Apple 2006 Annual Report Download - page 46

the Northern District of California); Williamson v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed on December 29, 2005, United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana); Sioson v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed on February 9, 2006, San Mateo County Superior Court; First Amended
Complaint filed March 16, 2006)
These federal and state court complaints allege that the Company’s iPod nano was defectively designed so that it scratches excessively during
normal use, rendering the screen unreadable. The federal actions were coordinated in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California and assigned to the Hon. Ronald Whyte pursuant to an April 17, 2006, order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
Plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated and Amended Master Complaint on September 21, 2006, alleging violations of California and other states’
consumer protection and warranty laws and claiming unjust enrichment. The Master Complaint alleges two putative plaintiff classes: (1) all
U.S. residents (excluding California residents) who purchased an iPod nano that was not manufactured or designed using processes necessary
to ensure normal resistance to scratching of the screen; and (2) all iPod nano purchasers other than U.S. residents who purchased an iPod nano
that was not manufactured or designed using processes necessary to ensure normal resistance to scratching of the screen. Pursuant to
stipulation, the Wimmer, Valencia, and Rappel federal complaints were dismissed without prejudice and the Mayo and Williamson complaints
were administratively closed without prejudice. The Company answered the Master Complaint on November 20, 2006.
The two California state actions were coordinated on May 4, 2006, and assigned to the Hon. West in Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiffs
filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on June 8, 2006, alleging violations of California state consumer protection, unfair
competition, false advertising, and warranty laws and claiming unjust enrichment. The Consolidated Complaint alleges a putative plaintiff class
of all California residents who own an iPod nano containing a manufacturing defect that results in the nano being susceptible to excessive
scratching. The Company answered the Consolidated Amended Complaint on October 6, 2006.
Two similar complaints, Carpentier v. Apple Canada, Inc. , and Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc. were filed in
Montreal, Quebec, Canada on October 27, 2005 and November 9, 2005, respectively, seeking authorization to institute class actions on behalf
of iPod nano purchasers in Quebec. The Royer-Brennan file was stayed in May 2006 in favor of the Carpentier file, in which Apple’s
preliminary motion for leave to file evidence will be heard on December 18, 2006. No further dates have been set. A similar complaint, Mund
v. Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc., was filed in Ontario, Canada on January 9, 2006 seeking authorization to institute a class
action on behalf of iPod nano purchasers in Canada. In the two Quebec class actions, a motion to stay the Royer-Brennan case is stayed in
favor of the previously filed Carpentier case. In the Ontario Action, Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc., have served Notices of Intent
to defend. On December 18, 2006, plaintiff’
s counsel advised that a substitution of attorneys will occur, most likely in January 2007. The file is
now stayed, and the Company’s motion to examine petitioner and for leave to file evidence at certification will be set after the new counsel
appears.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of the Company
’s fiscal year ended September 30, 2006.
45