cik
stringclasses
1 value
date
stringlengths
8
8
form
stringclasses
4 values
sentenceCount
int64
0
2.33k
sentence
stringlengths
2
5.25k
filename
stringlengths
40
40
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
950
The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike, which were granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
951
The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
952
Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
953
On October 29, 2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel in his role as counsel to the purported class and to the general public.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
954
The Court granted the motion but allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
955
Plaintiff did engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the class.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
956
The Company moved to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel and to have the Court dismiss the general public claims for equitable relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
957
The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff’s new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that the class action claims were dismissed.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
958
The Company appealed the ruling and the case was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
959
The Court of Appeals denied the appeal on August 17, 2005, affirming the trial court’s decision.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
960
The Company filed a Petition for review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied on November 23, 2005.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
961
The case was remanded back to the trial court.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
962
The parties have reached a settlement and the matter is concluded.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
963
Settlement of this matter did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
964
European Commission Investigation The European Commission has notified the Company it is investigating certain matters relating to the iTunes Store in the European Union (“EU”).
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
965
The European Commission is investigating claims made by Which?, a United Kingdom (UK) consumer association, that the Company is violating EU competition law by charging more for online music in the UK than in Eurozone countries and preventing UK consumers from purchasing online music from the iTunes Store for Eurozone ...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
966
The Which?
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
967
claims were originally lodged with the UK Office of Fair Trading, which subsequently referred them to the European Commission.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
968
The European Commission is investigating the charges under Articles 81 and 82 of the European Commission Treaty.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
969
Euro Tec Enterprises, Inc. et al.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
970
v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
971
This is a purported class action copyright infringement case filed on May 16, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by certain independent music publishers against the Company and several other defendants for allegedly failing to secure a compulsory license for copyrighted musi...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
972
Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks an injunction, damages and other relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
973
The Company filed an answer on July 28, 2006 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
974
The case is in discovery and is set for trial on November 13, 2007 if no class is certified or on June 10, 2008 if a class is certified.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
975
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 23, 2006 and the Company filed an amended answer on November 28, 2006 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
976
Gillis et al.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
977
v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
978
Plaintiffs filed this purported class action on December 23, 2005 in San Diego County Superior Court alleging the Company has misrepresented the hard drive capacity of two Powerbook G4 computers: the 12-inch, 1.5GHz computer with 512MB of memory and a 100GB hard drive; and the 15-inch, 1.67GHz computer with 1GB of memo...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
979
Plaintiffs alleged that the Company’s standard disclosure on its packaging regarding hard drive size was not present on the packaging for these two models.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
980
The complaint alleged violations of the California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and causes of action for deceit and negligent misrepresentation.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
981
Plaintiffs sought restitution and other relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
982
On February 28, 2006, the Company filed a demurrer and a motion to strike.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
983
The Company withdrew the demurrer and motion to strike per stipulation.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
984
The Company has reached a Court-approved settlement with the Plaintiffs in this action and the matter is concluded.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
985
The settlement of this matter did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
986
Goldberg, et al.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
987
v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
988
Plaintiffs filed this purported class action on September 22, 2003 in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Company and other members of the computer industry on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of purchasers of certain computer hard drives.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
989
The case alleged violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and false advertising related to the size of the drives.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
990
Plaintiffs alleged that calculation of hard drive size using the decimal method misrepresents the actual size of the drive.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
991
The complaint sought restitution and other relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
992
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 30, 2004 and the Company filed an answer on September 23, 2004, denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
993
Defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint based on sales by resellers and filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based upon Proposition 64.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
994
The Court granted both motions at a hearing on April 6, 2005.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
995
Plaintiffs thereafter filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2005.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
996
The Defendants filed a demurrer on June 6, 2005, which the Court granted in part and denied in part.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
997
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the Company filed an answer on December 15, 2005 denying all allegations and asserting numerous assertive defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
998
The Company reached a Court-approved settlement with the Plaintiffs in this action and the matter is concluded.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
999
The settlement of this matter did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,000
Gordon v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,001
Plaintiff filed this purported class action on August 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, on behalf of a purported nationwide class of consumers who purchased 65W Power Adapters for iBooks and Powerbooks between November 2002 and the present.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,002
The complaint alleges various problems with the 65W Adapter, including fraying, sparking and premature failure.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,003
Plaintiffs allege violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and breach of warranties.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,004
The complaint seeks damages and equitable relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,005
The Company filed an answer on October 20, 2006 denying the material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,006
Mediation is set for March 13, 2007.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,007
Greaves v. Apple Computer, Inc. On June 30, 2006 Plaintiff filed this purported class action in San Diego Superior Court on behalf of a purported class of California purchasers alleging discoloration of the MacBook case.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,008
Plaintiff asserts claims under California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and misrepresentation.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,009
Plaintiff’s complaint seeks damages and equitable relief.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,010
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on August 16, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,011
The Company filed an answer on October 3, 2006 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,012
Honeywell International, Inc., et al.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,013
v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,014
Plaintiffs Honeywell International, Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Properties, Inc. filed this action on October 6, 2004 in the United States District Court in Delaware alleging infringement by the Company and other defendants of U.S. Patent 5,280,371 entitled “Directional Diffuser for a Liquid Crystal Display.” Plain...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,015
The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,016
The Company has tendered the case to several LCD manufacturer suppliers.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,017
On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,018
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,019
Given the stay, the Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,020
In re Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,021
Derivative Litigation (formerly Karant v. Jobs, et al.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,022
and Related Actions) (Federal Action) On June 30, 2006, a putative derivative action captioned Karant v. Jobs, et.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,023
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,024
A number of related actions were filed in the subsequent weeks and have been consolidated into a single action captioned In re Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,025
Derivative Litigation, Master File No.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,026
C-06-04128-JF before the Hon.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,027
Jeremy Fogel.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,028
A Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint was filed on December 18, 2006.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,029
The action purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company against several current and former executive officers and members of the Board of Directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for and take tax deductions for those grants,...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,030
The Company is named as a nominal defendant.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,031
The consolidated complaint alleges various causes of action under federal and California law, including claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Corporations Code, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, rescission, constructive fraud and waste of corporate assets, as well as c...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,032
Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement, restitution and imposition of a constructive trust.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,033
The actions were filed after the Company’s announcement on June 29, 2006 that an internal investigation had discovered irregularities related to the issuance of certain stock option grants made between 1997 and 2001, that a special committee of the Company’s outside directors had retained independent counsel to perform...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,034
The Company’s response to the Consolidated Complaint is not yet due.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,035
In re Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,036
Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,037
and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc. On July 5, 2006, a putative derivative action captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,038
al., was filed in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,039
A number of related actions were filed in the subsequent weeks, and have been consolidated into a single action captioned In re Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,040
Derivative Litigation, No.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,041
1:06CV066692, assigned to the Hon.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,042
Joseph Huber.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,043
These actions purport to assert claims on behalf of the Company against several current and former executive officers and members of the Board of Directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for and take tax deductions for those grant...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,044
The Company is named as a nominal defendant.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,045
A consolidated complaint was filed on October 5, 2006, alleging a variety of causes of action under California law, including claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Corporations Code, abuse of control, accounting, constructive trust, rescission, deceit, gross mismanagement, ...
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,046
On December 7, 2006, the Court granted the Company’s motion to stay these actions.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,047
On November 3, 2006, the Boston Retirement Board, a purported shareholder, filed a petition for writ of mandate against the Company in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara County (Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer Inc.).
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,048
The petition seeks to compel the Company to allow inspection of certain corporate records relating to the Company’s option practices and the Special Committee’s investigation.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20061229
10-Q
1,049
The Company’s response to the petition is not yet due.
0001104659-06-084286/full-submission.txt