Apple (AAPL)

Vogel v. Jobs et al.

Plaintiff 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

39

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. The Court has not yet issued a ruling.

40

Because of the following factors, as well as other factors affecting the Company’s financial condition and operating results, past financial performance should not be considered to be a reliable indicator of future performance, and investors should not use historical trends to anticipate results or trends in future periods.

Vogel v. Jobs et al.

Plaintiff 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 for leave.

38

Because of the following factors, as well as other factors affecting the Company’s financial condition and operating results, past financial performance should not be considered to be a reliable indicator of future performance, and investors should not use historical trends to anticipate results or trends in future periods.

Vogel v. Jobs et al.

Plaintiff 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.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of the Company's fiscal year ended September 29, 2007.

33

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

The Company's common stock is traded on the over-the-counter market and is quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol AAPL and on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange under the symbol APCD.

Vogel v. Jobs et al.

Plaintiff 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.

NAME="di19701_item_4._submission_of___di102387">


Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of the Company's fiscal year ended September 29, 2007.

33

NAME="page_dk19701_1_34">

NAME="dk19701_part_ii">


PART II

NAME="dk19701_item_5._market_for_registrant___ite04666">
Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

The Company's common stock is traded on the over-the-counter market and is quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol AAPL and on the
Frankfurt Stock Exchange under the symbol APCD.

Vogel v. Jobs et al.

Plaintiff 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. The Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on June 8, 2007.  The hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for September 7, 2007.

Vogel v. Jobs et al.

Plaintiff 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’ responses to the complaint are not yet due.

Vogel v. Jobs et al.

Plaintiff 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.  The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s stock from December 1, 2005 through August 11, 2006, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as well as control person claims.  On January 19, 2007, the

36

Court appointed the New York City Employees’ Retirement System as lead plaintiff.  Defendants’ responses to the complaint are not yet due.

Vogel v. Jobs et al.

Plaintiff 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.  The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s stock from December 1, 2005 through August 11, 2006, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as well as control person claims.  A motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and counsel was scheduled to be heard on December 4, 2006 but was taken off calendar when the case was re-assigned to the Hon. Jeremy Fogel.  The motion therefore is still pending.  Defendants’ responses to the complaint are not yet due.

Vogel v. Jobs et al.

Plaintiff 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. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s stock from December 1, 2005 through August 11, 2006, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as well as control person claims. A motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and counsel was scheduled to be heard on December 4, 2006 but was taken off calendar when the case was re-assigned to the Hon. Jeremy Fogel. The motion therefore is still pending. Defendants’ responses to the complaint are not yet due.

Vogel v. Jobs et
al.

Plaintiff 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. The lawsuit purports to be
brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s stock from December 1,
2005 through August 11, 2006, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as well as control person claims. A
motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and counsel was scheduled to be heard
on December 4, 2006 but was taken off calendar when the case was
re-assigned to the Hon. Jeremy Fogel. The motion therefore is still pending. Defendants’
responses to the complaint are not yet due.