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

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.

F-53

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.

Oakley Shareholder Lawsuit

On June 26, 2007, Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan filed a purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, on behalf of itself and all other shareholders of Oakley Inc. against Oakley Inc. and each of its directors.  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 is 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 it believed the allegations were without merit, on October 9, 2007 the Company demurred 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, originally scheduled for March 27, 2008, took place on April 17, 2008. The parties are currently awaiting the Court’s ruling on that motion. The Court did not rule on defendants’ demurrer to the amended complaint and it is unlikely there will be further proceedings with respect to the action other than on plaintiff’s motion for fees as both sides have informed the Court that the underlying case is now moot and should be dismissed once the Court rules on the fee motion.

Costs associated with this litigation incurred for the year ended December 31, 2007 were immaterial. Management believes, based in part on the advice from counsel, that no estimate of the range of possible losses, if any, can be made at this time.

Oakley Shareholder Lawsuit

On June 26, 2007, Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan filed a purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, on behalf of itself and all other shareholders of Oakley Inc. against Oakley Inc. and each of its directors. 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 is 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 it believed the allegations were without merit, on October 9, 2007 the Company demurred 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, originally scheduled for March 27, 2008, took place on April 17, 2008. The