This excerpt taken from the LUX 20-F filed Jun 25, 2009.
Oakley Stockholder 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 stockholders of 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 stockholders by approving Oakleys 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 we 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 plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs motion for attorneys fees and expenses. The plaintiff has appealed the Courts 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.