Luxottica Group, S.p.A. (LUX)

Cole Consumer Class Action Lawsuit

In June 2006, Cole and its subsidiaries were sued by a consumer in a class action that alleged various statutory violations related to the operations of Pearle Vision, Inc. and Pearle Vision Care, Inc. in California. The claims and remedies sought are similar to those asserted in the LensCrafters and EYEXAM case. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, which provides for a store voucher at Pearle Vision or LensCrafters for each class member and the payment of attorneys’ fees and costs. On December 19, 2008, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered final judgment. The settlement became final on March 17, 2009.

Amounts paid to settle this litigation and related costs incurred for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 were not material.

Amounts paid to settle this litigation and related costs incurred for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 were not material.

Cole Consumer Class Action Lawsuit

In June 2006, in Seiken v. Pearle Vision, Inc. et al, Cole and its subsidiaries were sued by a consumer in a purported class action which alleges various statutory violations related to the operation of Pearle Vision and its affiliated HMO, Pearle VisionCare in California. The claims and remedies sought are similar to those asserted in the LensCrafters and EYEXAM case. In December 2006, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint but allowed plaintiff an opportunity to replead. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in February 2007, and a hearing on the motion was held in March 2007. Such motion to dismiss was denied. Plaintiff has moved for class certification and the oral arguments relating to that petition,

F-49

Cole Consumer Class Action Lawsuit

In June 2006, in Seiken v. Pearle Vision, Inc. et al, Cole and its subsidiaries were sued by a consumer in a purported class action which alleges various statutory violations related to the operation of Pearle Vision and its affiliated HMO, Pearle VisionCare in California. The claims and remedies sought are similar to those asserted in the LensCrafters and EYEXAM case. In December 2006, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint but allowed plaintiff an opportunity to replead. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in February 2007, and a hearing on the motion was held in March 2007. Such motion to dismiss was denied. Plaintiff has moved for class certification and the oral arguments relating to that petition, originally scheduled for April 4, 2008, have been postponed. Recently, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this case, subject to documentation and Court approval. The proposed settlement provides a store voucher at Pearle or Lenscrafters to each class member and the payment of attorneys’ fees and costs. A hearing to address approval of the settlement has not yet been scheduled. Although we believe that our operational practices in California comply with California law, if the settlement does not receive final approval and an adverse decision results, Pearle Vision or Pearle VisionCare may have to modify or cease their activities in California. In addition, the Cole subsidiaries might be required to pay damages and/or restitution, the amount of which might have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. Costs associated with this Cole class action litigation incurred for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 were approximately Euro 0.7 million and Euro 0.1 million, respectively. Management believes, based in part on advice from counsel, that no estimate of the range of possible losses, if any, can be made at this time.

Cole Consumer Class Action Lawsuit

In June 2006, in Seiken v. Pearle Vision, Inc. et al. (Case No. GIC 867529), Cole and its subsidiaries were sued by a consumer in a purported class action which alleges various statutory violations related to the operation of Pearle Vision and its affiliated HMO, Pearle VisionCare in California. The claims and remedies sought are similar to those asserted in the LensCrafters and EYEXAM case. In December 2006, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint but allowed plaintiff an opportunity to replead.  Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in February 2007, and a hearing on the motion was held in March 2007. Such motion to dismiss was denied. Although we believe that our operational practices in California comply with California law, an adverse decision in this action might cause Pearle Vision or Pearle VisionCare to modify or cease their activities in California. In addition, the Cole subsidiaries might be required to pay damages and/or restitution, the amount of which might have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.  Costs associated with this Cole class action litigation incurred for the year ended December 31, 2006 were approximately Euro 0.1 million. There were no related amounts recorded as liabilities reflected in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2006, as the liability was not reasonably estimable and probable.

In June 2006, in Seiken v. Pearle Vision, Inc. et al. (Case no. GIC 867529), Cole and its subsidiaries were sued by a consumer in a purported class action which alleges various statutory violations related to the operation of Pearle Vision and its affiliated HMO, Pearle VisionCare in California. The claims and remedies sought are similar to those asserted in the LensCrafters and EYEXAM case. In December 2006, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint but allowed plaintiff an opportunity to replead. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in February 2007, and a hearing on the motion was held in March 2007. Such motion to dismiss was denied. Although we believe that our operational practices in California comply with California law, an adverse decision in this action might cause Pearle Vision or Pearle VisionCare to modify or cease their activities in California. In addition, the Cole subsidiaries might be required to pay damages and/or restitution, the amount of which might have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. Costs associated with this Cole class action litigation incurred for the year ended December 31, 2006 were approximately Euro 137,000. There were no related amounts recorded as liabilities reflected in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2006, as the liability was not reasonably estimable and probable.