The Company may enter into foreign currency forward and option contracts with financial institutions to protect against foreign exchange risks associated with certain existing assets and liabilities, certain firmly committed transactions, forecasted future cash flows, and net investments in foreign subsidiaries. Generally, the Company’s practice is to hedge a majority of its material foreign exchange exposures, typically for three to six months. However, the Company may choose not to hedge certain foreign exchange exposures for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to immateriality, accounting considerations and the prohibitive economic cost of hedging particular exposures.
Controls and Procedures
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Based on an evaluation under the supervision and with the participation of the Company’s management, the Company’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer have concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) were effective as of March 26, 2011 to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is (i) recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms and (ii) accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including its principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There were no changes in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting during the second quarter of 2011, which were identified in connection with management’s evaluation required by paragraph (d) of Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15 under the Exchange Act, that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
As of March 26, 2011, the end of the quarterly period covered by this report, the Company was subject to the various legal proceedings and claims discussed below, as well as certain other legal proceedings and claims that have not been fully resolved and that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the Company does not have a potential liability related to any current legal proceeding or claim that would individually or in the aggregate materially adversely affect its financial condition or operating results. However, the results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. Should the Company fail to prevail in any of these legal matters or should several of these legal matters be resolved against the Company in the same reporting period, the operating results of a particular reporting period could be materially adversely affected. See the risk factors “The Company’s future results could be materially adversely affected if it is found to have infringed on intellectual property rights.” and “Unfavorable results of legal proceedings could materially adversely affect the Company.” in Part II, Item 1A of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q under the heading “Risk Factors.” The Company settled certain matters during the second quarter of 2011 that did not individually or in the aggregate have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.
In re Apple & ATTM Antitrust Litigation (brought on behalf of named plaintiffs Kliegerman, Holman, Rivello, Smith, Lee, Macasaddu, Morikawa, Scotti and Sesso)
This is a purported class action filed against the Company and AT&T Mobility in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the Company and AT&T Mobility violated the federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and/or attempting to monopolize the “aftermarket for voice and data services” for the iPhone and that the Company monopolized and/or attempted to monopolize the “aftermarket for software applications for iPhones.” Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the class, treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys fees. On July 8, 2010 the Court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The case is currently stayed until the Supreme Court rules on the enforceability of the AT&T Mobility arbitration clause in the AT&T Mobility v. Conception case.