AMD 2015 Annual Report Download - page 42

artificially inflate the price paid for our common stock during the period. On April 27, 2015, a similar purported
shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned Christopher Hamilton and David Hamilton v. Barnes, et al., Case
No. 5:15-cv-01890 (“Hamilton”) was filed against us (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of our directors
and officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case was transferred to
the judge handling the Hatamian Lawsuit and is now Case No. 4:15-cv-01890. On September 29, 2015, a similar
purported shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned Jake Ha v Caldwell, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04485 (“Ha”)
was filed against us (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of our directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit also seeks a court order voiding the shareholder
vote on AMD’s 2015 proxy. The case was transferred to the judge handling the Hatamian Lawsuit and is now
Case No. 4:15-cv-04485. The Wessels, Hamilton and Ha shareholder derivative lawsuits are currently stayed.
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.
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
parties on two of the orders. During the term of such agreements, other parties have agreed to assume most of the
foreseeable costs as well as the primary role in conducting remediation activities under the orders. We remain
responsible for additional costs beyond the scope of the agreements as well as all remaining costs in the event
that the other parties do not fulfill their obligations under the settlement agreements.
To address anticipated future remediation costs under the orders, we have computed and recorded an
estimated environmental liability of approximately $4 million and have not recorded any potential insurance
recoveries in determining the estimated costs of the cleanup. Costs could also increase as a result of additional
test and remediation obligations imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency or California Regional Water
Quality Control Board. The progress of future remediation efforts cannot be predicted with certainty and these
costs may change. We believe that the potential liability, if any, in excess of amounts already accrued, will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.
Other Matters
We are a defendant or plaintiff in various actions that arose in the normal course of business. With respect to
these matters, based on our current knowledge, we believe that the amount or range of reasonably possible loss, if
any, will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
cash flows or results of operations.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not Applicable.
36