Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments The following table summarizes contractual obligations and commitments as of August 2, 2015 , that have materially changed from the end of fiscal year 2014 (in millions): Total 2015 (remainder) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Thereafter Debt principal, interest and fees $ 4,826 $ 49 $ 198 $ 196 $ 194 $ 191 $ 189 $ 3,809 Purchase commitments $ 363 $ 359 $ 4 $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — Operating lease obligations $ 154 $ 9 $ 26 $ 20 $ 17 $ 13 $ 8 $ 61 Debt Principal, Interest and Fees. Represents principal, interest and commitment fees payable on borrowings and credit facilities under the 2014 Credit Agreement. Purchase Commitments. Represents unconditional purchase obligations that include agreements to purchase goods or services, primarily inventory, that are enforceable and legally binding on us and that specify all significant terms, including fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased, fixed, minimum or variable price provisions, and the approximate timing of the transaction. Purchase obligations exclude agreements that are cancelable without penalty. We also make capital expenditures with a variety of vendors in connection with the expansion of our Fort Collins, Colorado, internal fabrication facility. These purchases are typically conducted on a purchase order basis and the amount shown in the table includes $90 million of cancelable and non-cancelable outstanding purchase obligations under such purchase orders as of August 2, 2015 . Under our take-or-pay agreement with SMP, we have agreed to purchase 51% of the managed wafer capacity from SMP’s IC manufacturing facility. If we fail to purchase our required commitments, we will be required to pay SMP for the fixed costs associated with the unpurchased wafers. Operating Lease Obligations. Represents real property and equipment leased from third parties under non-cancelable operating leases. There were no other substantial changes to our contractual commitments during the first three quarters of fiscal year 2015 from those disclosed in our 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Contingencies From time to time, we are involved in litigation that we believe is of the type common to companies engaged in our line of business, including commercial disputes, employment issues and disputes involving claims by third parties that our activities infringe their patent, copyright, trademark or other intellectual property rights. Legal proceedings are often complex, may require the expenditure of significant funds and other resources, and the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, with material adverse outcomes possible. Intellectual property claims generally involve the demand by a third-party that we cease the manufacture, use or sale of the allegedly infringing products, processes or technologies and/or pay substantial damages or royalties for past, present and future use of the allegedly infringing intellectual property. Claims that our products or processes infringe or misappropriate any third-party intellectual property rights (including claims arising through our contractual indemnification of our customers) often involve highly complex, technical issues, the outcome of which is inherently uncertain. Moreover, from time to time we pursue litigation to assert our intellectual property rights. Regardless of the merit or resolution of any such litigation, complex intellectual property litigation is generally costly and diverts the efforts and attention of our management and technical personnel. Lawsuits Relating to the Acquisition of Broadcom Since the announcement of our pending acquisition of Broadcom, eleven putative class action complaints have been filed by and purportedly on behalf of alleged Broadcom shareholders. Two putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned: Wytas, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00979, filed on June 18, 2015; and Yassian, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01303, filed on August 15, 2015. One putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-281353, filed June 2, 2015. Eight putative class action complaints were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, captioned: Xu v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790689-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015; Freed v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790699-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015; N.J. Building Laborers Statewide Pension Fund v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791484-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015; Yiu v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791490-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015; Yiu, et al. v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791762-CU-BT-CXC, filed June 5, 2015; Yassian, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00793360-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 15, 2015; Seafarers’ Pension Plan v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00794492-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 19, 2015; and Engel v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00797343-CU-SL-CXC, filed on July 2, 2015 (together with Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., the “State Actions”). The complaints name as defendants, among other parties, Broadcom, members of Broadcom’s Board of Directors and Avago, and they allege breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting of those alleged breaches. Additionally, Yassian, et al. v. McGregor, et al., which, as noted above, is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14-a9. The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief to prevent the Broadcom Transaction from closing. On June 22, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange dismissed the Yiu, et al. v. Broadcom Corp. et al., complaint at plaintiffs’ request. On August 14, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, issued an order coordinating and consolidating the State Actions and designating Xu v. Broadcom Corp., et al. as the lead case. Avago and Broadcom believe these claims are all entirely without merit and intend to vigorously defend these actions. Lawsuits Relating to the Acquisition of Emulex On March 3, 2015, two putative shareholder class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Emulex Corporation, or Emulex, its directors, Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., or AT Wireless, and Emerald Merger Sub, Inc., or Merger Sub, captioned as follows: James Tullman v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10743-VCL (Del. Ch.); Moshe Silver ACF/Yehudit Silver U/NY/UTMA v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10744-VCL (Del. Ch.). On March 11, 2015, a third complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Hoai Vu v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10776-VCL (Del. Ch.). The complaints allege, among other things, that Emulex’s directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 25, 2015, by and among AT Wireless, Merger Sub and Emulex, or the Merger Agreement, and that AT Wireless and Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as damages, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees. The Delaware Court of Chancery has entered an order consolidating the three Delaware actions under the caption In re Emulex Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10743-VCL. On June 5, 2015, the Court of Chancery dismissed the consolidated action without prejudice. On April 8, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG. The complaint names as defendants Emulex, its directors, AT Wireless and Merger Sub, and purports to assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the Board of Directors of Emulex failed to provide material information and/or omitted material information from the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on April 7, 2015 by Emulex, together with the exhibits and annexes thereto. The complaint seeks to enjoin the tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Emulex common stock, as well as certain other equitable relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 28, 2015, the Court issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel for the putative class. Lawsuits Relating to the Acquisition of PLX In June and July 2014, four lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara challenging our acquisition of PLX. On July 22, 2014, the court consolidated these California actions under the caption In re PLX Technology, Inc. S’holder Litig., Lead Case No. 1-14-CV-267079 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara) and appointed lead counsel. That same day, the court also stayed the consolidated action, pending resolution of related actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, described below. Also in June and July 2014, five similar lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 21, 2014, the court consolidated these Delaware actions under the caption In re PLX Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 9880-VCL (Del. Ch.), appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and designated an operative complaint for the consolidated action. On July 31, 2014, counsel for lead plaintiffs in Delaware informed the court that they would not seek a preliminary injunction, but intend to seek damages and pursue monetary remedies through post-closing litigation. Our acquisition of PLX closed on August 12, 2014. On October 31, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. This complaint alleges, among other things, that PLX’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to PLX’s stockholders by seeking to sell PLX for an inadequate price, pursuant to an unfair process, and by agreeing to preclusive deal protections in the merger agreement. Plaintiffs also allege that Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P., Deutsche Bank Securities, Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing, Inc. and the acquisition subsidiary aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches. Plaintiffs also allege that PLX’s 14D-9 recommendation statement contained false and misleading statements and/or omitted material information necessary to inform the shareholder vote. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 3, 2015, the Court granted motions to dismiss filed by Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing, Inc., the acquisition subsidiary and two PLX directors, and denied motions to dismiss filed by a several PLX directors, Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. and Deutsche Bank Securities. The Delaware class litigation is on-going. Lawsuits Relating to the Acquisition of LSI Fifteen purported class action complaints were filed by alleged former stockholders of LSI against us. Eight of those lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and the other seven lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara on behalf of the same putative class as the Delaware actions, or the California Actions. On January 17, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order consolidating the Delaware actions into a single action, or the Delaware Action. These actions generally alleged that we aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of LSI's board of directors in connection with the merger because the merger was not in the best interest of LSI, the merger consideration was unfair and certain other terms of the merger agreement were unfair. Among other remedies, the lawsuits sought to rescind the merger or obtain unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On March 7, 2014, the parties to the Delaware Action reached an agreement in principle to settle the Delaware Action on a class wide basis, and negotiated a stipulation of settlement that was presented to the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 10, 2014. On March 12, 2014, the parties to the California Actions entered into a stipulation staying the California Actions pending resolution of the Delaware Action. On May 16, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed a motion for final approval of the proposed settlement and award of attorneys’ fees and expenses with the Delaware Court of Chancery. On June 10, 2014, the Delaware court approved the settlement, including the payment of $2 million to counsel for the stockholders, entered final judgment and dismissed the case, or the Order and Final Judgment. On July 10, 2014, a class member of the Delaware Action filed a notice of appeal from the Order and Final Judgment. On February 5, 2015, the appeal was dismissed with prejudice. Other Matters In addition to the matters discussed above, we are currently engaged in a number of legal actions in the ordinary course of our business. We do not believe, based on currently available facts and circumstances, that the final outcome of any pending legal proceedings, taken individually or as a whole, will have a material adverse effect on the our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, lawsuits may involve complex questions of fact and law and may require the expenditure of significant funds and other resources to defend. The results of litigation are inherently uncertain, and material adverse outcomes are possible. From time to time, we may enter into confidential discussions regarding the potential settlement of such lawsuits. Any settlement of pending litigation could require us to incur substantial costs and other ongoing expenses, such as future royalty payments in the case of an intellectual property dispute. During the periods presented we have not recorded any accrual for loss contingencies associated with any legal proceedings, nor determined that an unfavorable outcome is probable. As a result, no amounts have been accrued or disclosed in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements with respect to these legal proceedings, as potential losses for such matters are not considered probable and ranges of losses are not reasonably estimable. These matters are subject to many uncertainties and the ultimate outcomes are not predictable. There can be no assurances that the actual amounts required to satisfy any liabilities arising from the matters described above will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Other Indemnifications As is customary in our industry and as provided for in local law in the United States and other jurisdictions, many of our standard contracts provide remedies to our customers and others with whom we enter into contracts, such as defense, settlement, or payment of judgment for intellectual property claims related to the use of our products. From time to time, we indemnify customers, as well as our suppliers, contractors, lessors, lessees, companies that purchase our businesses or assets and others with whom we enter into contracts, against combinations of loss, expense, or liability arising from various triggering events related to the sale and the use of our products, the use of their goods and services, the use of facilities and state of our owned facilities, the state of the assets and businesses that we sell and other matters covered by such contracts, usually up to a specified maximum amount. In addition, from time to time we also provide protection to these parties against claims related to undiscovered liabilities, additional product liability or environmental obligations. In our experience, claims made under such indemnifications are rare and the associated estimated fair value of the liability is not material. |