Apple (AAPL)

Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on December 5, 2002, alleging that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices relating to its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional misrepresentation and concealment. Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike, which were granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint. On October 29, 2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel in his role as counsel to the purported class and to the general public. The Court granted the motion but allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. Plaintiff did engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the class. The Company moved to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel and to have the Court dismiss the general public claims for equitable relief. The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that the class action claims were dismissed. The Company appealed the ruling and the case was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal on August 17, 2005, affirming the trial court’s decision. The Company filed a Petition for review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied on November 23, 2005.  The case was remanded back to the trial court.  The parties have reached a settlement and the matter is concluded. Settlement of this matter did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on December 5, 2002, alleging that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices relating to its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional misrepresentation and concealment. Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike, which were granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint. On October 29, 2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel in his role as counsel to the purported class and to the general public. The Court granted the motion but allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. Plaintiff did engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the class. The Company moved to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel and to have the Court dismiss the general public claims for equitable relief. The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that the class action claims were dismissed. The Company appealed the ruling and the case was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal on August 17, 2005, affirming the trial court’s decision. The Company filed a Petition for review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied on November 23, 2005. The case was remanded back to the trial court. The parties have reached a settlement and the matter is concluded. Settlement of this matter did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

38

Davis v. Apple
Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff filed this
purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on December 5,
2002, alleging that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive business
practices relating to its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan.
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of California Business &
Professions Code §17200
(unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), breach of
the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional misrepresentation and concealment.
Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a
demurrer and motion to strike, which were granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint. The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003
denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Plaintiff
subsequently amended his complaint. On October 29, 2003, the Company filed
a motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel in his role as counsel to the
purported class and to the general public. The Court granted the motion but
allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. Plaintiff did engage new
counsel for the general public, but not for the class. The Company moved to
disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel and to have the Court dismiss the general
public claims for equitable relief. The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff’s
new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that the class
action claims were dismissed. The Company appealed the ruling and the case was
stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The Court of Appeals denied the
appeal on August 17, 2005, affirming the trial court’s decision. The
Company filed a Petition for review with the California Supreme Court, which
was denied on November 23, 2005. The case was remanded back to the trial
court. The parties have reached a settlement and the matter is concluded. Settlement
of this matter did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial
position or results of operations.

38

Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on December 5, 2002, alleging that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices relating to its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional misrepresentation and concealment. Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike which were granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint. On October 29, 2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel in his role as counsel to the purported class and to the general public. The Court granted the motion but allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. Plaintiff did engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the class. The Company moved to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel and to have the Court dismiss the general public claims for equitable relief. The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that the class action claims are dismissed. The Company appealed the ruling and the case was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal on August 17, 2005, affirming the trial court’s decision. The Company filed a Petition for review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied on November 23, 2005. The case has been remanded back to the trial court.

Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on December 5, 2002, alleging that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices relating to its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional misrepresentation and concealment. Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike which were granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Plaintiff subsequently amended its complaint. On October 29, 2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel in his role as counsel to the purported class and to the general public. The Court granted the motion but allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. Plaintiff did engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the class. The Company moved to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel and to have the Court dismiss the general public claims for equitable relief. The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that the class action claims are dismissed. The Company appealed the ruling and the case was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The Court of Appeal denied the appeal on August 17, 2005, affirming the trial court’s decision. The Company filed a Petition for review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied on November 23, 2005.

Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on December 5, 2002, alleging that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices relating to its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of the California Business and Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition) and §17500 (false advertising), breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional misrepresentation and concealment. Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike which were granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Plaintiff subsequently amended its complaint. On October 29, 2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel in his role as counsel to the purported class and to the general public. The Court granted the motion but allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. Plaintiff did engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the class. The Company moved to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel and to have the Court dismiss the general public claims for equitable relief. The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that the class action claims are dismissed. The Company appealed the ruling and the case was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The Court of Appeal denied the appeal

20

on August 17, 2005, affirming the trial court’s decision. The Company filed a Petition for review with the California Supreme Court which was denied on November 23, 2005.

Davis v. Apple
Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff filed this
purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on December 5,
2002, alleging that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive business
practices relating to its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan.
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of the California Business and
Professions Code §17200
(unfair competition) and §17500
(false advertising), breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional
misrepresentation and concealment. Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and
other relief. The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike which were
granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company filed
an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all allegations and asserting numerous
affirmative defenses. Plaintiff subsequently amended its complaint. On October 29,
2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel in his role
as counsel to the purported class and to the general public. The Court granted
the motion but allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. Plaintiff did
engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the class. The Company
moved to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel and to have the Court dismiss the
general public claims for equitable relief. The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff’s
new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that the class
action claims are dismissed. The Company appealed the ruling and the case was
stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The Court of Appeal denied the appeal

20

on August 17, 2005,
affirming the trial court’s decision. The Company filed a Petition for review
with the California Supreme Court which was denied on November 23, 2005.

Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on December 5, 2002, alleging that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices relating to its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of the California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional misrepresentation and concealment. Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike which were granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Plaintiff subsequently amended its complaint. On October 29, 2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel in his role as counsel to the purported class and to the general public. The Court granted the motion but allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. Plaintiff did engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the class. The Company moved to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel and to have the Court dismiss the general public claims for equitable relief. The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that the class action claims are dismissed. The Company appealed the ruling and the  case is stayed pending  the outcome of the appeal. The Court heard oral argument on July 12, 2005 and has not yet issued a ruling.

Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on December 5, 2002, alleging that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices relating to its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of the California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional misrepresentation and concealment. Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike which were granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Plaintiff subsequently amended its complaint. On October 29, 2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel in his role as counsel to the purported class and to the general public. The Court granted the motion, but allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. Plaintiff did engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the class. The Company moved to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel and to have the Court dismiss the general public claims for equitable relief. The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that the class action claims are dismissed. The case is stayed pending an appeal.

Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on December 5, 2002, alleging that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices relating to its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of the California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional misrepresentation and concealment. Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike which were granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Plaintiff subsequently amended its complaint. On October 29, 2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel in his role as counsel to the purported class and to the general public. The Court granted the motion, but allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. Plaintiff did engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the class. The Company

46

Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on December 5, 2002, alleging that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices relating to its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of the California Business and Professions Code §17200 and §17500, breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional misrepresentation and concealment. Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike which were granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Plaintiff subsequently amended its complaint. On October 29, 2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel in his role as counsel to the purported class and to the general public. The Court granted the motion, but allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. Plaintiff did engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the class. The Company moved to disqualify Plaintiff's new counsel and to have the Court dismiss the general public claims for equitable relief. The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff's new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that the class action claims are dismissed. The case is stayed pending an appeal.

Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on December 5, 2002, alleging that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive
business practices relating to its AppleCare
Extended Service and Warranty Plan. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of the California Business and Professions Code §17200 and §17500, breach of the
Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional misrepresentation and concealment. Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike which
were granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Plaintiff
subsequently amended its complaint. On October 29, 2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel in his role as counsel to the purported class and to the general public.
The Court granted the motion, but allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. Plaintiff did engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the class. The Company moved to disqualify
Plaintiff's new counsel and to have the Court dismiss the general public claims for equitable relief. The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff's new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but
did confirm that the class action claims are dismissed. The case is stayed pending an appeal.