Crucial 2011 Annual Report Download - page 22

We also own and lease a number of other facilities in locations throughout the world that are used for design, research and development, and
sales and marketing activities.
Our facility in Lehi and one of our facilities in Singapore are owned and operated by our IM Flash joint venture with Intel. (See "Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data – Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements – Consolidated Variable Interest Entities – NAND
Flash Joint Ventures with Intel" note.)
We believe that our existing facilities are suitable and adequate for our present purposes. We do not identify or allocate assets by operating
segment. (See "Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data – Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements – Geographic Information"
note.)
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Antitrust Matters
On May 5, 2004, Rambus, Inc. ("Rambus") filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California (San Francisco County) against
us and other DRAM suppliers alleging that the defendants harmed Rambus by engaging in concerted and unlawful efforts affecting Rambus
DRAM ("RDRAM") by eliminating competition and stifling innovation in the market for computer memory technology and computer memory
chips. Rambus' complaint alleges various causes of action under California state law including, among other things, a conspiracy to restrict output
and fix prices, a conspiracy to monopolize, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition. Rambus is
seeking a judgment for damages of approximately $3.9 billion, joint and several liability, trebling of damages awarded, punitive damages, a
permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from the conduct alleged in the complaint, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Trial began on
June 20, 2011, and the case went to the jury on September 21, 2011. At the time of this filing, a jury verdict is pending. We cannot predict when a
verdict will be reached or when a formal judgment would be entered by the Court subsequent to a verdict. In the event of an adverse judgment,
we would anticipate filing appropriate post-judgment motions and appeals. We may be required to post a bond or other security to stay
enforcement of an adverse judgment pending appeal. Depending on the amount required, we cannot assure you we would be able to obtain
sufficient security to pursue an appeal. We are unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss
nor estimate a range of possible loss. Accordingly, we have not provided an accrual for an adverse judgment in the September 1, 2011, financial
statements. However, we have accrued a liability and charged operations for estimated costs to successfully defend the matter. An adverse
judgment may have a material impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition, including liquidity.
A number of purported class action price-fixing lawsuits have been filed against us and other DRAM suppliers. Four cases have been filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that
indirectly purchased DRAM and/or products containing DRAM from various DRAM suppliers during the time period from April 1, 1999 through
at least June 30, 2002. The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust and unfair competition
laws and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees. In addition, at least sixty-four cases have been filed in
various state courts asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers of DRAM. In July 2006, the Attorneys General for
approximately forty U.S. states and territories filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints allege,
among other things, violations of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and certain other states' consumer protection and antitrust laws and seek joint
and several damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other relief. On October 3, 2008, the California Attorney General filed a similar lawsuit in
California Superior Court, purportedly on behalf of local California government entities, alleging, among other things, violations of the Cartwright
Act and state unfair competition law. On June 23, 2010, we executed a settlement agreement resolving these purported class-action indirect
purchaser cases and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged DRAM price-fixing in the United States. Subject to certain
conditions, including final court approval of the class settlements, we agreed to pay a total of approximately $67 million in three equal
installments over a two-year period.
21