Commitments and Contingencies (Notes) |
3 Months Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mar. 26, 2016 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies
Warranties and Indemnities
The Company generally warrants that its products sold to its customers will conform to the Company’s approved specifications and be free from defects in material and workmanship under normal use and service for one year. Subject to certain exceptions, the Company also offers a three-year limited warranty to end users for only those central processing unit (CPU) and AMD accelerated processing unit (APU) products that are commonly referred to as “processors in a box” and for certain server CPU products. The Company also offered extended limited warranties to certain customers of “tray” microprocessor products and/or professional graphics products who have written agreements with the Company and target their computer systems at the commercial and/or embedded markets.
Changes in the Company’s estimated liability for product warranty were as follows:
In addition to product warranties, the Company, from time to time in its normal course of business, indemnifies other parties, with whom it enters into contractual relationships, including customers, lessors and parties to other transactions with the Company, with respect to certain matters. In these limited matters, the Company has agreed to hold certain third parties harmless against specific types of claims or losses, such as those arising from a breach of representations or covenants, third-party claims that the Company’s products when used for their intended purpose(s) and under specific conditions infringe the intellectual property rights of a third party, or other specified claims made against the indemnified party. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount of liability under these indemnification obligations due to the unique facts and circumstances that are likely to be involved in each particular claim and indemnification provision. Historically, payments made by the Company under these obligations have not been material.
Contingencies
Securities Class Action
On January 15, 2014, a class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v. AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 (the “Hatamian Lawsuit”) was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint purports to assert claims against the Company and certain individual officers for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during the period April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the Company and the individual officers regarding the Company's 32nm technology and “Llano” product, which statements and omissions, the plaintiffs claim, allegedly operated to artificially inflate the price paid for the Company's common stock during the period. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 7, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims. On March 31, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. On May 14, 2015, the Company filed its answer to plaintiffs’ corrected amended complaint. On September 4, 2015, plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, and on March 16, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion. A court-ordered mediation held in January 2016 did not result in a settlement of the lawsuit. The discovery process is ongoing.
Based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.
Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits
On March 20, 2014, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned Wessels v. Read, et al., Case No. 1:14 cv-262486 (“Wessels”) was filed against the Company (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of its directors and officers in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California. The complaint purports to assert claims against the Company and certain individual directors and officers for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the Company and the individual directors and officers regarding its 32nm technology and “Llano” product, which statements and omissions, the plaintiffs claim, allegedly operated to artificially inflate the price paid for the Company's 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 the Company (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of its 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 the Company (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of its 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 the Company’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, the Company believes that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.
Other Legal Matters
The Company is a defendant or plaintiff in various actions that arose in the normal course of business. With respect to these matters, based on the management’s current knowledge, the Company believes 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 the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||