Intel 1995 Annual Report Download - page 9

general being utilized. Intel has other facilities available that it can equip to meet anticipated future demand. These include 4.7 million square
feet of building space under various stages of construction in the United States and abroad for manufacturing and administrative purposes.
(A) Includes an idle, 131,000-square-
foot facility formerly utilized for wafer fabrication and administration, which was sold in March 1996. (B)
The lease on a portion of the land used for these facilities expires in 2032.
(C) Leases on land expire in 1998.
PAGE 11
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
A. LITIGATION
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 differed, these actions generally alleged 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 sought compensatory and punitive damages of unspecified
amounts. A Stipulation of Settlement covering all actions was filed in the Santa Clara Superior Court on March 22, 1995 and became final on
June 22, 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 sought (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. A hearing was held on January 12, 1996 to consider and
approve a stipulated settlement and dismissal of the action. The Court approved the settlement, and an order of dismissal was signed and
became effective on January 22, 1996.
Thorn EMI North America, Inc. vs. Intel
and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., DEL (C95-199)
On March 29, 1995, Thorn EMI North America Inc. brought suit in Federal Court in Delaware against Intel and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
(AMD) alleging infringement of a U.S. patent relating to processes for manufacturing semiconductors, certain of which processes are utilized
in the manufacture of the Company's Pentium(R) and Pentium(R) Pro microprocessors. The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief and
unspecified damages. On September 8, 1995, Intel was granted a motion to sever its case from the AMD case. Trial of the plaintiff's claims
against Intel is presently set for June 1996. The Company believes this lawsuit to be without merit and will defend the case vigorously.
Although the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit 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.
PAGE12
B. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS
Intel has been named to the California and U.S. 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 groundwater in areas adjacent
to its former 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. Superfund statutes, liability for cleanup of the Mountain View site and adjacent area is joint and several. The
Company has reached agreement 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 will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or overall trends in results of operations, even if joint
and several liability were to be assessed.