Crucial 2013 Annual Report Download - page 30

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 30 of the 2013 Crucial annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 130

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130

29
Three putative class action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of DRAM products also have been filed against us in Quebec,
Ontario, and British Columbia, Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, asserting violations of the Canadian
Competition Act and other common law claims (collectively the "Canadian Cases"). The claims were initiated between
December 2004 (British Columbia) and June 2006 (Quebec). The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, restitution, costs, and
attorneys' fees. The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those asserted in the DRAM antitrust cases filed in the
United States. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in the British Columbia and Quebec cases in May and June
2008, respectively. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal of each of those decisions. On November 12, 2009, the British
Columbia Court of Appeal reversed, and on November 16, 2011, the Quebec Court of Appeal also reversed the denial of class
certification and remanded the cases for further proceedings. On October 16, 2012, we entered into a settlement agreement
resolving these three putative class action cases subject to certain conditions including final court approval of the settlement.
The settlement amount did not have a material effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.
On June 21, 2010, the Brazil Secretariat of Economic Law of the Ministry of Justice ("SDE") announced that it had
initiated an investigation relating to alleged anticompetitive activities within the DRAM industry. The SDE's Notice of
Investigation names various DRAM manufacturers and certain executives, including us, and focuses on the period from July
1998 to June 2002.
We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters, except as noted in the U.S. indirect purchaser cases and the
Canadian Cases above. The final resolution of these alleged violations of antitrust laws could result in significant liability and
could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.
Securities Matters
On July 12, 2013, seven former shareholders of Elpida Memory, Inc. filed a complaint against Messrs. Sakamoto, Adachi,
Gomi, Shirai, Tsay-Jiu, Wataki, Kinoshita, and Takahasi in their capacity as members of the board of directors of Elpida as of
February 2013. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in various acts and misrepresentations to hide the financial
condition of Elpida and deceive shareholders prior to Elpida filing a petition for corporate reorganization on February 27, 2013.
The plaintiffs seek joint and several damages equal to the market value of shares owned by each of the plaintiffs on February
23, 2013, along with attorneys' fees and interest. At a hearing on September 25, 2013, the plaintiffs withdrew the complaint
against Mr. Tsay-Jiu.
We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. The final
resolution of this matter could result in significant liability and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of
operations or financial condition.
Commercial Matters
On January 20, 2011, Dr. Michael Jaffé, administrator for Qimonda AG ("Qimonda") insolvency proceedings, filed suit
against us and Micron Semiconductor B.V., our Netherlands subsidiary, in the District Court of Munich, Civil Chamber. The
complaint seeks to void under Section 133 of the German Insolvency Act a share purchase agreement between us and Qimonda
signed in fall 2008 pursuant to which we purchased all of Qimonda's shares of Inotera Memories, Inc. and seeks an order
requiring us to retransfer the Inotera shares purchased from Qimonda to the Qimonda estate. The complaint also seeks to
terminate under Sections 103 or 133 of the German Insolvency Code a patent cross license between us and Qimonda entered
into at the same time as the share purchase agreement. A three-judge panel will render a decision after a series of hearings with
pleadings, arguments and witnesses. Hearings were held on September 25, 2012, February 5, 2013, June 11, 2013 and July 2,
2013. An additional hearing is scheduled for November 12, 2013. We are unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and
therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. The final resolution of this lawsuit could result in the loss of the Inotera
shares or equivalent monetary damages and the termination of the patent cross license, which could have a material adverse
effect on our business, results of operation or financial condition. As of August 29, 2013, the Inotera shares purchased from
Qimonda had a carrying value of $190 million.
(See "Item 1A. Risk Factors.")
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not Applicable.