Intel 1994 Annual Report Download - page 10

positions in microprocessor and math coprocessor markets.
On January 11, 1995, in connection with the settlement of various legal matters between the two companies, the parties agreed to dismiss all
claims, counterclaims and defenses raised in this action.
Consumer Class Action Suits
Machtinger vs. Intel, Cook Co. Circuit Court, IL (94-C-7300) Anthony Uzzo & Co. vs. Intel, Santa Clara Co. Superior Court (CV745729)
Liberty Bell Equip. vs. Intel, Santa Clara Co. Superior Court (CV745803) Sloane vs. Intel, Santa Clara Co. Superior Court (CV745876) Klein
vs. Intel, Santa Clara Co. Superior Court (CV745895) Scalzo vs. Intel, Santa Clara Co. Superior Court (CV745924) Rep. Electronic Products
vs. Intel and Dell, Wayne Co. Circuit Court, MI (94-435132CK) Fingold vs. Intel, Santa Clara Co. Superior Court (CV746031) Lees et al vs.
Intel, Camden Co. Superior Court, NJ (L 11508 94) Kurtz, Orman vs. Intel, Santa Clara Co. Superior Court (CV746116) Data Technology
Services vs. Intel, U.S.D.C., Dist. of CO (94-N-2886) Carney vs. Intel, Santa Clara Co. Superior Court (CV746128)
During the period from November 29, 1994 through December 19, 1994, numerous civil consumer lawsuits were filed in state courts in various
states against the Company. Although the complaints differ, these actions generally allege that Intel breached express and implied warranties,
engaged in deceptive advertising and otherwise committed consumer fraud by shipping Pentium processors which contained a divide problem
in the floating point unit, and by failing to disclose it. The suits seek compensatory and punitive damages of unspecified amounts. One of the
actions has since been withdrawn. A Stipulation of Settlement covering all remaining pending actions was filed in the Santa Clara Superior
Court on March 22, 1995. Preliminary approval was granted by the Court on March 24, 1995.
Weisberg vs. C. Barrett, W.H. Chen, A. Grove, D.J. Guzy, G. Moore, M. Palevsky,
A. Rock, J. Shaw, L. Vadasz, D. Yoffie, C. Young and Intel Southern District, NY (C95-0674)
On January 31, 1995, the plaintiff brought this suit in Federal Court in New York (Southern District) as both a derivative and stockholder
action to invalidate the Company's Executive Officer Bonus Plan, alleging that the plan is so vague and misleading as to be ambiguous.
Plaintiff seeks (i) cancellation of the stockholders' approval of the Plan, (ii) unspecified damages to Intel by the Board of Directors, and (iii) to
enjoin implementation of the Plan and the payment of any bonuses under the Plan.
Although the ultimate outcome of any outstanding claims cannot be determined at this time, management, including internal counsel, does not
believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on Intel's financial position or overall trends in results of operations.
PAGE 13
B. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS
Intel has been named to the California and U.S. federal Superfund lists for three of its sites and has completed, along with two other companies,
a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility study with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate the ground water in areas
adjacent to its Mountain View, California site. The EPA has issued a Record of Decision with respect to a groundwater cleanup plan at that
site. Under the California and U.S. federal Superfund statutes, liability for cleanup of the Mountain View site and adjacent area is joint and
several. The Company has reached agreement in principle with those same two companies which should significantly limit the Company's
liabilities under the proposed cleanup plan. Also, the Company has completed extensive studies at its other sites and is engaged in cleanup at
several of these sites. In the opinion of management, including internal counsel, the potential losses to the Company in excess of amounts
already accrued arising out of these matters would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, even if joint and
several liability were to be assessed.
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
None.
PAGE 14
PART II
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER
MATTERS
(a) Reference is made to the information regarding market, market price range and dividend information appearing under "Financial
Information by Quarter (Unaudited)" on page 31 of the Registrant's Annual Report to Stockholders which information is hereby incorporated
by reference.
(b) As of February 25, 1995, there were 43,262 holders of record of the Registrant's Common Stock.