our vacant lease space for sublease.
We believe that our existing facilities are suitable and adequate for our present purposes, and that, except as
discussed above, the productive capacity of such facilities is substantially being utilized or we have plans to
utilize it.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Securities Class Action
On January 15, 2014, a class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v. AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226
(the “Hatamian Lawsuit”) was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint purports to assert claims against AMD and certain individual officers for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule
10b-5 of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired our common stock during the period from April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012. The
complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions
by us and the individual officers regarding our 32nm technology and “Llano” product, which statements and
omissions, the plaintiffs claim, allegedly operated to artificially inflate the price paid for our common stock
during the period. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 7,
2014, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims. On March 31, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.
On May 14, 2015, we filed our answer to plaintiffs’ corrected amended complaint. The discovery process is
ongoing. On September 4, 2015, plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. A court-ordered mediation
held in January 2016 did not result in a settlement of the lawsuit.
Based upon information presently known to management, we believe that the potential liability, if any, will
not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.
Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
On March 20, 2014, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned Wessels v. Read, et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-262486 (“Wessels”) was filed against us (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of our directors
and officers in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California. The complaint purports to assert
claims against us and certain individual directors and officers for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate
assets and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading
statements and/or material omissions by us and the individual directors and officers regarding our 32nm
technology and “Llano” product, which statements and omissions, the plaintiffs claim, allegedly operated to
35