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

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

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, 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.

Oakley shareholder lawsuit. On June 26, 2007, the Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan filed a class action complaint, on behalf of itself and all other shareholders of Oakley, Inc. (“Oakley”), against Oakley and its Board of Directors in California Superior Court, County of Orange. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties to shareholders by approving Oakley’s merger with Luxottica and claimed that the price per share fixed by the merger agreement was inadequate and unfair. The defendants filed demurrers to the complaint, which the Court granted without prejudice. On September 14, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint containing the same allegations as the initial complaint and adding purported claims for breach of the duty of candor. Because the Company believed the allegations were without merit, on October 9, 2007, the defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. Rather than respond to that demurrer, the plaintiff admitted that its claims were moot and on January 4, 2008 filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses. The hearing for this motion took place on April 17, 2008. On May 29, 2008, the Court issued a ruling denying the plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses in its entirety. The court did not rule on the defendants’ demurrer to the amended complaint. On July 11, 2008, the Court entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice and denying the plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses. The plaintiff has appealed the Court’s May 29, 2008 ruling and the July 11, 2008 order.

Costs associated with this litigation incurred for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, were not material. 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.

Fair credit reporting act litigation. In January 2007, a complaint was filed against Oakley and certain of its subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging willful violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act related to the inclusion of credit card expiration dates on sales receipts. Plaintiff brought suit on behalf of a class of Oakley’s customers. Oakley denied any liability, and later entered into a settlement arrangement with Plaintiff that resulted in a complete release in favor of the Oakley defendants, with no cash payment to the class members but rather an agreement by Oakley to issue vouchers for the purchase of products at Oakley retail stores during a limited period of time. The settlement also provided for the payment of attorneys’ fees and claim administration costs by the Oakley defendants. An order approving this settlement was entered on November 24, 2008.

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

Texas LensCrafters class action lawsuit. In May 2008, two individual optometrists commenced an action against LensCrafters, Inc. and Luxottica Group S.p.A. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging violations of the Texas Optometry Act (“TOA”) and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and tortious interference with customer relations. The suit alleges that LensCrafters has attempted to control the optometrists’ professional judgment and that certain terms of the optometrists’

94

ANNUAL REPORT 2008

sub-lease agreements with LensCrafters violate the TOA. The suit seeks recovery of a civil penalty of up to US$ 1,000 for each day of a violation of the TOA, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. In August 2008, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, adding claims for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. In October 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint seeking to certify the case as a class action on behalf of all current and former LensCrafters’ sub-lease optometrists. Luxottica Group S.p.A. filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in October 2008. That motion is currently pending. The case was transferred to the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, in January, 2009, pursuant to the defendants’ motion to transfer venue. Although the Company believes that its operational practices in Texas comply with Texas law, if this action results in an adverse decision, LensCrafters may have to modify its activities in Texas. Further, LensCrafters and Luxottica Group might be required to pay statutory damages, the amount of which might have a material adverse effect on the Company’s operating results, financial condition and cash flow.

Costs associated with this litigation for the year ended December 31, 2008 were not material. 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.

The Company is a defendant in various other lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. It is the opinion of the management of the Company that it has meritorious defenses against all such outstanding claims, which the Company will vigorously pursue, and that the outcome of such claims, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.