In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc. for Apple (AAPL)

Send us Feedback

Apple (AAPL)

	SUMMARY

	BULLS

	BEARS

	TOPICS

	DATA CENTRAL

	STOCK CHART

	SEC FILINGS

	BALANCE

	INCOME

	CASH FLOW

AAPL » Topics » In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc.

This excerpt taken from the AAPL 10-Q filed Jan 23, 2009.

In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc.

On July 5, 2006, a putative derivative action captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et. al., was filed in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara. A number of related actions were filed in the subsequent weeks, and have been consolidated into a single action captioned In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 1:06CV066692, assigned to the Hon. Joseph Huber. These actions purport to assert claims on behalf of the Company against several current and former executive officers and members of the Board of Directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for and take tax deductions for those grants and issuing false financial statements. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. A consolidated complaint was filed on October 5, 2006, alleging a variety of causes of action under California law, including claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Corporations Code, abuse of control, accounting, constructive trust, rescission, deceit, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. On December 7, 2006, the Court granted the Company’s motion to stay these actions. The parties have reached a settlement, and the Court has granted final approval of the settlement. On November 24, 2008, the Court entered final judgment and dismissed the case.

On November 3, 2006, the Boston Retirement Board, a purported shareholder, filed a petition for writ of mandate against the Company in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara (Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer Inc.). The petition sought to compel the Company to allow inspection of certain corporate records relating to the Company’s option practices and the Special Committee’s investigation. Following a trial held on September 24, 2007, the Court granted the petition for inspection but narrowed the scope of the records to be produced. On April 16, 2008, the Boston Retirement Board filed a derivative action in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara. On July 31, 2008, Boston Retirement Board attempted to serve the new complaint on the Company. On September 15, 2008, defendants filed a motion to quash service of summons. On October 17, 2008, the Court denied defendants’ motion to quash. On October 20, 2008, defendants requested consolidation of this action with In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 1:06CV066692, and a stay of the action. On November 6, 2008, Boston Retirement Board filed a motion for fees. On November 7, 2008, the Court issued an order relating this action to the State Derivative Litigation. A stipulation for dismissal was filed on December 10, 2008, in which Boston Retirement Board agrees to dismiss the case with prejudice upon a final order regarding its fees motion. On January 15, 2009, the Court denied Boston Retirement Board’s motion for fees.

In re Apple iPod Nano Products Liability Litigation (formerly Wimmer v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Moschella, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Calado, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Kahan, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Jennings, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Rappel v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Mayo v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Valencia v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Williamson v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Sioson v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Beginning on October 19, 2005, eight complaints were filed in various United States District Courts and two complaints were filed in California State Court alleging 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. The Company answered the Master Complaint on November 20, 2006.

The two California State Court actions were coordinated on May 4, 2006, and assigned to the Hon. Carl 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. The parties have reached a settlement and the Court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The parties’ request for final approval of the settlement is pending.

These excerpts taken from the AAPL 10-K filed Nov 5, 2008.

In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc.

On July 5, 2006, a putative derivative action captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et. al., was filed in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara. A number of related actions were filed in the subsequent weeks, and have been consolidated into a single action captioned In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 1:06CV066692, assigned to the Hon. Joseph Huber. These actions purport to assert claims on behalf of the Company against several current and former executive officers and members of the Board of Directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for and take tax deductions for those grants and issuing false financial statements. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. A consolidated complaint was filed on October 5, 2006, alleging a variety of causes of action under California law, including claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Corporations Code, abuse of control, accounting, constructive trust, rescission, deceit, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. On December 7, 2006, the Court granted the Company’s motion to stay these actions. The parties have reached a settlement, and the Court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The parties’ request for final approval of the settlement is pending.

complaint on the Company. On September 15, 2008, defendants filed a motion to quash service of summons. On October 17, 2008, the Court denied defendants’ motion to quash. On October 20, 2008, defendants requested consolidation of this action with In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 1:06CV066692, and a stay of the action.

In re Apple iPod Nano Products Liability Litigation (formerly Wimmer v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Moschella, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Calado, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Kahan, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Jennings, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Rappel v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Mayo v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Valencia v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Williamson v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Sioson v. Apple Computer, Inc.

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. 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. Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc. have served Notices of Intent to Defend. The parties have reached a settlement of the Quebec cases, and have received final court approval of the settlement.

In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston
Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc.

On July 5, 2006, a putative derivative action captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et. al.,
was filed in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara. A number of related actions were filed in the subsequent weeks, and have been consolidated into a single action captioned In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation,
No. 1:06CV066692, assigned to the Hon. Joseph Huber. These actions purport to assert claims on behalf of the Company against several current and former executive officers and members of the Board of Directors alleging improper backdating of
stock option grants to maximize certain defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for and take tax deductions for those grants and issuing false financial statements. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. A consolidated complaint
was filed on October 5, 2006, alleging a variety of causes of action under California law, including claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Corporations Code, abuse of control, accounting,
constructive trust, rescission, deceit, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. On December 7, 2006, the Court granted the Company’s motion to stay these actions. The parties have reached a settlement, and the Court has granted
preliminary approval of the settlement. The parties’ request for final approval of the settlement is pending.

complaint on the Company. On September 15, 2008, defendants filed a motion to quash service of summons. On October 17, 2008, the Court denied
defendants’ motion to quash. On October 20, 2008, defendants requested consolidation of this action with In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 1:06CV066692, and a stay of the action.

STYLE="margin-top:12px;margin-bottom:0px">In re Apple iPod Nano Products Liability Litigation (formerly Wimmer v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Moschella, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Calado, et al. v.
Apple Computer, Inc.; Kahan, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Jennings, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Rappel v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Mayo v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Valencia v. Apple Computer, Inc.;
Williamson v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Sioson v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Beginning on October 19, 2005, eight complaints were filed in
various United States District Courts and two complaints were filed in California State Court alleging 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. The Company answered the Master Complaint on November 20, 2006.

The two California State Court
actions were coordinated on May 4, 2006, and assigned to the Hon. Carl 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. The parties have reached a settlement, which is subject to court approval.

STYLE="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:0px">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. 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. Apple Canada Inc. and
Apple Computer, Inc. have served Notices of Intent to Defend. The parties have reached a settlement of the Quebec cases, and have received final court approval of the settlement.

FACE="Times New Roman" SIZE="2">Individual Networks, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Plaintiff filed this action against the Company on April 24, 2007 in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,117,516, entitled “Method and System for Providing a Customized Media List.” Plaintiff alleges certain
features of the iTunes store infringe the patent. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed an answer on July 2, 2007, denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company
also asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity, as well as a counterclaim against Individual Networks LLC for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,724,567. The trial is scheduled for November 9, 2009.
The Company has filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office requesting reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,117,516. The Markman hearing took place on October 8, 2008. The Company awaits the Court’s Markman
ruling.

This excerpt taken from the AAPL 10-Q filed Jul 23, 2008.

In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc.

improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for and take tax deductions for those grants and issuing false financial statements. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. A consolidated complaint was filed on October 5, 2006, alleging a variety of causes of action under California law, including claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Corporations Code, abuse of control, accounting, constructive trust, rescission, deceit, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. On December 7, 2006, the Court granted the Company’s motion to stay these actions.

This excerpt taken from the AAPL 10-Q filed May 1, 2008.

In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc.

This excerpt taken from the AAPL 10-Q filed Feb 1, 2008.

In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc.

These excerpts taken from the AAPL 10-K filed Nov 15, 2007.

In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc.

defendants' profits, failing to properly account for and take tax deductions for those grants and issuing false financial statements. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. A consolidated complaint was filed on October 5, 2006, alleging a variety of causes of action under California law, including claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Corporations Code, abuse of control, accounting, constructive trust, rescission, deceit, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. On December 7, 2006, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay these actions.

Beginning on October 19, 2005, eight complaints were filed in various United States District Courts and two complaints were filed in California State Court alleging 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. The Company answered the Master Complaint on November 20, 2006.

In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple
Computer, Inc.

defendants'
profits, failing to properly account for and take tax deductions for those grants and issuing false financial statements. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. A consolidated
complaint was filed on October 5, 2006, alleging a variety of causes of action under California law, including claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the
California Corporations Code, abuse of control, accounting, constructive trust, rescission, deceit, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. On December 7, 2006, the Court granted the
Company's motion to stay these actions.

In re Apple iPod Nano Products Liability Litigation (formerly Wimmer v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Moschella, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Calado, et al. v. Apple Computer,
Inc.; Kahan, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Jennings, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Rappel
v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Mayo v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Valencia v. Apple Computer, Inc.;
Williamson v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Sioson v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Beginning on October 19, 2005, eight complaints were filed in various United States District Courts and two complaints were filed in California State Court alleging 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. The Company answered the Master Complaint
on November 20, 2006.

The
two California State Court actions were coordinated on May 4, 2006, and assigned to the Hon. Carl 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. 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. Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc. have served Notices of Intent to Defend.

This excerpt taken from the AAPL 10-Q filed Aug 8, 2007.

In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc.

This excerpt taken from the AAPL 10-Q filed May 10, 2007.

In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc.

defendant. A consolidated complaint was filed on October 5, 2006, alleging a variety of causes of action under California law, including claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Corporations Code, abuse of control, accounting, constructive trust, rescission, deceit, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. On December 7, 2006, the Court granted the Company’s motion to stay these actions.

This excerpt taken from the AAPL 10-Q filed Feb 2, 2007.

In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc.

This excerpt taken from the AAPL 10-Q filed Dec 29, 2006.

In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc.

On July 5, 2006, a putative derivative action captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et. al., was filed in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara. A number of related actions were filed in the subsequent weeks, and have been consolidated into a single action captioned In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 1:06CV066692, assigned to the Hon. Joseph Huber. These actions purport to assert claims on behalf of the Company against several current and former executive officers and members of the Board of Directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for and take tax deductions for those grants and issuing false financial statements. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. A consolidated complaint was filed on October 5, 2006, alleging a variety of causes of action under California law, including claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Corporations Code, abuse of control, accounting, constructive trust, rescission, deceit, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. On December 7, 2006, the Court granted the Company’s motion to stay these actions.

These excerpts taken from the AAPL 10-K filed Dec 29, 2006.

In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc.

In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation
(formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State
Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc.

On July 5, 2006, a putative derivative action
captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et. al.,
was filed in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara. A number
of related actions were filed in the subsequent weeks, and have been
consolidated into a single action captioned In re Apple Computer, Inc.
Derivative Litigation, No. 1:06CV066692, assigned to the Hon.
Joseph Huber. These actions purport to assert claims on behalf of the Company
against several current and former executive officers and members of the Board
of Directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize
certain defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for and take tax
deductions for those grants and issuing false financial statements. The Company
is named as a nominal defendant. A consolidated complaint was filed on October 5,
2006, alleging a variety of causes of action under California law, including
claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the
California Corporations Code, abuse of control, accounting, constructive trust,
rescission, deceit, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. On December 7,
2006, the Court granted the Company’s motion to stay these actions.

Apple (AAPL)

AAPL » Topics » In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al. and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

EXCERPTS ON THIS PAGE:

RELATED TOPICS for AAPL: