Apple 1998 Annual Report Download - page 61

NOTE 9--COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (CONTINUED)
LS MEN'S CLOTHING DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION FUND V. MICHAEL SPINDLER ET AL.
In May 1996, an action was filed in the California Superior Court naming as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors and seeking compensatory and punitive damages for alleged misrepresentation and omission of material facts about the
Company's operations and financial results. Between May 1996 and November 1997, the complaint has been amended several times as a result
of the Court's rulings upon various demurrers of the Company. In January 1998, the Company and three individual defendants brought a
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, and, in March 1998, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the third amended complaint
without leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Sixth Appellate District in June 1998. Oral arguments related to this appeal have
not yet been scheduled, and the Court has not yet ruled.
"REPETITIVE STRESS INJURY" LITIGATION
The Company was named in approximately 60 lawsuits between 1991 to 1995, alleging that plaintiffs incurred so-called "repetitive stress"
injuries to their upper extremities as a result of using keyboards and/ or mouse input devices sold by the Company. These actions are similar to
those filed against other major suppliers of personal computers. All but three of the cases against the Company have been dismissed, either
voluntarily or by Court order. The remaining cases are inactive and the Company believes they are likely to be dismissed.
MONITOR-SIZE LITIGATION
In August 1995, the Company was named, along with 41 other entities, including computer manufacturers and computer monitor vendors, in a
putative nationwide class action filed in the California Superior Court for Orange County, styled Keith Long et al. v. AAmazing Technologies
Corp. et al. The complaint alleges that each of the defendants engaged in false or misleading advertising with respect to the size of computer
monitor screens. Also in August 1995, the Company was named as the sole defendant in a purported class action alleging similar claims filed in
the New Jersey Superior Court for Camden County, entitled Mahendri Shah v. Apple Computer, Inc. Subsequently, in November 1995, the
Company, along with 26 other entities, was named in a purported class action alleging similar claims filed in the New Jersey Superior Court for
Essex County, entitled Maizes & Maizes v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al.. The complaints in all of these cases seek restitution in the form of
refunds or product exchange, damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees. In December 1995, the California Judicial Council ordered all of
the California actions, including Long, coordinated for purposes of pretrial proceedings and trial before a single judge and were subsequently
coordinated under the name In re Computer Monitor Litigation. In July 1996, Judge Cahill ordered all of the California cases dismissed without
leave to amend as to plaintiffs residing in California. In March 1998, the Court granted final approval of a settlement resolving all claims.
Objectors to the settlement filed appeals from the Court's order approving the settlement; one such appeal remains pending.
EXPONENTIAL TECHNOLOGY INC. V. APPLE
Plaintiff alleges that the Company, which was an investor in Exponential Technology (Exponential), breached its fiduciary duty to Exponential
by misusing confidential information about its financial situation to cause Exponential to fail, and that the Company fraudulently
misrepresented the facts about allowing Exponential to sell its processors to the Company's Mac OS licensees. The lawsuit is filed in California
State Court. In November 1997, the Company filed a demurrer to portions of the complaint, which the Court granted in part. In January 1998,
plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. In March 1998, the Company filed a cross-complaint for damages against plaintiff alleging breach of
contract, negligent
58