Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits (Wessels, Hamilton and Ha)

On March 20, 2014, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned Wessels v. Read, et al., Case No. 1:14 cv-262486 (Wessels) was filed against us (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of our directors and officers in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California. The complaint purports to assert claims against us and certain individual directors and officers for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by us and the individual directors and officers regarding our 32nm technology and “Llano” product, which statements and omissions, the plaintiffs claim, allegedly operated to artificially inflate the price paid for our common stock during the period. On April 27, 2015, a similar purported shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned Christopher Hamilton and David Hamilton v. Barnes, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01890 (Hamilton) was filed against us (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of our directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

On September 29, 2015, a similar purported shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned Jake Ha v Caldwell, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04485 (Ha) was filed against us (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of our directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit also seeks a court order voiding the stockholder vote on our 2015 proxy. The case was transferred to the judge handling the Hamilton Lawsuit and is now Case No. 4:15-cv-04485. The Wessels, Hamilton and Ha shareholder derivative lawsuits were stayed pending resolution of a class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v. AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 filed against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the Hatamian Lawsuit). The Hatamian Lawsuit asserted claims against us and certain of our officers for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and SEC Rule 10b-5 concerning certain statements regarding our 32nm technology and “Llano” products. On October 9, 2017, the parties signed a definitive settlement agreement resolving the Hatamian Lawsuit and submitted it to the Court for approval. Under the terms of this agreement, the settlement was funded entirely by certain of our insurance carriers and the defendants continued to deny any liability or wrongdoing. On March 2, 2018, the court approved the settlement and entered a final judgment in the Hatamian Lawsuit.

On January 30, 2018, the Wessels and Hamilton plaintiffs amended their complaints. On February 2, 2018, the Ha plaintiff also filed an amended complaint. On February 22, 2018, we filed motions to dismiss the Hamilton and Ha plaintiffs’ amended complaints. On April 2, 2018, we filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss the Wessels amended complaint. On July 23, 2018, the Santa Clara Superior Court sustained our demurrer in the Wessels case, dismissing all claims in that matter with prejudice. The Wessels plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on September 27, 2018. On October 4, 2018, the Federal Court issued an order dismissing the Hamilton and Ha amended complaints. The Hamilton plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on October 8, 2018, and the Ha plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on October 15, 2018.

The Wessels, Hamilton, and Ha appeals are currently pending; the plaintiffs have not yet filed their opening briefs in any of the three matters. On November 19, 2018, the Hamilton and Ha plaintiffs filed a motion seeking summary reversal of the order dismissing their claims. We opposed this motion on December 13, 2018, and it remains pending.

Based upon information presently known to management, we believe that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Kim Securities Litigation

On January 16, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Kim et al. v. AMD, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00321 was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint purports to assert claims against us and certain individual officers for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock during the period February 21, 2017 through January 11, 2018. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by us and the individual officers regarding a security vulnerability (Spectre), which statements and omissions, the plaintiff claims, allegedly caused our common stock price to be artificially inflated during the purported class period. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 3, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with similar allegations and shortening the class period to June 29, 2017 through January 11, 2018. We filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims on September 25, 2018, and plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss on November 14, 2018.

Based upon information presently known to management, we believe that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Hauck et al. Litigation

Since January 19, 2018, three putative class action complaints have been filed against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California: (1) Diana Hauck et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-0047, filed on January 19, 2018; (2) Brian Speck et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-0744, filed on February 4, 2018; and (3) Nathan Barnes and Jonathan Caskey-Medina, et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00883, filed on February 9, 2018. On April 9, 2018, the court consolidated these cases and ordered that Diana Hauck et al. v. AMD, Inc. serve as the lead case. On June 13, 2018, six plaintiffs (from California, Louisiana, Florida, and Massachusetts) filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging that we failed to disclose our processors’ alleged vulnerability to Spectre. Plaintiffs further allege that our processors cannot perform at their advertised processing speeds without exposing consumers to Spectre, and that any “patches” to remedy this security vulnerability will result in degradation of processor performance. The plaintiffs seek damages under several causes of action on behalf of a nationwide class and four state subclasses (California, Florida, Massachusetts, Louisiana) of consumers who purchased our processors and/or devices containing AMD processors. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees, equitable relief, and restitution. Pursuant to the court’s order directing the parties to litigate only eight of the causes of action in the consolidated amended complaint initially, we filed a motion to dismiss on July 13, 2018. On October 29, 2018, after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed one of their claims, the court granted our motion and dismissed six causes of action with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint on December 6, 2018. On January 3, 2019, we again moved to dismiss the subset of claims currently at issue.

Based upon information presently known to management, we believe that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Quarterhill Inc. Litigation

On July 2, 2018, three entities named Aquila Innovations, Inc. (Aquila), Collabo Innovations, Inc. (Collabo), and Polaris Innovations, Ltd. (Polaris), filed separate patent infringement complaints against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Aquila alleges that we infringe two patents (6,239,614 and 6,895,519) relating to power management; Collabo alleges that we infringe one patent (7,930,575) related to power management; and Polaris alleges that we infringe two patents (6,728,144 and 8,117,526) relating to control or use of dynamic random-access memory, or DRAM. Each of the three complaints seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest, fees, expenses, and costs against us; Aquila and Collabo also seek enhanced damages. Aquila, Collabo, and Polaris each appear to be related to a patent assertion entity named Quarterhill Inc. (formerly WiLAN Inc.). On November 16, 2018, AMD filed answers in the Collabo and Aquila cases and filed a motion to dismiss in the Polaris case. On January 25, 2019, we filed amended answers and counterclaims in the Collabo and Aquila cases.

Based upon information presently known to management, we believe that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Zeng Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

On March 8, 2018, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned Zeng v. Su, et al., Case No. 18CIV01192 was filed against us (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of our directors and officers in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California. The complaint purports to assert claims against us and certain individual directors and officers for breach of

fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by us and the individual directors and officers regarding Spectre, which statements and omissions, the plaintiffs claim, allegedly operated to artificially inflate the price paid for our common stock during the period. On April 26, 2018, the lawsuit was transferred to Santa Clara County and assigned a new case number, 18CV327692. On August 14, 2018, the Court stayed this lawsuit pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in Kim et al. v. AMD, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00321 filed against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Based upon information presently known to management, we believe that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

In re Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation

Two purported shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed against us (as a nominal defendant only) and certain of our directors and officers in the United States District Court, Northern District of California: (1) Jacqueline Dolby, derivatively on behalf of AMD, Inc. v. Su et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-03575, filed on June 14, 2018; and (2) Gusinsky Trust, derivatively on behalf of AMD, Inc. v. Su et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-03811, filed on June 26, 2018. The complaints purport to assert claims against us and certain individual directors and officers for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The complaints seek damages purportedly caused by alleged materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by us and the individual directors and officers regarding Spectre. The plaintiffs allege that these statements and omissions operated to artificially inflate the price paid for our common stock during the period. On July 12, 2018, the court consolidated the Dolby and Gusinsky Trust shareholder derivative lawsuits under the caption In re Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation. On August 10, 2018, the Court stayed this lawsuit pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in Kim et al. v. AMD, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00321 filed against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Based upon information presently known to management, we believe that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Dickey Litigation

On October 26, 2015, a putative class action complaint captioned Dickey et al. v. AMD, No. 15-cv-04922 was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs allege that we misled consumers by using the term “eight cores” in connection with the marketing of certain AMD FX CPUs that are based on our “Bulldozer” core architecture. The plaintiffs allege these products cannot perform eight calculations simultaneously, without restriction. The plaintiffs seek to obtain damages under several causes of action for a nationwide class of consumers who allegedly were deceived into purchasing certain Bulldozer-based CPUs that were marketed as containing eight cores. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees. On December 21, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted on April 7, 2016. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint with a narrowed putative class definition, which the Court dismissed upon our motion on October 31, 2016. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint, and we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On June 14, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss, and allowing the plaintiffs to move forward with a portion of their complaint. On March 27, 2018, plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On January 17, 2019, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The class definition does not encompass our RyzenTM or EPYCTM processors. On January 31, 2019, we filed a petition in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking review of certain aspects of the January 17, 2019 class certification order.

Based upon information presently known to management, we believe that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Environmental Matters

We are named as a responsible party on Superfund clean-up orders for three sites in Sunnyvale, California that are on the National Priorities List. Since 1981, we have discovered hazardous material releases to the groundwater from former underground tanks and proceeded to investigate and conduct remediation at these three sites. The chemicals released into the groundwater were commonly used in the semiconductor industry in the United States in the wafer fabrication process prior to 1979.

In 1991, we received Final Site Clean-up Requirements Orders from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board relating to the three sites. We have entered into settlement agreements with other responsible parties on two of the orders. During the term of such agreements, other parties have agreed to assume most of the foreseeable costs as well as the primary role in conducting remediation activities under the orders. We remain responsible for additional costs beyond the scope of the agreements as well as all remaining costs in the event that the other parties do not fulfill their obligations under the settlement agreements.

To address anticipated future remediation costs under the orders, we have computed and recorded an estimated environmental liability of approximately $3 million and have not recorded any potential insurance recoveries in determining the estimated costs of the cleanup. Costs could also increase as a result of additional test and remediation obligations imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency or California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The progress of future remediation efforts cannot be predicted with certainty and these costs may change. We believe that the potential liability, if any, in excess of amounts already accrued, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Other Matters

We are a defendant or plaintiff in various actions that arose in the normal course of business. With respect to these matters, based on our management’s current knowledge, we believe that the amount or range of reasonably possible loss, if any, will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.