| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments The following table summarizes contractual obligations and commitments as of July 31, 2016 (in millions): Fiscal Year Total 2016 (remainder) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Thereafter Debt principal, interest and fees $ 16,804 $ 208 $ 829 $ 945 $ 925 $ 2,554 $ 2,250 $ 9,093 Purchase commitments 1,728 1,374 316 38 — — — — Other contractual commitments 336 46 108 87 64 29 2 — Operating lease obligations 484 37 142 116 69 43 19 58 Capital lease obligations 112 31 66 15 — — — — $ 19,464 $ 1,696 $ 1,461 $ 1,201 $ 1,058 $ 2,626 $ 2,271 $ 9,151 Debt Principal, Interest and Fees. Represents principal, interest and commitment fees payable on borrowings and credit facilities under the 2016 Credit Agreement and the Senior Notes. 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 in connection with capacity expansion of our internal fabrication facility in Fort Collins, Colorado, as well as construction at our new campuses in Orange County, California and San Jose, California. These purchases are typically conducted on a purchase order basis and the amount shown in the table includes $344 million of cancelable and non-cancelable outstanding purchase obligations under such purchase orders as of July 31, 2016 . Other Contractual Commitments. Represents amounts payable pursuant to agreements related to IT, human resources, financial infrastructure outsourcing services and other service agreements. Operating Lease Obligations. Represents real property and equipment leased from third parties under non-cancelable operating leases. Capital Lease Obligations. Represents equipment leased from third parties under non-cancelable capital leases. Due to the inherent uncertainty with respect to the timing of future cash outflows associated with our unrecognized tax benefits at July 31, 2016 , we are unable to reliably estimate the timing of cash settlement with the respective taxing authority. Therefore, $927 million of unrecognized tax benefits and accrued interest classified within other long-term liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of July 31, 2016 have been excluded from the contractual obligations table above. 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 Tessera Inc. On May 23, 2016, Tessera Technologies, Inc., Tessera, Inc., or Tessera, and Invensas Corporation, or Invensas, filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, or the U.S. ITC, alleging infringement by Broadcom, BRCM, Avago and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. of three U.S. patents, or the U.S. ITC patents-at-issue, relating to semiconductor packaging and semiconductor manufacturing technologies. The proposed respondents also include Arista Networks, Inc., ARRIS International plc, ARRIS Group, Inc., ARRIS Technology, Inc., ARRIS Enterprises LLC, ARRIS Solutions, Inc., Pace Ltd., Pace Americas, LLC, Pace USA, LLC, ASUSteK Computer Inc., ASUS Computer International, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, Comcast Business Communications, LLC, HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., NETGEAR, Inc., Technicolor S.A., Technicolor USA, Inc., and Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC. The complaint requests institution of an investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The requested relief includes (1) a permanent limited exclusion order excluding from entry into the U.S. all of the proposed respondents' semiconductor devices, semiconductor device packages and products containing the same that infringe one or more of the U.S. ITC patents-at-issue and (2) a permanent cease and desist order prohibiting the proposed respondents and related companies from at least importing, marketing, advertising, demonstrating, warehousing inventory for distribution, offering for sale, selling, qualifying for use in the products of others, distributing, or using the proposed respondents' semiconductor devices, semiconductor device packages and products containing the same that infringe one or more of the U.S. ITC patents-at-issue. On June 20, 2016, the U.S. ITC instituted an investigation. On May 23, 2016, Tessera and Invensas filed a complaint against BRCM in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1-16-cv-00379, alleging infringement of the U.S. ITC patents-at-issue. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs. On May 23, 2016, Invensas filed a Writ of Summons against Broadcom, BRCM, Broadcom Netherlands B.V. and Broadcom Communications Netherlands B.V. in the Hague District Court in the Netherlands, Case No. L1422381, alleging infringement of a single European patent that is a foreign counterpart to one of the U.S. ITC patents-at-issue, or the European patent-at-issue. The named defendants also include EBV Elektronik GmbH, Arrow Central Europe GmbH, and Mouser Electronics Netherlands B.V. The requested relief includes a cease-and-desist order and damages in an unspecified amount. On May 23, 2016, Invensas also filed a complaint against each of (i) Broadcom Germany GmbH and its German distributors, Case No. 7 O 97/16, and (ii) Broadcom and BRCM, Case No. 7 O 98/16, in the Mannheim District Court in Germany, alleging infringement of the European patent-at-issue. The required relief includes damages in an unspecified amount and an injunction preventing the sale of the accused products. On May 23, 2016, Tessera and Tessera Advanced Technologies, Inc. also filed a complaint against Broadcom Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1-16-cv-00380, alleging infringement of four additional U.S. patents relating to semiconductor packaging, semiconductor manufacturing and circuit technologies. On June 19, 2016, the complaint was amended to add three more U.S. patents relating to semiconductor packaging technologies for a total of seven U.S. patents in this matter. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs. We intend to vigorously defend these actions. Lawsuits Relating to the Acquisition of BRCM Since the announcement of the Broadcom Transaction, 11 putative class action complaints have been filed by and purportedly on behalf of alleged BRCM 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, or the Federal Actions. On September 2, 2015, plaintiffs in the Wytas, et al. v. McGregor, et al. matter filed an amended complaint adding claims under the U.S. federal securities laws. 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 Federal Actions and State Actions name as defendants, among other parties, BRCM, members of BRCM’s board of directors and Avago, and allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting those alleged breaches. Additionally, the Federal Actions allege violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 14-a9. On August 14, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, issued an order coordinating and consolidating the State Actions, captioned Broadcom Shareholder Cases, JCCP 4834. On September 18, 2015, the United States District Court for the Central District of California consolidated the Federal Actions under the caption In re Broadcom Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 8:15-cv-00979. On September 25, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, stayed the State Actions pending the outcome of the Federal Actions. On October 28, 2015, BRCM supplemented its disclosures, and filed additional proxy materials with the SEC. On November 10, 2015, BRCM shareholders voted to approve the Broadcom Transaction. On November 16, 2015, the United States District Court for the Central District of California appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the Federal Actions. On January 15, 2016, lead plaintiffs in the Federal Actions filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, or the Federal Consolidated Compliant, which names as defendants, among other parties, members of BRCM’s board of directors and Avago, and alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting those alleged breaches, as well as violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14-a9. On February 1, 2016, we completed the acquisition of BRCM. On February 16, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Federal Consolidated Complaint. 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 alleged, 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 sought, among other things, either to enjoin the transaction or to rescind it following its completion, 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 May 5, 2015, we completed our acquisition of Emulex. On June 5, 2015, the Court of Chancery dismissed the consolidated action without prejudice. On April 8, 2015, a putative 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 purported to assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, 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 sought 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 appointing the lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel for the putative class. On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint seeking rescission of the merger, unspecified money damages, other equitable relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 13, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, which the court granted with prejudice on January 13, 2016. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 15, 2016. The appeal is captioned Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 16-55088. On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff-Appellant filed his opening brief and on August 17, 2016, the Defendants-Appellees filed their answering brief. 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., or AT Wireless, and Pluto Merger Sub, Inc., the acquisition subsidiary, aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches. Plaintiffs also allege that PLX’s Solicitation/Recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9, as filed with the SEC, contained false and misleading statements and/or omitted material information necessary to inform the shareholder vote. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, monetary damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 3, 2015, the court granted motions to dismiss filed by AT Wireless, the acquisition subsidiary and two PLX directors, and denied motions to dismiss filed by several other PLX directors, Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. and Deutsche Bank Securities. On August 17, 2016, the five remaining PLX director-defendants and Deutsche Bank Securities entered into a stipulation of partial settlement to resolve claims against all of the former PLX directors and Deutsche Bank Securities asserted in the Delaware class action. The partial settlement also provides for a release of all potential claims against AT Wireless, Pluto Merger Sub, Avago and PLX. Defendant Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. is not a party to the settlement. This partial settlement is subject to court approval following notice to the putative class of PLX shareholders. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for November 17, 2016. The Delaware class litigation is on-going. 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 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, no material amounts have been accrued or disclosed in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements with respect to loss contingencies associated with any 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. |
