This Shareholder Derivative Action was in the Fall of 2009.Intel is Corrupt and Is Constantly Pulling the "Wool" over Shareholder. Intel
CEO Paul Otellini Knows of Major Liabilities to the Intel Stockholders in the Iviewit Stolen Technologies and has still NOT disclosed this information Intel Stockholders.
It seems like with AMD, and the Other
Anti-Trust Lawsuits and Issues that Intel is in Constantly in some sort of Illegal Scandaling.. stomping on the rights of others.. and Wellthe Stockholders pay the price for the Illegal and DirtyDeals by the Big Wigs at Intel.
Attention Intel Stockholders:
YOU Need to Know about the Iviewit Stolen Technology - this is a
Massive Shareholder Fraud Upon YOU and YOU will paythe price for Their Lies, Deciet and Dirty Deeds. More on the Iviewit Trillion Dollar Liability NOW affecting Intel Stockholders .. at
www.DeniedPatent.com - over a thousand documents of Proof.. and Intel is Hiding this CRIME from Intel Stockholders.
Below is the Shareholder Derivative Action"" TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF INTEL CORPORATION ("INTEL" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF MAY 25, 2010.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LITIGATION. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE FAIRNESS, REASONABLENESS AND ADEQUACY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE SETTLED CLAIMS (DEFINED HEREIN).
IF YOU HOLD
INTEL COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER,
1.
PURPOSE OF NOTICE
Pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Court") dated June 2, 2010, and further pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Notice is to inform you of (a) the above-captioned action (the “Delaware Action”) pending in the Court, (b) the proposed settlement of the Delaware Action (the "Settlement") as provided for in a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation") dated May 25, 2010, and (c) your right to participate in a hearing to be held on July 20, 2010 at 10 a.m., before the Honorable Joseph J. Farnan at the United States Courthouse, 844 N. King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (the "Settlement Hearing") to (i) determine whether the Court should approve the Settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of Intel and its shareholders,
(ii) determine whether an Order and Final Judgment should be entered dismissing the Delaware Action with prejudice, and releasing and barring prosecution of any and all Settled Claims, as defined below, (iii) consider and determine whether to enter an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to counsel for the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action and in the Related Actions, as defined below, and (iv) consider such other matters as the Court deems appropriate.
This Notice describes the rights you may have with respect to the Delaware Action and pursuant to the Stipulation and what steps you may take, but are not required to take, in relation to the Settlement.
2. FACTUAL BACKGROUNDTHE FOLLOWING RECITATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FINDINGS OF THE COURT. IT IS BASED ON STATEMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION OF THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY OF THE CLAIMS OR DEFENSES RAISED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES.
On November 13, 2009,
Charles A. Gilman, an Intel Stockholder, commenced a shareholder derivative action in the Court (the “Gilman Action”) on behalf of Intel against defendants
Craig R. Barrett, Carol Bartz, Charlene Barshefsky, Susan L. Decker, John J. Donahoe, D. James Guzy, Sr., Paul S. Otellini, David S. Pottruck, James D. Plummer, Jane E. Shaw, David B. Yoffie, and Frank D. Yeary (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) and nominal defendant Intel (together with the Individual Defendants, the “Defendants”).
On December 23, 2009, the
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System (“MPERS”) commenced a shareholder derivative action in the Court on behalf of Intel against the Individual Defendants and nominal defendant Intel (the “MPERS Action”).
On January 15, 2010, the Court entered an order consolidating the Gilman Action and the MPERS Action into this action, appointing Mr. Gilman and MPERS as lead plaintiffs in the Delaware Action (the “Delaware Plaintiffs”), and appointing Paskowitz & Associates and Berman DeValerio to be Co-Lead Counsel (together, the “Delaware Plaintiffs’ Counsel”).
On February 12, 2010, the Delaware Plaintiffs filed a Shareholders’ Demand-Made Consolidated Derivative Complaint (the "Delaware Complaint"), alleging, inter alia, that Intel has, for a number of years, engaged in conduct which
violates U.S. and foreign competition laws, resulting in civil suits and regulatory investigations and proceedings against Intel (together the “Antitrust Proceedings”) including, without limitation:
(1) A suit commenced by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and AMD International Sales & Services, Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp., Civil Action No. 05-441 (JJF) (the “AMD Action”);
(2) A series of
puntative class action suits brought under state competition laws, consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware under the caption In re Intel Corporation Microprocessor
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 05-1717 (JJF);
(3) A proceeding by the
Japan Fair Trade Commission against Intel Kabushiki Kaisha, Intel’s Japanese subsidiary, which resulted in a consent decree ordering Intel Kabushiki Kaisha to cease and desist certain actions;
(4) An investigation and proceeding brought by
the European Commission, in which the European Commission issued a decision and imposed a fine against Intel in May 2009;
(5) A proceeding brought by the
Korea Fair Trade Commission, in which the Korea Fair Trade Commission entered a ruling against Intel in June 2008;
(6) An action commenced by the
New York Attorney General in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled State of New York v. Intel Corp., Civil Action No. 09-827 (JJF); and (7) An administrative proceeding commenced by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission against Intel on or about December 16, 2009, Docket No. 9341.
The Delaware Complaint incorporates the allegations made in certain of the Antitrust Proceedings, and further asserts that Intel’s alleged anticompetitive conduct has resulted in damage to Intel, and that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Intel by failing to, among other things, rein in, ameliorate, or countermand such conduct, and failing to institute certain remedial measures.
The Delaware Complaint seeks recovery for and on behalf of Intel of the damages it allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Individual Defendants.
Intel and certain of its current or former officers, directors, and employees are parties to other litigation relating to, arising out of, or making allegations similar to, the allegations contained in the Delaware Complaint, including the following (the “Related Actions”):
(1) A
shareholder derivative suit pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County, entitled Paris v. Otellini, et al., Case No. 110CV166850; and
(2) An action pursuant to Delaware General Corporation Law § 220 pending in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, entitled
Rosenfeld Family Foundation, et ano. v. Intel Corporation, Civil Action No. 5070-VCS. The Rosenfeld Family Foundation action was filed following the dismissal by this Court of a demand futility shareholder derivative suit, entitled In re Intel Corp. Derivative Litigation, Civ. A. No. 08-93-JJF (D. Del.). The two actions are collectively referred to as
the “Rosenfeld Action.”Counsel for the Defendants and Delaware Plaintiffs’ Counsel have engaged in extensive negotiations concerning a possible settlement of the Delaware Action. In connection therewith, Delaware Plaintiffs’ Counsel have conducted a thorough investigation of the claims and allegations asserted in the Delaware Action, including:
(i) review of publicly-available documents concerning
Intel and the Antitrust Proceedings, (ii) review of over 17,000 pages of documents produced by Intel, including transcripts of the depositions of twenty Intel officers, directors, or employees that were taken in the AMD Action,
(iii) the deposition of
Evangelina Almirantearena, Senior Counsel, Competition Compliance for Intel, and (iv) consultation with experts in the areas of corporate governance, antitrust law, and compliance. As a result of the extensive negotiations, the Delaware Plaintiffs and the Defendants have agreed to the proposed Settlement described below, as provided for in the Stipulation, and have moved the Court for final approval of the Settlement.
Plaintiffs and counsel to the plaintiffs in the Rosenfeld Action ("Rosenfeld’s Counsel") have engaged in extensive negotiations concerning the terms of a possible settlement of the Rosenfeld Action.
In connection therewith, Rosenfeld’s Counsel have conducted a thorough investigation of the allegations asserted in the Rosenfeld Action, including a review of publicly-available documents concerning Intel and the
Antitrust Proceedings, review of documents produced by Intel, the transcript, and accompanying exhibits, to the deposition of Evangelina Almirantearena, Senior Counsel,
Competition Compliance for Intel, and consultation with experts in the areas of corporate governance, antitrust law, and compliance.
As a result of the extensive negotiations, Plaintiffs and counsel to the plaintiffs in the Related Actions (the "Related Plaintiffs" and "Related Plaintiffs’ Counsel," respectively) also have agreed to the proposed Settlement described below and have executed the Stipulation.
...""
Source and Full Document Click Here Intel Stockholders, You Pay the Price for their Crimes. They Get Richer from their Crimes Everyday. Time for Intel to Disclose the Liability of the Iviewit Stolen Technology.
Craig R. Barrett, Carol Bartz, Charlene Barshefsky, Susan L. Decker, John J. Donahoe, D. James Guzy, Sr., Paul S. Otellini, David S. Pottruck, James D. Plummer, Jane E. Shaw, David B. Yoffie, and Frank D. Yeary
ARE accountable to YOU: The Sooner you Stand up to them the Less Money you will Lose as the Iviewit Technologies Trillion Dollar Liability to Intel Stockholders Will Never Go Away... it will Only Get Bigger and Bigger.
Warner Bros. Has Violated a Non-Compete and Signed Agreements for Over a Decade, that Warner Bros. TWX had with the Iviewit Technology Inventors. 
