Apple 2008 Annual Report Download - page 36

Table of Contents
Union Fédérale des Consummateurs—Que Choisir v. Apple Computer France S.à.r.l. and iTunes S.à.r.l.
Plaintiff, a consumer association in France, filed this complaint on February 9, 2005 alleging that the above-
listed entities are violating consumer
law by (1) omitting to mention that the iPod is allegedly not compatible with music from online music services other than the iTunes Store and
that the music from the iTunes Store is only compatible with the iPod and (2) allegedly tying the sales of iPods to the iTunes Store and vice
versa. Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief. The first hearing on the case took place on May 24, 2005. The Company’s
response to the complaint was served on November 8, 2005. Plaintiff’s responsive pleading was filed on February 10, 2006. The Company filed
a reply on June 6, 2006 and UFC filed a response on September 19, 2006.
Vitt v. Apple Computer, Inc.
Plaintiff filed this purported class action on November 7, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of the iBook G4 alleging that the computer’s logic board fails at an abnormally high rate. The
complaint alleges violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition) and California Business & Professions
Code §17500 (false advertising). Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on January 19,
2007, which the Court granted on March 13, 2007. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 26, 2007. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss on August 16, 2007, which was heard on October 4, 2007. The Court has not yet issued a ruling.
Vogel v. Jobs et al. (2006 Action)
Plaintiffs filed this purported class action on August 24, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against
the Company and certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to
maximize certain defendants’
profits, failing to properly account for those grants and issuing false financial statements. On January 19, 2007, the
Court appointed the New York City Employees’ Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On March 23, 2007, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of several classes of holders of the Company’s stock
and asserts claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as well as state law. The Consolidated Complaint seeks
rescission of amendments to various stock option and other incentive compensation plans, an accounting and damages in an unspecified amount.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 8, 2007, which was heard on September 7, 2007. On November 14, 2007, the Court issued an order
dismissing all securities claims with prejudice, and held that any amended complaint could only be styled as a derivative case. On December 14,
2007, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended consolidated class action complaint. On January 23, 2008, defendants filed an
opposition to plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s motion was heard on March 21, 2008. On May 14, 2008, the Court issued an order denying plaintiffs’
motion for leave to amend. The court entered judgment dismissing the case on June 12, 2008. On June 17, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal. Plaintiffs’ appeal is pending.
Vogel v. Apple Inc., et al. (2008 Action)
Plaintiff filed this purported class action on June 27, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company and certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. The allegations, which arise out of the Company’s past stock
option practices, are similar to those in the 2006 Vogel v. Jobs et al. action that was dismissed on June 12, 2008, as described above. The
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of several classes of holders of the Company’s stock and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20
(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to various stock option and other incentive compensation
plans, an accounting and damages in an unspecified amount. On July 22, 2008, the Court stayed this case pending the appeal in the 2006 Action.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
None.
33