| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments The following table summarizes contractual obligations and commitments as of April 30, 2017 that materially changed from the end of fiscal 2016 (in millions): Fiscal Year Total 2017 (remainder) 2018 2019 2020 2021 Thereafter Debt principal, interest and fees $ 16,918 $ 221 $ 569 $ 450 $ 3,166 $ 383 $ 12,129 Purchase commitments $ 1,167 $ 1,031 $ 104 $ 31 $ 1 $ — $ — Debt Principal, Interest and Fees. Represents principal and interest on borrowings under the Senior Notes and Assumed Senior Notes, as well as commitment fees payable under the 2016 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. Cancellation for outstanding purchase orders for capital expenditures in connection with internal fabrication facility expansion and construction of our new campuses is generally allowed but requires payment of all costs incurred through the date of cancellation and, therefore, cancelable purchase orders for these capital expenditures are included in the table above. Due to the inherent uncertainty with respect to the timing of future cash outflows associated with our unrecognized tax benefits at April 30, 2017 , we are unable to reliably estimate the timing of cash settlement with the respective taxing authority. Therefore, $1,080 million of unrecognized tax benefits and accrued interest classified within other long-term liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of April 30, 2017 have been excluded from the contractual obligations table above. There were no other substantial changes to our contractual commitments during the first two quarters of fiscal year 2017 from those disclosed in Broadcom’s 2016 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 Brocade Acquisition On December 13, 2016, December 15, 2016, December 21, 2016, January 5, 2017 and January 18, 2017, six putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or the U.S. Northern District Court, captioned Steinberg v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-7081-EMC, Gross v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-7173-EJD, Jha v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-7270-HRL, Bragan v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-7271-JSD, Chuakay v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-0058-PJH, and Mathew v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-7271-HSG, respectively. The Steinberg, Bragan and Mathew complaints name as defendants Brocade, the members of Brocade’s board of directors, Broadcom, BRCM, and Merger Sub. The Gross, Jha and Chuakay complaints name as defendants Brocade and the members of Brocade’s board of directors. All of the complaints assert claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The complaints allege, among other things, that the board of directors of Brocade failed to provide material information and/or omitted material information from the Preliminary Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on December 6, 2016 by Brocade. The complaints seek to enjoin the closing of the transaction between Brocade and Broadcom, as well as certain other equitable and declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 10, 2017, January 27, 2017 and February 15, 2017, the U.S. Northern District Court granted motions to relate the cases, all of which are now related to the Steinberg action and before the Honorable Judge Edward Chen. On January 11, 2017, Plaintiff Jha filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which was subsequently withdrawn on January 18, 2017. On February 6, 2017, Plaintiff Gross voluntarily dismissed the Gross action without prejudice, which was ordered by the U.S. Northern District Court on February 15, 2017. On April 14, 2017, the U.S. Northern District Court granted the Motion for Consolidation, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Plaintiff’s Selection of Counsel filed by Plaintiff Giulio D. Cessario, a plaintiff in the Steinberg action, which consolidated these actions under the caption In re Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:16-cv-07081-EMC. We believe these claims are all entirely without merit and intend to vigorously defend these actions. Lawsuits Relating to Tessera, Inc. On May 23, 2016, Tessera Technologies, Inc., Tessera, Inc., or Tessera, and Invensas Corp., or Invensas or collectively, the Complainants, filed a complaint to institute an investigation with the U.S. International Trade Commission, or the U.S. ITC. The Complainants allege infringement by Broadcom and our subsidiaries, BRCM, Avago and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc., or Avago U.S., or collectively, the Respondents, of three patents relating to semiconductor packaging and semiconductor manufacturing technology. The downstream respondents, which are customers of the Respondents, are 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, or collectively, the Downstream Respondents. On July 20, 2016, the U.S. ITC instituted the investigation, or the ITC Investigation. Complainants seek the following relief: (1) a permanent limited exclusion order excluding from importation into the U.S. all of the Respondents' semiconductor devices and semiconductor device packages and Downstream Respondents’ products containing Respondents’ semiconductor devices and semiconductor device packages that infringe one or more of the three patents subject to the ITC Investigation and (2) a permanent cease and desist order prohibiting the Respondents and Downstream Respondents and related companies from importing, marketing, advertising, demonstrating, warehousing inventory for distribution, offering for sale, selling, qualifying for use in the products of others, distributing, or using the Respondents' semiconductor devices and semiconductor device packages and Downstream Respondents’ products containing Respondents’ semiconductor devices and semiconductor device packages that infringe one or more of the three patents subject to the ITC Investigation. The U.S. ITC held the hearing in March 2017, and it is expected to issue the Initial Determination on June 26, 2017. 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 three patents subject to the ITC Investigation. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs. This case is stayed pending resolution of the ITC Investigation. On May 23, 2016, Tessera and Tessera Advanced Technologies, Inc. filed a complaint against BRCM in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1-16-cv-00380, alleging infringement of four patents relating to semiconductor packaging and circuit technologies. On June 19, 2016, the complaint was amended to add three more patents relating to semiconductor packaging technologies for a total of seven 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. 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 patents subject to the ITC Investigation, or the European Patent. The named defendants also include distributors 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 Broadcom‘s 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. The required relief includes damages in an unspecified amount and an injunction preventing the sale of the accused products. On February 3, 2017, the Mannheim District Court held a hearing to determine infringement. On March 17, 2017, the Mannheim District Court issued its ruling. The court found infringement in both cases and granted injunctions preventing the commercialization of certain Broadcom products in Germany. Broadcom is appealing the decision. On March 27, 2017, Broadcom filed a brief with the appellate court in Germany in Case No. 7 O 98/16 seeking: (1) reversal on the merits, (2) a higher bond for enforcement of the injunction, and (3) a stay of enforcement pending the nullity action. On May 22, 2017, Broadcom filed its appeal of Case No. 7 O 97/16 seeking (1) reversal on the merits and (2) a stay of enforcement. On June 1, 2017, the German appellate court denied Broadcom’s request for a stay of enforcement in Case No. 7 O 98/16, but has not yet ruled on our appeal of the decision on the merits or the higher bond amount. Tessera is now enforcing the injunction in both cases against Broadcom. The nullity action, which could invalidate the patent at issue in both German cases, is scheduled to be decided in January 2018. On November 7, 2016, Invensas filed a complaint against Avago, Avago U.S., Emulex Corporation, or Emulex, LSI and PLX Technology, Inc., or PLX, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1-16-cv-01033, alleging infringement of two of the patents subject to the ITC Investigation. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs. This case is stayed pending resolution of the ITC Investigation. On November 7, 2016, Tessera and Invensas filed a complaint against Avago, Avago U.S., and Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1-16-cv-01034, alleging infringement of two patents relating to semiconductor packaging technology. On January 31, 2017, Tessera and Invensas amended the complaint in this matter and added three additional patents related to semiconductor packaging technology, which are also at issue in case No. 1-16-cv-00379 pending in Delaware. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs. We continue to vigorously defend these actions. Lawsuits Relating to the Acquisition of BRCM Since the announcement of the Broadcom Merger, 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, or the U.S. Central District Court, 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 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 U.S. Central District Court 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 Merger. On November 16, 2015, the U.S. Central District Court 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 Complaint, 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 September 23, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, or the Stipulation, which has been filed with the U.S. Central District Court. Pursuant to the Stipulation, BRCM agreed to confirm certain facts concerning the Broadcom Merger. Additionally, defendants agreed to pay or cause to be paid attorneys’ fees and expenses as may be awarded by the U.S. Central District Court to plaintiffs’ counsel for their efforts in prosecuting the litigation, as well as the costs of administering the settlement. The Stipulation provides that the settlement is subject to certain conditions, including final approval of the settlement and final certification of a settlement class by the U.S. Central District Court. The Stipulation includes a release of all claims against defendants relating to or arising from the litigation. On December 2, 2016, the U.S. Central District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On February 27, 2017, the U.S. Central District Court granted final approval of the settlement. On March 16, 2017, the State Actions were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the settlement. The settlement did not have an impact on our financial statements. We believe that the claims in the litigation, including the Federal Consolidated Complaint, were without merit and that no misconduct or damages occurred. Defendants entered into the settlement to eliminate the burden, distraction, and expense of further litigation. 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, or the Delaware Court of Chancery, against Emulex, its directors, Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., or AT Wireless, and Emerald Merger Sub, Inc., or Emerald 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, Emerald Merger Sub and Emulex and that AT Wireless and Emerald 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 U.S. Central District Court, 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 Emerald 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 U.S. Central District 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 U.S. Central District 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, or the Ninth Circuit Court, 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, on August 17 and August 22, 2016, the Defendants-Appellees filed their answering briefs, and on October 5, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellant filed his reply brief. The date of any oral argument has not been determined at this time. We believe these claims are all entirely without merit and intend to vigorously defend these actions. 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, or the Superior Court, challenging our acquisition of PLX. On July 22, 2014, the Superior 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 Superior 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 Delaware Court of Chancery 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 Delaware Court of Chancery 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, 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 Delaware Court of Chancery 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 was approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery on December 20, 2016. The Delaware class litigation is on-going. On November 9, 2016, the sole remaining defendant, Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P., filed cross-claims against the named individual director defendants and Deutsche Bank for contribution. Under various contracts and statutes, PLX may owe indemnification to each of these parties. The cross-claims are now barred according to the terms of the approved partial settlement, although Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. might be entitled to an offset (based on contributory fault) of any damages it might owe to the class. 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. |
