Commitments and Contingencies |
6 Months Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun. 30, 2018 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 offers 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
Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits (Wessels, Hamilton and Ha)
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.
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 stockholder vote on the Company’s 2015 proxy. The case was transferred to the judge handling the Hamilton Lawsuit and is now Case No. 4:15-cv-04485. The Wessels, Hamilton and Ha shareholder derivative lawsuits were stayed pending resolution of a class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v. AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the Hatamian Lawsuit). The Hatamian Lawsuit asserted claims against the Company and certain of its officers for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and SEC Rule 10b-5 concerning certain statements regarding our 32nm technology and “Llano” products. On October 9, 2017, the parties signed a definitive settlement agreement resolving the Hatamian Lawsuit and submitted it to the Court for approval. Under the terms of this agreement, the settlement was funded entirely by certain of AMD’s insurance carriers and the defendants continued to deny any liability or wrongdoing. On March 2, 2018, the court approved the settlement and entered a final judgment in the Hatamian lawsuit. On January 30, 2018, the Wessels and Hamilton plaintiffs amended their complaints. On February 2, 2018, the Ha plaintiff also filed an amended complaint. On February 22, 2018, the Company filed motions to dismiss the Hamilton and Ha plaintiffs’ amended complaints. On April 2, 2018, we filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss the Wessels amended complaint. On July 23, 2018, the Santa Clara Superior Court sustained the Company's demurrer in the Wessels case, dismissing all claims in that matter with prejudice. The motions to dismiss the Hamilton and Ha amended complaints are fully briefed and remain pending.
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.
Dickey Litigation
On October 26, 2015, a putative class action complaint captioned Dickey et al. v. AMD, No. 15-cv-04922 was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs allege that the Company misled consumers by using the term “eight cores” in connection with the marketing of certain AMD FX CPUs that are based on the Company’s “Bulldozer” core architecture. The plaintiffs allege these products cannot perform eight calculations simultaneously, without restriction. The plaintiffs seek to obtain damages under several causes of action for a nationwide class of consumers who allegedly were deceived into purchasing certain Bulldozer-based CPUs that were marketed as containing eight cores. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees. On December 21, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted on April 7, 2016. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint with a narrowed putative class definition, which the Court dismissed upon the Company’s motion on October 31, 2016. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On June 14, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss, and allowing the plaintiffs to move forward with a portion of their complaint. On March 27, 2018, plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. The putative class definition does not encompass the Company’s RyzenTM or EPYCTM processors.
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.
Kim Securities Litigation
On January 16, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Kim et al. v. AMD, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00321 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 Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock during the period February 21, 2017 through January 11, 2018. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the Company and the individual officers regarding a security vulnerability (Spectre), which statements and omissions, the plaintiff claims, allegedly caused the Company’s common stock price to be artificially inflated during the purported class period. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.
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.
Hauck Litigation
Since January 19, 2018, three putative class action complaints have been filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California: (1) Diana Hauck et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-0047, filed on January 19, 2018; (2) Brian Speck et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-0744, filed on February 4, 2018; and (3) Nathan Barnes and Jonathan Caskey-Medina, et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00883, filed on February 9, 2018. On April 9, 2018, the court consolidated these cases and ordered that Diana Hauck et al. v. AMD, Inc. serve as the lead case. On June 13, 2018, six plaintiffs (from California, Louisiana, Florida, and Massachusetts) filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging that the Company failed to disclose its processors’ alleged vulnerability to Spectre. Plaintiffs further allege that the Company's processors cannot perform at its advertised processing speeds without exposing consumers to Spectre, and that any “patches” to remedy this security vulnerability will result in degradation of processor performance. The plaintiffs seek damages under several causes of action on behalf of a nationwide class and four state subclasses (California, Florida, Massachusetts, Louisiana) of consumers who purchased AMD processors and/or devices containing AMD processors. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees, equitable relief, and restitution.
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.
Zeng Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
On March 8, 2018, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned Zeng v. Su, et al., Case No. 18CIV01192 was filed against the Company (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of the Company’s directors and officers in the San Mateo 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, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. 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 Spectre, which statements and omissions, the plaintiffs claim, allegedly operated to artificially inflate the price paid for the Company's common stock during the period.
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.
In re Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
Two purported shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed against the Company (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of its directors and officers in the United States District Court, Northern District of California: (1) Jacqueline Dolby, derivatively on behalf of AMD, Inc. v. Su et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-03575, filed on June 14, 2018; and (2) Gusinsky Trust, derivatively on behalf of AMD, Inc. v. Su et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-03811, filed on June 26, 2018. The complaints purport to assert claims against the Company and certain individual directors and officers for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The complaints seek damages purportedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the Company and the individual directors and officers regarding Spectre. The plaintiffs allege that these statements and omissions operated to artificially inflate the price paid for the Company's common stock during the period. On July 12, 2018, the court consolidated the Dolby and Gusinsky Trust shareholder derivative lawsuits under the caption In re Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation.
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.
Quarterhill Inc. Litigation
On July 2, 2018, three entities named Aquila Innovations, Inc. (Aquila), Collabo Innovations, Inc. (Collabo), and Polaris Innovations, Ltd. (Polaris), filed separate patent infringement complaints against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Aquila alleges that the Company infringes two patents (6,239,614 and 6,895,519) relating to power management; Collabo alleges that the Company infringes one patent (7,930,575) related to power management; and Polaris alleges that the Company infringes two patents (6,728,144 and 8,117,526) relating to control or use of dynamic random-access memory, or DRAM. Each of the three complaints seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest, fees, expenses, and costs against the Company; Aquila and Collabo also seek enhanced damages. Aquila, Collabo, and Polaris each appear to be related to a patent assertion entity named Quarterhill Inc. (formerly WiLAN Inc.).
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 business, financial position and results of operations or cash flows.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||