NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS  


18. LITIGATION

Muriel Siebert & Co., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., Index No. 03-602942, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

On September 17, 2003, plaintiff Muriel Siebert & Co., Inc. filed a complaint against Intuit alleging various claims for breach of contract, breach of express and implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation and/or fraud, and promissory estoppel. The allegations relate to Quicken Brokerage powered by Siebert, a strategic alliance between the two companies. The complaint seeks compensatory, punitive, and other damages. On September 22, 2003, Intuit filed an arbitration demand against Siebert & Co., Inc. in San Jose, California seeking arbitration of all claims asserted by both parties. The Apellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York court has stayed the matter while it determines whether it will proceed in New York state court or in arbitration. Intuit believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

Intuit/Quicken Sunsetting Litigation, Master File No. 1-04-CV-016394, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (Anthony Flannery v. Intuit Inc., et al, Civil No. 1-04-CV-016394 and Daniel J. Mason v. Intuit Inc., et al, Civil No. 1-04-CV-018345).

On or about March 19, 2004, plaintiff Anthony Flannery, on his behalf and on behalf of a class of persons allegedly similarly situated, filed a complaint against Intuit in Santa Clara Superior Court, alleging that Intuit's retirement of certain services and live technical support associated with its Quicken 1998, Quicken 1999 and Quicken 2000 products constituted a breach of express and implied warranties and violated sections 17200 and 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code, as well as the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). The complaint seeks certification as a class action, as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorney's fees from Intuit.

    On or about April 21, 2004, plaintiff Daniel Mason, on his behalf and on behalf of a class of persons allegedly similarly situated, filed a complaint against Intuit in Santa Clara Superior Court making allegations virtually identical to those of Anthony Flannery. On July 14, 2004, the Court consolidated the two cases pursuant to stipulation of the partie

    On July 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated First Amended Complaint. Intuit's response to that Complaint is due on October 8, 2004. The parties have only recently initiated discovery. No trial date is set. Intuit believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

Cynthia Belotti v. Intuit Inc., et al, Civil No. 1-04-CV-020277, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara.

On or about May 24, 2004, plaintiff Cynthia Belotti, on her behalf and on behalf of a class of persons allegedly similarly situated, filed a complaint against Intuit in Santa Clara Superior Court, alleging that Intuit's retirement of certain add-on business services and live technical support associated with its QuickBooks 2001 and QuickBooks 2002 products constituted a breach of express and implied warranties and violated sections 17200 and 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint sought certification as a class action, as well as damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorney's fees from Intuit.

    On or about July 13, 2004, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that added Ental Precision Machining, Inc., as plaintiff; plaintiffs' counsel has also dismissed without prejudice all claims on behalf of Cynthia Belotti. Intuit's response to that Complaint is due on October 8, 2004. The parties have only recently initiated discovery. No trial date is set. Intuit believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

Intuit is subject to certain routine legal proceedings, as well as demands, claims and threatened litigation, that arise in the normal course of our business, including assertions that we may be infringing patents or other intellectual property rights of others. We currently believe that the ultimate amount of liability, if any, for any pending claims of any type (either alone or combined) will not materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We also believe that we would be able to obtain any necessary licenses or other rights to disputed intellectual property rights on commercially reasonable terms. However, the ultimate outcome of any litigation is uncertain and, regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on Intuit because of defense costs, negative publicity, diversion of management resources and other factors. Our failure to obtain necessary license or other rights, or litigation arising out of intellectual property claims could adversely affect our business.