Walt Disney Company (DIS)

ITEM 3.   Legal Proceedings

Milne and Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc. On November 5, 2002, Clare Milne, the granddaughter of A. A. Milne, author of the Winnie the Pooh books, and the Company’s subsidiary Disney Enterprises, Inc. (DEI) filed a complaint against Stephen Slesinger, Inc. (SSI) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 4, 2002, Ms. Milne served notices to SSI and DEI terminating A. A. Milne’s prior grant of rights to Winnie the Pooh, effective November 5, 2004, and granted all of those rights to DEI. In their lawsuit, Ms. Milne and DEI sought a declaratory judgment, under United States copyright law, that Ms. Milne’s termination notices were valid; that SSI’s rights to Winnie the Pooh in the United States terminated effective November 5, 2004; that upon termination of SSI’s rights in the United States, the 1983 licensing agreement that is the subject of the Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company lawsuit (the “state court action”) terminated by operation of law; and that, as of November 5, 2004, SSI was entitled to no further royalties for uses of Winnie the Pooh. SSI filed (a) an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and (b) counterclaims seeking a declaration that (i) Ms. Milne’s grant of rights to DEI is void and unenforceable and (ii) DEI remains obligated to pay SSI royalties under the 1983 licensing agreement. The District Court ruled that Milne’s termination notices were invalid. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and on June 26, 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied Milne’s petition for a writ of certiorari. On August 1, 2003, SSI filed an amended answer and counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Harriet Hunt (heir to E. H. Shepard, illustrator of the original Winnie the Pooh stories), who had served a notice of termination and a grant of rights similar to Ms. Milne’s, and asserted counterclaims against the Company allegedly arising from the Milne and Hunt terminations and the grant of rights to DEI for (a) unlawful and unfair business practices; and (b) breach of the 1983 licensing agreement.

On October 19, 2006, the parties stipulated to SSI’s filing its Fourth Amended Answer and Counterclaims (Fourth Amended Answer) seeking (a) to invalidate the Hunt termination notice, (b) to terminate the Company’s rights vis-à-vis SSI, and (c) damages in excess of two billion dollars, among other relief. That stipulation also provided that Hunt and the Company need not respond to the Fourth Amended Answer until the conclusion of two events: the state court appeal in Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, and the trial in the District Court on the validity of the Hunt termination notice. SSI then sought to withdraw both the Fourth Amended Answer and its stipulation, but on November 3, 2006, the District Court denied that request. SSI’s motion for summary judgment on the validity of Hunt’s 2002 attempt to recapture E. H. Shepard’s rights was granted on February 15, 2007, and thereafter, on March 27, 2007, the District Court dismissed as moot all claims against Hunt and three of SSI’s counterclaims against the Company related to the Company’s agreements with Milne and Hunt concerning the termination and disposition of their rights. On January 3, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied SSI’s petition for review in the state court action, whereupon on April 21, 2008, the Company moved for summary judgment on all of SSI’s claims in the District Court action. On June 3, 2008, the District Court ordered further briefing on the issue of whether SSI’s misconduct in the state court action warrants dismissal of all of its claims in the District Court, and then on July 29, 2008, the District Court referred the summary judgment motion to a Special Master, who rendered a sealed recommendation on March 26, 2009. On May 19, 2009, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed without prejudice SSI’s four contract and fraud counterclaims and invited the parties to file summary judgment motions on the remaining infringement and unfair competition claims. On September 25, 2009, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment on SSI’s remaining claims and on October 21, 2009, SSI and the Company filed applications for attorneys’ fees. On November 5, 2009, SSI appealed from the District Court’s judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Relatedly, on December 4, 2006, August 22, 2007, February 8, April 18, August 27 and October 31, 2008, and February 17, July 27, and November 17, 2009, SSI initiated proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) seeking cancellation of certain Winnie the Pooh trademark registrations and opposing applications for other Winnie the Pooh trademarks. Prior to July 27, the PTO had already suspended the then-pending proceedings on the grounds that the relief sought is effectively duplicative of that sought in the Fourth Amended Answer. On October 8, 2009, the Company advised the PTO of the District Court’s grant of summary judgment against SSI, and requested dismissal of all of SSI’s pending proceedings. Also, on April 18, October 16 and October 27, 2008 and July 28, 2009, SSI initiated actions before the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) opposing applications for certain Winnie the Pooh trademarks. On August 4, 2009, SSI requested an extension of time to oppose another application by the Company for a Winnie the Pooh trademark. On September 4, 2008, and February 12 and March 10, 2009, the Company filed answers to the actions before the CIPO, denying SSI’s claims.

25

Table of Contents

The Company, together with, in some instances, certain of its directors and officers, is a defendant or codefendant in various other legal actions involving copyright, breach of contract and various other claims incident to the conduct of its businesses. Management does not expect the Company to suffer any material liability by reason of such actions.

ITEM 1. Legal Proceedings

Since our Form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended December 27, 2008, developments identified below occurred in the following legal proceeding.

Milne and Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc. On November 5, 2002, Clare Milne, the granddaughter of A. A. Milne, author of the Winnie the Pooh books, and the Company’s subsidiary Disney Enterprises, Inc. (DEI) filed a complaint against Stephen Slesinger, Inc. (SSI) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 4, 2002, Ms. Milne served notices to SSI and DEI terminating A. A. Milne’s prior grant of rights to Winnie the Pooh, effective November 5, 2004, and granted all of those rights to DEI. In their lawsuit, Ms. Milne and DEI sought a declaratory judgment, under United States copyright law, that Ms. Milne’s termination notices were valid; that SSI’s rights to Winnie the Pooh in the United States terminated effective November 5, 2004; that upon termination of SSI’s rights in the United States, the 1983 licensing agreement that is the subject of the Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company lawsuit (the “state court action”) terminated by operation of law; and that, as of November 5, 2004, SSI was entitled to no further royalties for uses of Winnie the Pooh. SSI filed (a) an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and (b) counterclaims seeking a declaration that (i) Ms. Milne’s grant of rights to DEI is void and unenforceable and (ii) DEI remains obligated to pay SSI royalties under the 1983 licensing agreement. The District Court ruled that Milne’s termination notices were invalid. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and on June 26, 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied Milne’s petition for a writ of certiorari. On August 1, 2003, SSI filed an amended answer and counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Harriet Hunt (heir to E. H. Shepard, illustrator of the original Winnie the Pooh stories), who had served a notice of termination and a grant of rights similar to Ms. Milne’s, and asserted counterclaims against the Company allegedly arising from the Milne and Hunt terminations and the grant of rights to DEI for (a) unlawful and unfair business practices; and (b) breach of the 1983 licensing agreement.

On October 19, 2006, the parties stipulated to SSI’s filing its Fourth Amended Answer and Counterclaims (Fourth Amended Answer) seeking (a) to invalidate the Hunt termination notice, (b) to terminate the Company’s rights vis-à-vis SSI, and (c) damages in excess of two billion dollars, among other relief. That stipulation also provided that Hunt and the Company need not respond to the Fourth Amended Answer until the conclusion of two events: the state court appeal in Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, and the trial in the District Court on the validity of the Hunt termination notice. SSI then sought to withdraw both the Fourth Amended Answer and its stipulation, but on November 3, 2006, the District Court denied that request. SSI’s motion for summary judgment on the validity of Hunt’s 2002 attempt to recapture E. H. Shepard’s rights was granted on February 15, 2007, and thereafter, on March 27, 2007, the District Court dismissed as moot all claims against Hunt and three of SSI’s counterclaims against the Company related to the Company’s agreements with Milne and Hunt concerning the termination and disposition of their rights. On January 3, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied SSI’s petition for review in the state court action, whereupon on April 21, 2008, the Company moved for summary judgment on all of SSI’s claims in the District Court action. On June 3, 2008, the District Court ordered further briefing on the issue of whether SSI’s misconduct in the state court action warrants dismissal of all of its claims in the District Court, and then on July 29, 2008, the District Court referred the summary judgment motion to a Special Master. On March 26, 2009, the Special Master issued a recommendation under seal to the District Court, before which it remains pending.

Relatedly, on December 4, 2006, August 22, 2007, February 8, April 18, August 27 and October 31, 2008, and February 17, 2009, SSI initiated proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) seeking cancellation of certain Winnie the Pooh trademark registrations and opposing applications for other Winnie the Pooh trademarks. The PTO has suspended all the proceedings on the grounds that the relief sought is effectively duplicative of that sought in the Fourth Amended Answer. On April 9, 2009, the PTO granted SSI an extension to July 29, 2009, to initiate a proceeding opposing another Winnie the Pooh trademark application. Also, on April 18, October 16 and October 27, 2008, SSI initiated actions before the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) opposing applications for certain Winnie the Pooh trademarks. On September 4, 2008, and February 12 and March 10, 2009, the Company filed answers to the actions before the CIPO, denying SSI’s claims.

44

The Company, together with, in some instances, certain of its directors and officers, is a defendant or co-defendant in various other legal actions involving copyright, breach of contract and various other claims incident to the conduct of its businesses. Management does not expect the Company to suffer any material liability by reason of such actions.

ITEM 3.  Legal Proceedings

Milne and Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc. On November 5, 2002, Clare Milne, the granddaughter of A. A. Milne, author of the Winnie the Pooh books, and the Company’s subsidiary Disney Enterprises, Inc. (DEI) filed a complaint against Stephen Slesinger, Inc. (SSI) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 4, 2002, Ms. Milne served notices to SSI and DEI terminating A. A. Milne’s prior grant of rights to Winnie the Pooh, effective November 5, 2004, and granted all of those rights to DEI. In their lawsuit, Ms. Milne and DEI sought a declaratory judgment, under United States copyright law, that Ms. Milne’s termination notices were valid; that SSI’s rights to Winnie the Pooh in the United States terminated effective November 5, 2004; that upon termination of SSI’s rights in the United States, the 1983 licensing agreement that is the subject of the Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company lawsuit (the “state court action”) terminated by operation of law; and that, as of November 5, 2004, SSI was entitled to no further royalties for uses of Winnie the Pooh. SSI filed (a) an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and (b) counterclaims seeking a declaration that (i) Ms. Milne’s grant of rights to DEI is void and unenforceable and (ii) DEI remains obligated to pay SSI royalties under the 1983 licensing agreement. The District Court ruled that Milne’s termination notices were invalid. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and on June 26, 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied Milne’s petition for a writ of certiorari. On August 1, 2003, SSI filed an amended answer and counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Harriet Hunt (heir to E. H. Shepard, illustrator of the original Winnie the Pooh stories), who had served a notice of termination and a grant of rights similar to Ms. Milne’s, and asserted counterclaims against the Company allegedly arising from the Milne and Hunt terminations and the grant of rights to DEI for (a) unlawful and unfair business practices; and (b) breach of the 1983 licensing agreement.

On October 19, 2006, the parties stipulated to SSI’s filing its Fourth Amended Answer and Counterclaims (Fourth Amended Answer) seeking (a) to invalidate the Hunt termination notice, (b) to terminate the Company’s rights vis-à-vis SSI, and (c) damages in excess of two billion dollars, among other relief. That stipulation also provided that Hunt and the Company need not respond to the Fourth Amended Answer until the conclusion of two events: the state court appeal in Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, and the trial in the District Court on the validity of the Hunt termination notice. SSI then sought to withdraw both the Fourth Amended Answer and its stipulation, but on November 3, 2006, the District Court denied that request. SSI’s motion for summary judgment on the validity of Hunt’s 2002 attempt to recapture E. H. Shepard’s rights was granted on February 15, 2007, and thereafter, on March 27, 2007, the District Court dismissed as moot all claims against Hunt and three of SSI’s counterclaims against the Company related to the Company’s agreements with Milne and Hunt concerning the termination and disposition of their rights. On January 3, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied SSI’s petition for review in the state court action, whereupon on April 21, 2008, the Company moved for summary judgment on all of SSI’s claims in the District Court action. On June 3, 2008, the District Court ordered further briefing on the issue of whether SSI’s misconduct in the state court action warrants dismissal of all of its claims in the District Court, and then on July 29, 2008, the District Court referred the summary judgment motion to a Special Master who will issue findings and recommendations on the preclusion and termination issues raised by the motion.

Relatedly, on December 4, 2006, August 22, 2007, and February 8, April 18, August 27, 2008, and October 31, 2008, SSI initiated proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) seeking cancellation of certain Winnie the Pooh trademark registrations and opposing applications for other Winnie the Pooh trademarks. The PTO has suspended all the proceedings on the grounds that the relief sought is effectively duplicative of that sought in the Fourth Amended Answer. Also, on April 18 and October 16, 2008, SSI initiated actions before the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) opposing applications for certain Winnie the Pooh trademarks. On September 4, 2008, the Company filed an answer to the April 18 action before the CIPO, denying SSI’s claims.

The Company, together with, in some instances, certain of its directors and officers, is a defendant or co-defendant in various other legal actions involving copyright, breach of contract and various other claims incident to the conduct of its businesses. Management does not expect the Company to suffer any material liability by reason of such actions.

24

Table of Contents

ITEM 3.  Legal Proceedings

ITEM 1. Legal Proceedings

Since our Form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended March 29, 2008, developments identified below occurred in the following legal proceedings. For information on certain other legal proceedings, see Note 11 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements included in this report.

Milne and Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc. On November 5, 2002, Clare Milne, the granddaughter of A. A. Milne, author of the Winnie the Pooh books, and the Company’s subsidiary Disney Enterprises, Inc. (DEI) filed a complaint against Stephen Slesinger, Inc. (SSI) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 4, 2002, Ms. Milne served notices to SSI and DEI terminating A. A. Milne’s prior grant of rights to Winnie the Pooh, effective November 5, 2004, and granted all of those rights to DEI. In their lawsuit, Ms. Milne and DEI sought a declaratory judgment, under United States copyright law, that Ms. Milne’s termination notices were valid; that SSI’s rights to Winnie the Pooh in the United States terminated effective November 5, 2004; that upon termination of SSI’s rights in the United States, the 1983 licensing agreement that is the subject of the Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company lawsuit (the “state court action”) terminated by operation of law; and that, as of November 5, 2004, SSI was entitled to no further royalties for uses of Winnie the Pooh. SSI filed (a) an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and (b) counterclaims seeking a declaration that (i) Ms. Milne’s grant of rights to DEI is void and unenforceable and (ii) DEI remains obligated to pay SSI royalties under the 1983 licensing agreement. The District Court ruled that Milne’s termination notices were invalid. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and on June 26, 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied Milne’s petition for a writ of certiorari. On August 1, 2003, SSI filed an amended answer and counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Harriet Hunt (heir to E. H. Shepard, illustrator of the original Winnie the Pooh stories), who had served a notice of termination and a grant of rights similar to Ms. Milne’s, and asserted counterclaims against the Company allegedly arising from the Milne and Hunt terminations and the grant of rights to DEI for (a) unlawful and unfair business practices; and (b) breach of the 1983 licensing agreement.

On October 19, 2006, the parties stipulated to SSI’s filing its Fourth Amended Answer and Counterclaims (Fourth Amended Answer) seeking (a) to invalidate the Hunt termination notice, (b) to terminate the Company’s rights vis-à-vis SSI, and (c) damages in excess of two billion dollars, among other relief. That stipulation also provided that Hunt and the Company need not respond to the Fourth Amended Answer until the conclusion of two events: the state court appeal in Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, and the trial in the District Court on the validity of the Hunt termination notice. SSI then sought to withdraw both the Fourth Amended Answer and its stipulation, but on November 3, 2006, the District Court denied that request. SSI’s motion for summary judgment on the validity of Hunt’s 2002 attempt to recapture E. H. Shepard’s rights was granted on February 15, 2007, and thereafter, on March 27, 2007, the District Court dismissed as moot all claims against Hunt and three of SSI’s counterclaims against the Company related to the Company’s agreements with Milne and Hunt concerning the termination and disposition of their rights. On January 3, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied SSI’s petition for review in the state court action, whereupon on April 21, 2008, the Company moved for summary judgment on all of SSI’s claims in the District Court action. On June 3, 2008, the District Court ordered further briefing on the issue of whether SSI’s misconduct in the state court action warrants dismissal of all of its claims in the District Court.

40

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION (continued)

Relatedly, on January 23, 2007, August 22, 2007, February 8, 2008, and April 18, 2008, SSI initiated proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) seeking, among other things, cancellation of certain Winnie the Pooh trademark registrations. On February 22, 2007, the PTO suspended the first proceeding on the grounds that the relief sought is effectively duplicative of that sought in the Fourth Amended Answer, on March 5, 2008, it suspended the second proceeding, and on March 10, 2008, and May 18, 2008, respectively, DEI moved to suspend the third and fourth proceeding, which motions are pending. The PTO has granted SSI extensions until August 9, 2008, and August 27, 2008, to file additional proceedings seeking cancellation of certain other Winnie the Pooh trademark registrations. Also, on February 7, 2008, SSI initiated an action before the Canadian Intellectual Property Office seeking cancellation of certain Winnie the Pooh trademark registrations.

The Company, together with, in some instances, certain of its directors and officers, is a defendant or co-defendant in various other legal actions involving copyright, breach of contract and various other claims incident to the conduct of its businesses. Management does not expect the Company to suffer any material liability by reason of such actions.

ITEM 1.  Legal Proceedings

Since our Form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended December 29, 2007, developments identified below occurred in the following legal proceedings. For information on certain other legal proceedings, see Note 11 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements included in this report.

Milne and Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc. On November 5, 2002, Clare Milne, the granddaughter of A. A. Milne, author of the Winnie the Pooh books, and the Company’s subsidiary Disney Enterprises, Inc. (DEI) filed a complaint against Stephen Slesinger, Inc. (SSI) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 4, 2002, Ms. Milne served notices to SSI and DEI terminating A. A. Milne’s prior grant of rights to Winnie the Pooh, effective November 5, 2004, and granted all of those rights to DEI. In their lawsuit, Ms. Milne and DEI sought a declaratory judgment, under United States copyright law, that Ms. Milne’s termination notices were valid; that SSI’s rights to Winnie the Pooh in the United States terminated effective November 5, 2004; that upon termination of SSI’s rights in the United States, the 1983 licensing agreement that is the subject of the Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company lawsuit (the “state court action”) terminated by operation of law; and that, as of November 5, 2004, SSI was entitled to no further royalties for uses of Winnie the Pooh. SSI filed (a) an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and (b) counterclaims seeking a declaration that (i) Ms. Milne’s grant of rights to DEI is void and unenforceable and (ii) DEI remains obligated to pay SSI royalties under the 1983 licensing agreement. The District Court ruled that Milne’s termination notices were invalid. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and on June 26, 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied Milne’s petition for a writ of certiorari. On August 1, 2003, SSI filed an amended answer and counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Harriet Hunt (heir to E. H. Shepard, illustrator of the original Winnie the Pooh stories), who had served a notice of termination and a grant of rights similar to Ms. Milne’s, and asserted counterclaims against the Company allegedly arising from the Milne and Hunt terminations and the grant of rights to DEI for (a) unlawful and unfair business practices; and (b) breach of the 1983 licensing agreement.

On October 19, 2006, the parties stipulated to SSI’s filing its Fourth Amended Answer and Counterclaims (Fourth Amended Answer) seeking (a) to invalidate the Hunt termination notice, (b) to terminate the Company’s rights vis-à-vis SSI, and (c) damages in excess of two billion dollars, among other relief. That stipulation also provided that Hunt and the Company need not respond to the Fourth Amended Answer until the conclusion of two events: the state court appeal in Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, and the trial in the District Court on the validity of the Hunt termination notice. SSI then sought to withdraw both the Fourth Amended Answer and its stipulation, but on November 3, 2006, the District Court denied that request. SSI’s motion for summary judgment on the validity of Hunt’s 2002 attempt to recapture E. H. Shepard’s rights was granted on February 15, 2007, and thereafter, on March 27, 2007, the District Court dismissed as moot all claims against Hunt and three of SSI’s counterclaims against the Company related to the Company’s agreements with Milne and Hunt concerning the termination and disposition of their rights. On January 3, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied SSI’s petition for review in the state court action, whereupon on April 21, 2008, the Company moved for summary judgment on all of SSI’s claims in the District Court action.

Relatedly, on January 23, 2007, August 22, 2007, February 8, 2008, and April 18, 2008, SSI initiated proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) seeking, among other things, cancellation of certain Winnie the Pooh trademark registrations. On February 22, 2007, the PTO suspended the first proceeding on the grounds that the relief sought is effectively duplicative of that sought in the Fourth Amended Answer, on March 5, 2008, it suspended the second proceeding, and on March 10, 2008, DEI moved to suspend the third proceeding. Also, on February 7, 2008, SSI initiated an action before the Canadian Intellectual Property Office seeking cancellation of certain Winnie the Pooh trademark registrations.

41

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION (continued)

The Company, together with, in some instances, certain of its directors and officers, is a defendant or co-defendant in various other legal actions involving copyright, breach of contract and various other claims incident to the conduct of its businesses. Management does not expect the Company to suffer any material liability by reason of such actions.

ITEM 1.  Legal Proceedings

Since our Form 10-K filing for the year ended September 29, 2007, developments identified below occurred in the following legal proceedings. For information on certain other legal proceedings, see Note 11 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements included in this report.

Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company. In this lawsuit, filed on February 27, 1991, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the plaintiff claims that a Company subsidiary defrauded it and breached a 1983 licensing agreement with respect to certain Winnie the Pooh properties, by failing to account for and pay royalties on revenues earned from the sale of Winnie the Pooh movies on videocassette and from the exploitation of Winnie the Pooh merchandising rights. The plaintiff seeks damages for the licensee’s alleged breaches as well as confirmation of the plaintiff’s interpretation of the licensing agreement with respect to future activities. The plaintiff also seeks the right to terminate the agreement on the basis of the alleged breaches. If each of the plaintiff’s claims were to be confirmed in a final judgment, damages as argued by the plaintiff could total as much as several hundred million dollars and adversely impact the value to the Company of any future exploitation of the licensed rights. On March 29, 2004, the Court granted the Company’s motion for terminating sanctions against the plaintiff for a host of discovery abuses, including the withholding, alteration, and theft of documents and other information, and, on April 5, 2004, dismissed plaintiff’s case with prejudice. On September 25, 2007, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, and on January 3, 2008, plaintiff’s petition for review by the California Supreme Court was denied.

35

PART II.  OTHER INFORMATION (continued)

The Company, together with, in some instances, certain of its directors and officers, is a defendant or co-defendant in various other legal actions involving copyright, breach of contract and various other claims incident to the conduct of its businesses. Management does not expect the Company to suffer any material liability by reason of such actions.

ITEM 3.  Legal Proceedings

Milne and Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc. On November 5, 2002, Clare Milne, the granddaughter of A. A. Milne, author of the Winnie the Pooh books, and the Company’s subsidiary Disney Enterprises, Inc. (DEI) filed a complaint against Stephen Slesinger, Inc. (SSI) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 4, 2002, Ms. Milne served notices to SSI and DEI terminating A. A. Milne’s prior grant of rights to Winnie the Pooh, effective November 5, 2004, and granted all of those rights to DEI. In their lawsuit, Ms. Milne and DEI sought a declaratory judgment, under United States copyright law, that Ms. Milne’s termination notices were valid; that SSI’s rights to Winnie the Pooh in the United States terminated effective November 5, 2004; that upon termination of SSI’s rights in the United States, the 1983 licensing agreement that is the subject of the Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company lawsuit terminated by operation of law; and that, as of November 5, 2004, SSI was entitled to no further royalties for uses of Winnie the Pooh. SSI filed (a) an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and (b) counterclaims seeking a declaration that (i) Ms. Milne’s grant of rights to DEI is void and unenforceable and (ii) DEI remains obligated to pay SSI royalties under the 1983 licensing agreement. The District Court ruled that Milne’s termination notices were invalid. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and on June 26, 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied Milne’s petition for a writ of certiorari. On June 23, 2003, SSI filed an amended answer and counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Harriet Hunt (heir to E. H. Shepard, illustrator of the original Winnie the Pooh stories), who had served a notice of termination and a grant of rights similar to Ms. Milne’s, and asserted counterclaims against the Company allegedly arising from the Milne and Hunt terminations and the grant of rights to DEI for (a) unlawful and unfair business practices; and (b) breach of the 1983 licensing agreement.

On October 19, 2006, the parties stipulated to SSI’s filing its Fourth Amended Answer and Counterclaims (Fourth Amended Answer) seeking (a) to invalidate the Hunt termination notice, (b) to terminate the Company’s rights vis-à-vis SSI, and (c) damages in excess of two billion dollars, among other relief. That stipulation also provided that Hunt and the Company need not respond to the Fourth Amended Answer until the conclusion of two events: the state court appeal in Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, and the trial in the District Court on the validity of the Hunt termination notice. SSI then sought to withdraw both the Fourth Amended Answer and its stipulation, but on November 3, 2006, the District Court denied that request. SSI’s motion for summary judgment on the validity of Hunt’s 2002 attempt to recapture E. H. Shepard’s rights was granted on February 15, 2007, and thereafter, on March 27, 2007, the District Court dismissed as moot all claims against Hunt and three of SSI’s counterclaims against the Company related to the Company’s agreements with Milne and Hunt concerning the termination and disposition of their rights. In a related development, on January 23, 2007, and on August 22, 2007, SSI initiated proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) seeking, among other things, cancellation of certain Pooh trademark registrations. On February 22, 2007, the PTO suspended the first proceeding on the grounds that the relief sought is effectively duplicative of that sought in the Fourth Amended Answer, and on October 2, 2007, the Company moved to suspend the second proceeding on the same ground.

Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company. In this lawsuit, filed on February 27, 1991, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the plaintiff claims that a Company subsidiary defrauded it and breached a 1983 licensing agreement with respect to certain Winnie the Pooh properties, by failing to account for and pay royalties on revenues earned from the sale of Winnie the Pooh movies on videocassette and from the exploitation of Winnie the Pooh merchandising rights. The plaintiff seeks damages for the licensee’s alleged breaches as well as confirmation of the plaintiff’s interpretation of the licensing agreement with respect to future activities. The plaintiff also seeks the right to terminate the agreement on the basis of the alleged breaches. If each of the plaintiff’s claims were to be confirmed in a final judgment, damages as argued by the plaintiff could total as much as several hundred million dollars and adversely impact the value to the Company of any future exploitation of the licensed rights. On March 29, 2004, the Court granted the Company’s motion for terminating sanctions against the plaintiff for a host of discovery abuses, including the withholding, alteration, and theft of documents and other information, and, on April 5, 2004, dismissed plaintiff’s case with prejudice. On September 25, 2007, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, and on November 5, 2007, plaintiff filed a petition seeking review by the California Supreme Court.

Management believes that it is not currently possible to estimate the impact, if any, that the ultimate resolution of pending matters noted above will have on the Company’s results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The Company, together with, in some instances, certain of its directors and officers, is a defendant or co-defendant in various other legal actions involving copyright, breach of contract and various other claims incident to the conduct of its businesses. Management does not expect the Company to suffer any material liability by reason of such actions.

25

Table of Contents

ITEM 1.   Legal Proceedings

Since our Form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, developments identified below occurred in the following legal proceedings. For information on certain other legal proceedings, see Note 11 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements included in this report.

Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company. In this lawsuit, filed on February 27, 1991 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the plaintiff claims that a Company subsidiary defrauded it and breached a 1983 licensing agreement with respect to certain Winnie the Pooh properties, by failing to account for and pay royalties on revenues earned from the sale of Winnie the Pooh movies on videocassette and from the exploitation of Winnie the Pooh merchandising rights. The plaintiff seeks damages for the licensee’s alleged breaches as well as confirmation of the plaintiff’s interpretation of the licensing agreement with respect to future activities. The plaintiff also seeks the right to terminate the agreement on the basis of the alleged breaches. If each of the plaintiff’s claims were to be confirmed in a final judgment, damages as argued by the plaintiff could total as much as several hundred million dollars and adversely impact the value to the Company of any future exploitation of the licensed rights. On March 29, 2004, the Court granted the Company’s motion for terminating sanctions against the plaintiff for a host of discovery abuses, including the withholding, alteration, and theft of documents and other information, and, on April 5, 2004, dismissed plaintiff’s case with prejudice. Plaintiff’s subsequent attempts to disqualify the judge who granted the terminating sanctions were denied in 2004, and its motion for a “new trial” was denied on January 26, 2005, allowing plaintiff to proceed with its noticed appeal from the April 5, 2004, order of dismissal. Oral argument of the appeal is scheduled for September 20, 2007.

Management believes that it is not currently possible to estimate the impact, if any, that the ultimate resolution of these and matters previously disclosed in Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006 and in subsequent reports on Form 10-Q will have on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

The Company, together with, in some instances, certain of its directors and officers, is a defendant or co-defendant in various other legal actions involving copyright, breach of contract and various other claims incident to the conduct of its businesses. Management does not expect the Company to suffer any material liability by reason of such actions.

ITEM 1.  Legal Proceedings

Since our Form 10-K filing for the year ended September 30, 2006, developments identified below occurred in the following legal proceedings. For information on certain other legal proceedings, see Note 11 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements included in this report.

Milne and Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc. On November 5, 2002, Clare Milne, the granddaughter of A. A. Milne, author of the Winnie the Pooh books, and the Company’s subsidiary Disney Enterprises, Inc. (DEI) filed a complaint against Stephen Slesinger, Inc. (SSI) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 4, 2002, Ms. Milne served notices to SSI and DEI terminating A. A. Milne’s prior grant of rights to Winnie the Pooh, effective November 5, 2004, and granted all of those rights to DEI. In their lawsuit, Ms. Milne and DEI sought a declaratory judgment, under United States copyright law, that Ms. Milne’s termination notices were valid; that SSI’s rights to Winnie the Pooh in the United States terminated effective November 5, 2004; that upon termination of SSI’s rights in the United States, the 1983 licensing agreement that is the subject of the Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company lawsuit terminated by operation of law; and that, as of November 5, 2004, SSI was entitled to no further royalties for uses of Winnie the Pooh. SSI filed (a) an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and (b) counterclaims seeking a declaration that (i) Ms. Milne’s grant of rights to DEI is void and unenforceable and (ii) DEI remains obligated to pay SSI royalties under the 1983 licensing agreement. The District Court ruled that Milne’s termination notices were invalid. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and on June 26, 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied Milne’s petition for a writ of certiorari. On June 23, 2003, SSI filed an amended answer and counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Harriet Hunt (heir to E. H. Shepard, illustrator of the original Winnie the Pooh stories), who had served a notice of termination and a grant of rights similar to Ms. Milne’s, and asserted counterclaims against the Company allegedly arising from the Milne and Hunt terminations and the grant of rights to DEI for (a) unlawful and unfair business practices; and (b) breach of the 1983 licensing agreement.

On October 19, 2006, the parties stipulated to SSI’s filing its Fourth Amended Answer and Counterclaims (Fourth Amended Answer) seeking (a) to invalidate the Hunt termination notice, (b) to terminate the Company’s rights vis-à-vis SSI, and (c) damages in excess of two billion dollars, among other relief. That stipulation also provided that Hunt and the Company need not respond to the Fourth Amended Answer until the conclusion of two events: the state court appeal in Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, and the trial in the District Court on the validity of the Hunt termination notice. SSI then sought to withdraw both the Fourth Amended Answer and its stipulation, but on November 3, 2006, the District Court denied that request. SSI’s motion for summary judgment on the validity of Hunt’s 2002 attempt to recapture E. H. Shepard’s rights was granted on February 15, 2007, and thereafter, on March 27, 2007, the District Court dismissed as moot all claims against Hunt and three of SSI’s counterclaims against the Company related to the Company’s agreements with Milne and Hunt concerning the termination and disposition of their rights. In a related development, on January 23, 2007, the Company received notice of a petition by SSI in the United States Patent and Trademark Office seeking, among other things, cancellation of certain Pooh trademark registrations, relief that is effectively duplicative of that sought in the Fourth Amended Answer and, on that ground on February 27, 2007, the Patent and Trademark office granted the Company’s request to suspend the proceeding.

Management believes that it is not currently possible to estimate the impact, if any, that the ultimate resolution of these and matters previously disclosed in Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006 will have on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

34

The Company, together with, in some instances, certain of its directors and officers, is a defendant or co-defendant in various other legal actions involving copyright, breach of contract and various other claims incident to the conduct of its businesses. Management does not expect the Company to suffer any material liability by reason of such actions.

ITEM 1.  Legal Proceedings

Since our Form 10-K filing for the year ended September 30, 2006, developments identified below occurred in the following legal proceedings. For information on certain other legal proceedings, see Note 11 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements included in this report.

Milne and Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc. On November 5, 2002, Clare Milne, the granddaughter of A. A. Milne, author of the Winnie the Pooh books, and the Company’s subsidiary Disney Enterprises, Inc. (DEI) filed a complaint against Stephen Slesinger, Inc. (SSI) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 4, 2002, Ms. Milne served notices to SSI and DEI terminating A. A. Milne’s prior grant of rights to Winnie the Pooh, effective November 5, 2004, and granted all of those rights to DEI. In their lawsuit, Ms. Milne and DEI sought a declaratory judgment, under United States copyright law, that Ms. Milne’s termination notices were valid; that SSI’s rights to Winnie the Pooh in the United States terminated effective November 5, 2004; that upon termination of SSI’s rights in the United States, the 1983 licensing agreement that is the subject of the Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company lawsuit terminated by operation of law; and that, as of November 5, 2004, SSI was entitled to no further royalties for uses of Winnie the Pooh. SSI filed (a) an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and (b) counterclaims seeking a declaration that (i) Ms. Milne’s grant of rights to DEI is void and unenforceable and (ii) DEI remains obligated to pay SSI royalties under the 1983 licensing agreement. The District Court ruled that Milne’s termination notices were invalid. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and on June 26, 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied Milne’s petition for a writ of certiorari. On June 23, 2003, SSI filed an amended answer and counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Harriet Hunt (heir to E. H. Shepard, illustrator of the original Winnie the Pooh stories), who had served a notice of termination and a grant of rights similar to Ms. Milne’s, and asserted counterclaims against the Company allegedly arising from the Milne and Hunt terminations and the grant of rights to DEI for (a) unlawful and unfair business practices; and (b) breach of the 1983 licensing agreement.

On October 19, 2006, the parties stipulated to SSI’s filing its Fourth Amended Answer and Counterclaims (Fourth Amended Answer) seeking (a) to invalidate the Hunt termination notice, (b) to terminate the Company’s rights vis-à-vis SSI, and (c) damages in excess of two billion dollars, among other relief. That stipulation also provided that Hunt and the Company need not respond to the Fourth Amended Answer until the conclusion of two events: the state court appeal in Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, and the trial in the District Court on the validity of the Hunt termination notice. SSI then sought to withdraw both the Fourth Amended Answer and its stipulation, but on November 3, 2006, the court denied that request and ordered that the Hunt termination trial commence on March 20, 2007, which date has subsequently been continued to April 17, 2007. SSI’s motion for summary judgment on the validity of Hunt’s 2002 attempt to recapture E. H. Shepard’s rights is, following a continuance, to be heard on February 12, 2007. In a related development, on January 23, 2007, the Company received notice of a petition by SSI in the United States Patent and Trademark Office seeking , among other things, cancellation of certain Pooh trademark registrations, relief that is effectively duplicative of that sought in the Fourth Amended Answer and, on that ground, the Company has moved to suspend the petition.

Management believes that it is not currently possible to estimate the impact, if any, that the ultimate resolution of these and matters previously disclosed in Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006 will have on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

32

PART II.  OTHER INFORMATION (continued)

The Company, together with, in some instances, certain of its directors and officers, is a defendant or co-defendant in various other legal actions involving copyright, breach of contract and various other claims incident to the conduct of its businesses. Management does not expect the Company to suffer any material liability by reason of such actions.

ITEM 3. Legal Proceedings

Milne and Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc. On November 5, 2002, Clare Milne, the granddaughter of A. A. Milne, author of the Winnie the Pooh books, and the Company’s subsidiary Disney Enterprises, Inc. (DEI) filed a complaint against Stephen Slesinger, Inc. (SSI) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 4, 2002, Ms. Milne served notices to SSI and DEI terminating A. A. Milne’s prior grant of rights to Winnie the Pooh, effective November 5, 2004, and granted all of those rights to DEI. In their lawsuit, Ms. Milne and DEI sought a declaratory judgment, under United States copyright law, that Ms. Milne’s termination notices were valid; that SSI’s rights to Winnie the Pooh in the United States terminated effective November 5, 2004; that upon termination of SSI’s rights in the United States, the 1983 licensing agreement that is the subject of the Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company lawsuit terminated by operation of law; and that, as of November 5, 2004, SSI was entitled to no further royalties for uses of Winnie the Pooh. SSI filed (a) an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and (b) counterclaims seeking a declaration that (i) Ms. Milne’s grant of rights to DEI is void and unenforceable and (ii) DEI remains obligated to pay SSI royalties under the 1983 licensing agreement. The District Court ruled that Milne’s termination notices were invalid. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and on June 26, 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied Milne’s petition for a writ of certiorari. On June 23, 2003, SSI filed an amended answer and counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Harriet Hunt (heir to E. H. Shepard, illustrator of the original Winnie the Pooh stories), who had served a notice of termination and a grant of rights similar to Ms. Milne’s, and asserted counterclaims against the Company allegedly arising from the Milne and Hunt terminations and the grant of rights to DEI for (a) unlawful and unfair business practices; and (b) breach of the 1983 licensing agreement.

On October 19, 2006, the parties stipulated to SSI’s filing its Fourth Amended Answer and Counterclaims (Fourth Amended Answer) seeking (a) to invalidate the Hunt termination notice, (b) to terminate the Company’s rights vis-à-vis SSI, and (c) damages in excess of two billion dollars, among other relief. That stipulation also provided that Hunt and the Company need not respond to the Fourth Amended Answer until the conclusion of two events: the state court appeal in Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, and the trial in the District Court on the validity of the Hunt termination notice. SSI then sought to withdraw both the Fourth Amended Answer and its stipulation, but on November 3, 2006, the court denied that request and ordered that the Hunt termination trial commence on March 20, 2007.

Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company. In this lawsuit, filed on February 27, 1991 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the plaintiff claims that a Company subsidiary defrauded it and breached a 1983 licensing agreement with respect to certain Winnie the Pooh properties, by failing to account for and pay royalties on revenues earned from the sale of Winnie the Pooh movies on videocassette and from the exploitation of Winnie the Pooh merchandising rights. The plaintiff seeks damages for the licensee’s alleged breaches as well as confirmation of the plaintiff’s interpretation of the licensing agreement with respect to future activities. The plaintiff also seeks the right to terminate the agreement on the basis of the alleged breaches. If each of the plaintiff’s claims were to be confirmed in a final judgment, damages as argued by the plaintiff could total as much as several hundred million dollars and adversely impact the value to the Company of any future exploitation of the licensed rights. On March 29, 2004, the Court granted the Company’s motion for terminating sanctions against the plaintiff for a host of discovery abuses, including the withholding, alteration, and theft of documents and other information, and, on April 5, 2004, dismissed plaintiff’s case with prejudice. Plaintiff’s subsequent attempts to disqualify the judge who granted the terminating sanctions were denied in 2004, and its motion for a “new trial” was denied on January 26, 2005, allowing plaintiff to proceed with its noticed appeal from the April 5, 2004, order of dismissal. Argument of the appeal has not been scheduled.

In re Pixar Securities Litigation. On October 21, 2005, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Pixar, Steven P. Jobs, Edwin E. Catmull and Simon T. Bax in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In this case, together with three subsequent cases which have been consolidated, plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued false and misleading statements in certain of Pixar’s press releases and SEC filings between January 18, 2005 and June 30, 2005, concerning earnings Pixar expected to receive for its second fiscal quarter of 2005, ended July 2, 2005, from the home video sales of The Incredibles. Plaintiffs assert claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On

-26-

Table of Contents

June 29, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by order dated September 12, 2006. While the order allowed plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint, plaintiffs agreed not to do so, and the lawsuit was dismissed on October 20, 2006, by stipulation of the parties.

In re The Walt Disney Company Derivative Litigation. William and Geraldine Brehm and thirteen other individuals filed an amended and consolidated complaint on May 28, 1997 in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment against each of the Company’s directors as of December 1996 that the Company’s 1995 employment agreement with its former president Michael S. Ovitz, was void, or alternatively that Mr. Ovitz’s termination should be deemed a termination “for cause” and any severance payments to him forfeited. On October 8, 1998, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed all counts of the amended complaint. Plaintiffs appealed, and on February 9, 2000, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the dismissal but ruled also that plaintiffs should be permitted to file an amended complaint in accordance with the Court’s opinion. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on January 3, 2002. On February 6, 2003, the Company’s directors’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was converted by the Court to a motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs were permitted to take discovery. The Company and its directors answered the amended complaint on April 1, 2003. On May 28, 2003, the Court (treating as a motion to dismiss the motion for summary judgment into which it had converted the original motion on February 6, 2003) denied the directors’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. After trial, on August 9, 2005, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order entering judgment against the plaintiffs and in favor of all defendants on all counts, which judgment was affirmed on June 8, 2006, by the Delaware Supreme Court.

Similar or identical claims were asserted in complaints filed by the same plaintiffs (other than William and Geraldine Brehm, James C. Hays and Barnett Stepak) in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County on and after January 3, 1997. Those cases were dismissed on November 28, 2005.

Management believes that it is not currently possible to estimate the impact, if any, that the ultimate resolution of pending matters noted above will have on the Company’s results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The Company, together with, in some instances, certain of its directors and officers, is a defendant or co-defendant in various other legal actions involving copyright, breach of contract and various other claims incident to the conduct of its businesses. Management does not expect the Company to suffer any material liability by reason of such actions.

ITEM 1. Legal Proceedings

Since our Form 10-K filing for the year ended October 1, 2005, developments identified below occurred in the following legal proceedings. For information on certain other legal proceedings, see Note 12 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements included in this report.

Milne and Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc. On November 5, 2002, Clare Milne, the granddaughter of A. A. Milne, author of the Winnie the Pooh books, and the Company’s subsidiary Disney Enterprises, Inc. (DEI) filed a complaint against Stephen Slesinger, Inc. (SSI) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 4, 2002, Ms. Milne served notices to SSI and DEI terminating A. A. Milne’s prior grant of rights to Winnie the Pooh, effective November 5, 2004, and granted all of those rights to DEI. In their lawsuit, Ms. Milne and DEI sought a declaratory judgment, under United States copyright law, that Ms. Milne’s termination notices were valid; that SSI’s rights to Winnie the Pooh in the United States terminated effective November 5, 2004; that upon termination of SSI’s rights in the United States, the 1983 licensing agreement that is the subject of the Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company lawsuit terminated by operation of law; and that, as of November 5, 2004, SSI was entitled to no further royalties for uses of Winnie the Pooh. SSI filed (a) an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and (b) counterclaims seeking a declaration that (i) Ms. Milne’s grant of rights to DEI is void and unenforceable and (ii) DEI remains obligated to pay SSI royalties under the 1983 licensing agreement. SSI also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Subsequently, the Court ruled that Milne’s termination notices are invalid and dismissed SSI’s counterclaims as moot. Following further motions SSI filed an amended answer and counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Harriet Hunt (heir to E. H. Shepard, illustrator of the original Winnie the Pooh stories), who had served a notice of termination and a grant of rights similar to Ms. Milne’s. By order dated August 3, 2004, the Court granted SSI leave to amend its answer to assert counterclaims against the Company allegedly arising from the Milne and Hunt terminations and the grant of rights to DEI for (a) unlawful and unfair business practices; and (b) breach of the 1983 licensing agreement. In November 2004, the District Court granted a motion by Milne to dismiss her complaint for the purpose of obtaining a final appealable order of dismissal, so as to permit her appeal to the Court of Appeals to proceed. Following oral argument, the Court of Appeals, on December 8, 2005, affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of SSI and against Milne, whose motion for a hearing en banc was denied on January 19, 2006. On April 17, 2006, Milne filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which denied the petition on June 26, 2006.

In Re Pixar Securities Litigation. As previously disclosed by Pixar, on October 21, 2005, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Pixar, Steven P. Jobs, Edwin E. Catmull and Simon T. Bax in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In this case, together with three subsequent cases which have been consolidated, plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued false and misleading statements in certain of Pixar’s press releases and SEC filings between January 18, 2005 and June 30, 2005, concerning earnings Pixar expected to receive for its second fiscal quarter of 2005, ended July 2, 2005, from the home video sales of The Incredibles. Plaintiffs assert claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On June 29, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

In re The Walt Disney Company Derivative Litigation. William and Geraldine Brehm and thirteen other individuals filed an amended and consolidated complaint on May 28, 1997 in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment against each of the Company’s directors as of December 1996 that the Company’s 1995 employment agreement with its former

42

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION (continued)

president Michael S. Ovitz, was void, or alternatively that Mr. Ovitz’s termination should be deemed a termination “for cause” and any severance payments to him forfeited. On October 8, 1998, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed all counts of the amended complaint. Plaintiffs appealed, and on February 9, 2000, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the dismissal but ruled also that plaintiffs should be permitted to file an amended complaint in accordance with the Court’s opinion. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on January 3, 2002. On February 6, 2003, the Company’s directors’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was converted by the Court to a motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs were permitted to take discovery. The Company and its directors answered the amended complaint on April 1, 2003. On May 28, 2003, the Court (treating as a motion to dismiss the motion for summary judgment into which it had converted the original motion on February 6, 2003) denied the directors’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. After trial, on August 9, 2005, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order entering judgment against the plaintiffs and in favor of all defendants on all counts, which judgment was affirmed on June 8, 2006, by the Delaware Supreme Court.

Management believes that it is not currently possible to estimate the impact, if any, that the ultimate resolution of these and matters previously disclosed in Form 10-K for the year ended October 1, 2005 and subsequent quarterly reports will have on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

The Company, together with, in some instances, certain of its directors and officers, is a defendant or co-defendant in various other legal actions involving copyright, breach of contract and various other claims incident to the conduct of its businesses. Management does not expect the Company to suffer any material liability by reason of such actions.

      Milne and Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc. On November 5, 2002, Clare Milne, the granddaughter of A. A. Milne, author of the Winnie the Pooh books, and the Company’s subsidiary Disney Enterprises, Inc. (DEI) filed a complaint against Stephen Slesinger, Inc. (SSI) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 4, 2002, Ms. Milne served notices to SSI and DEI terminating A. A. Milne’s prior grant of rights to Winnie the Pooh, effective November 5, 2004, and granted all of those rights to DEI. In their lawsuit, Ms. Milne and DEI seek a declaratory judgment, under United States copyright law, that Ms. Milne’s termination notices were valid; that SSI’s rights to Winnie the Pooh in the United States terminated effective November 5, 2004; that upon termination of SSI’s rights in the United States, the 1983 licensing agreement that is the subject of the Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company lawsuit terminated by operation of law; and that, as of November 5, 2004, SSI was entitled to no further royalties for uses of Winnie the Pooh. SSI filed (a) an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and (b) counterclaims seeking a declaration that (i) Ms. Milne’s grant of rights to DEI is void and

-26-

      In re The Walt Disney Company Derivative Litigation. William and Geraldine Brehm and thirteen other individuals filed an amended and consolidated complaint on May 28, 1997 in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment against each of the Company’s directors as of December 1996 that the Company’s 1995 employment agreement with its former president Michael S. Ovitz, was void, or alternatively that Mr. Ovitz’s termination should be deemed a termination “for cause” and any severance payments to him forfeited. On October 8, 1998, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed all counts of the amended complaint. Plaintiffs appealed, and on February 9, 2000, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the dismissal but ruled also that plaintiffs should be permitted to file an amended complaint in accordance with the Court’s opinion. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on January 3, 2002. On February 6, 2003, the Company’s directors’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was converted by the Court to a motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs were permitted to take discovery. The Company and its directors answered the amended complaint on April 1, 2003. On May 28, 2003, the Court (treating as a motion to dismiss the motion for summary judgment into which it had converted the original motion on February 6, 2003) denied the directors’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Trial commenced on October 20, 2004 and on August 9, 2005, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order entering judgment against the plaintiffs and in favor of all defendants on all counts. Plaintiffs have appealed from the order.

      Similar or identical claims have also been filed by the same plaintiffs (other than William and Geraldine Brehm) in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County, beginning with a claim filed by Richard and David Kaplan on January 3, 1997. On May 18, 1998, an additional claim was filed in the same California court by Dorothy L. Greenfield. All of the California claims were consolidated and stayed pending final resolution of the Delaware proceedings. The Claim filed by Dorothy L. Greenfield was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on October 24, 2005.

      Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company. In this lawsuit, filed on February 27, 1991 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the plaintiff claims that a Company subsidiary defrauded it and breached a 1983 licensing agreement with respect to certain Winnie the Pooh properties, by failing to account for and pay royalties on revenues earned from the sale of Winnie the Pooh movies on videocassette and from the exploitation of Winnie the Pooh merchandising rights. The plaintiff seeks damages for the licensee’s alleged breaches as well as confirmation of the plaintiff’s interpretation of the licensing agreement with respect to future activities. The plaintiff also seeks the right to terminate the agreement on the basis of the alleged breaches. If each of the plaintiff’s claims were to be confirmed in a final judgment, damages as argued by the plaintiff could total as much as several hundred million dollars and adversely impact the value to the Company of any future exploitation of the licensed rights. On March 29, 2004, the Court granted the Company’s motion for terminating sanctions against the plaintiff for a host of discovery abuses, including the withholding, alteration, and theft of documents and other information, and, on April 5, 2004, dismissed plaintiff’s case with

-27-

      Management believes that it is not currently possible to estimate the impact, if any, that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

      The Company, together with, in some instances, certain of its directors and officers, is a defendant or co-defendant in various other legal actions involving copyright, breach of contract and various other claims incident to the conduct of its businesses. Management does not expect the Company to suffer any material liability by reason of such actions.