Crucial 2014 Annual Report Download - page 26

24
Except for the Tessera matter discussed above, we are unable to predict the outcome of assertions of infringement made
against us and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. A determination that our products or manufacturing
processes infringe the intellectual property rights of others or entering into a license agreement covering such intellectual
property could result in significant liability and/or require us to make material changes to our products and/or manufacturing
processes. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial
condition.
Antitrust Matters
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 a conspiracy to increase
DRAM prices in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair competition law, and/or unjust enrichment relating
to the sale and pricing of DRAM products. The complaints seek joint and several damages, trebled, 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, we agreed to pay approximately $67 million in aggregate in three equal installments over a two-year period. We
paid the full amount into an escrow account by the end of the first quarter of 2013 in accordance with the settlement agreement.
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 and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss, except as
noted in the above discussion of the U.S. indirect purchaser cases. 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 (now known as MMJ) 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 MMJ
as of February 2013. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in various acts and misrepresentations to hide the
financial condition of MMJ and deceive shareholders prior to MMJ 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.