Contingencies |
3 Months Ended | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mar. 30, 2019 | |||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |||||||||||||||||
| Contingencies |
Contingencies
Wessels, Hamilton and Ha 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.
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, the Company 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 Wessels plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on September 27, 2018. On October 4, 2018, the Federal Court issued an order dismissing the Hamilton and Ha amended complaints. The Hamilton plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on October 8, 2018, and the Ha plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on October 15, 2018.
On November 19, 2018, the Hamilton and Ha plaintiffs filed a motion seeking summary reversal of the order dismissing their claims. The Company opposed this motion on December 13, 2018, and the Court denied it on February 25, 2019. The Wessels, Hamilton, and Ha appeals are currently pending. Briefing in each appeal is scheduled to be completed later this year.
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 et al. 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. Pursuant to the court's order directing parties to litigate only eight of the causes of action in the consolidated amended complaint initially, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on July 13, 2018. On October 29, 2018, after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed one of their claims, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed six causes of action with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint on December 6, 2018. On January 3, 2019, the Company again moved to dismiss the subset of claims currently at issue. On April 4, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed all claims currently at issue with prejudice. A case management conference is scheduled for May 8, 2019 where the parties and the court will discuss how the case will proceed in light of the court's ruling.
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.
MediaTek Litigation
MediaTek, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 19-cv-368 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On February 21, 2019, MediaTek, Inc. filed suit against the Company, alleging infringement of six patents related to memory controllers and integrated circuit structures. On April 15, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss portions of MediaTek's complaint. On April 29, 2019, MediaTek filed an amended complaint.
On March 18, 2019, AMD Products (China) Co., Ltd. was provided with four complaints filed by MediaTek in the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen, China. Each complaint alleges infringement of one patent by certain AMD entities, identifies an exemplary product, and seeks injunctive and monetary relief:
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, 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 condition, cash flows or results of operations .
|