NVIDIA 2012 Annual Report Download - page 33

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 33 of the 2012 NVIDIA 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 120

  • 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

Table of Contents
On February 28, 2011, a group of purported class members filed a motion with the District Court purporting to seek enforcement of the settlement. The
Motion claimed that NVIDIA was not properly complying with its obligations under the settlement in connection with the remedies provided to purchasers of
Hewlett-Packard computers included in the settlement. On March 4, 2011, NVIDIA and Class Counsel at Milberg LLP filed oppositions to the Motion. The
Court held a hearing on March 28, 2011, and denied the Motion on May 2, 2011.
On July 22, 2011, a putative class action titled Granfield v. NVIDIA Corp. was filed in federal court in Massachusetts asserting claims for breach of
implied warranties arising out of the weak die/packaging material set, on behalf of a class of consumers alleged to not be covered by the settlement approved
by the California court in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation. On November 3, 2011 the action was transferred to the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, based upon stipulation of the parties. On December 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint asserting claims for violation of
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. On September 27, 2011, a second putative class action captioned Van der Maas v.
NVIDIA Corp., et al., was filed in the Central District of California against NVIDIA, Asustek Computer Inc., and Asustek Computer International on behalf
of certain consumers alleged not to be covered by the NVIDIA GPU settlement. This action asserts claims for violations of California's unfair competition
laws, violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, negligence and strict liability, and violation of the Texas Business and Commerce Code Section
17.50. We intend to defend against the actions vigorously.
Securities Cases
In September 2008, three putative securities class actions, or the Actions, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California arising out of our announcements on July 2, 2008, that we would take a charge against cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and expenses
arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of our previous generation MCP and GPU products and that we were revising financial
guidance for our second quarter of fiscal year 2009. The Actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. October 30, 2008, the Actions were
consolidated under the caption In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW (HRL). Lead Plaintiffs and Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel were appointed on December 23, 2008. On February 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals challenging the designation of co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. On February 19, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed with the District Court, a motion to stay the
District Court proceedings pending resolution of the Writ of Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit. On February 24, 2009, Judge Ware granted the stay. On
November 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the District Court's appointment of one of the lead plaintiffs' counsel, and remanding the
matter for further proceedings. On December 8, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as co-lead counsel.
On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, asserting claims for
violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The consolidated complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages. We
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2010 and a hearing was held on June 24, 2010 before Judge Seeborg. On October 19, 2010,
Judge Seeborg granted our motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On December 2, 2010, co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint. We moved to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint on February 14, 2011. Following oral argument, on October 12, 2011, Judge
Seeborg granted our motion to dismiss without leave to amend, and on November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not Applicable.
32