Thread regarding VMware layoffs

pssst .. @OP+1px4vX3T so you lost the bet yet?

"Go back and read threads on here from just before October 30th with the same id--ts proclaiming with certainty that the deal will close."

Which one? OP?

Go back and read threads on here from just before October 30th with the same id--ts proclaiming with certainty that the deal will close.

Pretty entertaining. Just like these comments - they don’t age well lol

The link you provided is to the official website of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and it contains information about an open commission meeting scheduled for November 16, 2023 1. The agenda for the meeting includes a discussion of a proposed rulemaking and a closed session 1. The FTC has not provided any information about the specific topics that will be discussed in the closed session 1.

I did not find any direct reference to VMware and Broadcom in the link you provided. However, I found some news articles that mention the two companies in relation to the FTC. According to a news article by CRN, the FTC launched a “second request” investigation of the Broadcom-VMware deal on July 11, 2022 2. Another news article by MSN reports that the spread in Broadcom’s planned $61 billion purchase of VMware widened amid a notice about a closed-door Federal Trade Commission meeting on Wednesday, November 8, 2023 34.

Please note that the information I provided is based on publicly available sources and may not be exhaustive or up-to-date. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Followup prompt for Google Bard:

How valid is the claim hsr waiting period expiration does not mean ftc is out of the game

Google Bard response:

The claim that the expiration of the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) waiting period does not mean the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is out of the game is valid. The HSR Act requires certain large mergers and acquisitions to be reported to the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice before they are consummated. The FTC and DOJ then have a waiting period to review the transaction and determine whether it is likely to reduce competition substantially. If either agency has concerns about the transaction, it can issue a Second Request, which extends the waiting period and requires the parties to provide additional information.

The expiration of the HSR waiting period simply means that the FTC and DOJ have not issued a Second Request and have not taken any other action to block the transaction during the waiting period. However, the FTC and DOJ still have the authority to challenge a transaction after the waiting period has expired, if they believe that it is anticompetitive.

The FTC has a number of options to challenge a transaction after the waiting period has expired, including:

Filing a complaint with the FTC's administrative law courts. If the FTC prevails, the courts can order the parties to divest assets or otherwise restructure the transaction to avoid harm to competition.
Filing a civil lawsuit in federal court. If the FTC prevails, the courts can issue a variety of remedies, including injunctions, divestitures, and damages.
Referring the matter to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
In recent years, the FTC has shown a willingness to challenge transactions even after the HSR waiting period has expired. For example, in 2015, the FTC challenged the merger of Sysco and US Foods after the waiting period had expired. The FTC alleged that the merger would reduce competition in the food service distribution industry. The FTC ultimately settled with the parties, requiring them to divest certain assets.

In conclusion, the claim that the expiration of the HSR waiting period does not mean the FTC is out of the game is valid. The FTC still has the authority to challenge a transaction after the waiting period has expired, if it believes that it is anticompetitive.

I asked Google Bard to analyze this post

Prompt: Analyze this post (pasted in the original content)

Bard response:

The post you have shared is analyzing the possibility of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) making a decision on the Avago-VMware deal next week, on November 16, 2023. The author of the post points to two events scheduled on that day on the FTC calendar: an open meeting that will include a presentation on public comments on business practices of cloud computing providers, and a closed meeting to discuss nonpublic law enforcement matters.

The author argues that the closed meeting is likely to be where the FTC makes a decision on the Avago-VMware deal, as the FTC is a law enforcement agency and its closed meetings are typically used to make decisions on concluding investigations or litigating against companies that have violated commercial law.

The author also notes that the date of the FTC meeting coincides with the second day of the APEC summit in San Francisco, California. This suggests that the FTC may be trying to avoid the media spotlight by making its decision on a day when there is already a major news story dominating the headlines.

The author concludes by saying that the only reason people believe that the FTC is out of the game is because Avago CEO Hock Tan said so and because of a misunderstanding of how US antitrust law works.

Overall, the post is well-argued and makes a number of convincing points. The author has clearly done their research and has a good understanding of how the FTC works. The post is also timely, given that the FTC meeting is scheduled for next week.

Here is a summary of the key points from the post:

• The FTC has two events scheduled for Thursday, November 16, 2023: an open meeting and a closed meeting.
• The closed meeting is likely to be where the FTC makes a decision on the Avago-VMware deal.
• The date of the FTC meeting coincides with the second day of the APEC summit in San Francisco, California.
• The author believes that the FTC is still very much in the game and that it is possible that it could block the Avago-VMware deal.

It is important to note that this is just speculation and that the FTC has not yet made any public statements about its decision-making process. However, the post does make a number of convincing points and it is worth following the situation closely next week.

Not any more speculative than people who were screaming this is a "done deal" since August

You guys... this is embarrassing. You need to stop speculating. You're ALL way off base here. Just... no. just don't. have a good weekend.

To the person who thinks the outside date could not be extended, see the merger agreement, page 107, sections d and f, which discuss deal termination and extension of the outside date.

The agreement only specifies 3 extension scenario (they manually list out the 3 extensions) and no others. There is debate on whether or not the companies could decide to keep pursuing the deal. The agreement gives them the option of backing out on those dates, but does not have clear language that says that they HAVE to back out.

Still, BC & VMW aren't going to just wait indefinitely for this deal. China's tactic which they've used before is to just stay silent and let the companies call it off themselves. It appears that's what they're doing with us.

I am not saying one way or the other that FTC will file a lawsuit or not. The main point is that it does not seem like deal is entirely out of the FTC factor until the deal is closed without challenge or is abandoned due to other factors like China.

Then what the Fug are you saying? Why say anything at all when there is no substance??

@ccn+1px4vX3T The only person insisting on knowing for certain is you. I am pointing out unknown as unknown but you are the one arguing you know for certain the closed door meeting will not be about Broadcom-VMware.

I guess it is clear by now it's mostly the two of us, useless ppl talking about useless stuff,
Just because FTC is meeting on a date that everybody else is anticipating HT will shake XI hand, FTC's meeting is about AVGO.

One way of the other AVGO-VMW won't matter to US government, wether it happens or not, beyond the usual FTC DOJ's concerns.

I assume you are not for the deal, for one or the other reason. I am no fan either.

Just saying FTC meet on the said day have no significance on this deal.

To the person who thinks the outside date could not be extended, see the merger agreement, page 107, sections d and f, which discuss deal termination and extension of the outside date.

If China were to issue a non appealable order against the deal then, true, the date cannot be extended. However, if China does nothing, as it has been doing, I believe BC/VMW can extend the outside date if they want to.

@ccn+1px4vX3T The only person insisting on knowing for certain is you. I am pointing out unknown as unknown but you are the one arguing you know for certain the closed door meeting will not be about Broadcom-VMware.

May I ask you to read thst quote yourself

Regardless of what any of us think (including me), we will probably find out in a few weeks anyways

Then why not leave it in your head than make a useless post and stress the heck out of ever single soul cringing their cheeks for any piece of valuable information.

As far as the closed meeting goes, there is no indication it will include decision on Broadcom-VMware but it also does not indicate that it won't. (FTC closed door meeting is always confidential)

Read the quote again. I will repost it for you.

Quote "If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail." - Abraham Maslow

"Correct me if I’m wrong, but they don’t need FTC approval, they just needed to avoid the FTC taking action to block the deal."

That statement is mostly true. If FTC/DOJ does not take any action, the deal can consummate legally. However, that does not stop the regulators from filing a lawsuit to block the deal after the deadline. Basically they can "close at their own risk"

If the deal gets consent order like Amgen - Horizon or ICE - Black Knight deal, that's the strongest sign Broadcom is out of the risk.

I am not saying one way or the other that FTC will file a lawsuit or not. The main point is that it does not seem like deal is entirely out of the FTC factor until the deal is closed without challenge or is abandoned due to other factors like China.

Regardless of what any of us think (including me), we will probably find out in a few weeks anyways

The decision, if made, will not hinge on the comments FTC receives on the open meeting on Cloud earlier on the day, but on the last year and a half's worth of investigation coming to a conclusion. It just might be a convenient timing as theme for the day

As far as the closed meeting goes, there is no indication it will include decision on Broadcom-VMware but it also does not indicate that it won't. (FTC closed door meeting is always confidential)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but they don’t need FTC approval, they just needed to avoid the FTC taking action to block the deal. Following their compliance with the second request for info, the FTC had 30 calendar days to take action and open a case to block the merger. That window has long since passed, hence the statements that the FTC is not a concern from Broadcom. The rules state the FTC can let the deal proceed, take action to stop it or come to an agreement/compromise with the merging companies. Nothing states they must or need to approve anything. The FTC can’t randomly decide to block the deal months after they investigated it and took no action. There’s rules in place for a reason, and they already got embarrassed in court for trying to block the activation deal with no proof of negative impact on competition.

@kwn+1px4vX3T The decision on the deal, if it is indeed being made on Nov 16, it won't be made in the open meeting you are referred to. These decisions are always made in closed door meeting, which on Nov 16 takes place after the open meeting is over (I linked both in the original post)

Again, look though the details they are soughing for. and see where VMW and AVGO fit in to that scenario.

You expect the close door meeting same day will be able to process all the comments received and able to make the decision on it same day?

You really think, thing move that fast in any government? That closed door meeting would be nearly an administrative actives related to the open meeting at the most.

Besides all if this, what are you suggesting here? a decision about VMW and AVGO could be made on the said date in that meeting?

if so, I think you are wrong as the set agent will not fit the topic.

If you want more details about what that meeting is about keep digging, I gave you the link follow the RIF, if you are intend to make your case, please do join that meeting and make your comments about why you thing VMW and AVGO together is a bad idea for competition in Cloud Computing, Where VMW has a negligible presence anyways.

@kwn+1px4vX3T The decision on the deal, if it is indeed being made on Nov 16, it won't be made in the open meeting you are referred to. These decisions are always made in closed door meeting, which on Nov 16 takes place after the open meeting is over (I linked both in the original post)

There is no provision for extending the contract. They would have to start over and get BOD approval and everything. This has been covered in detail many times.

You don't need a provision to extend the contract, other than agreement between both parties.

Now you could argue that said parties will involve Share holders, while approval from VMW shareholders may not be a problem, AVGO Share holders can reject, as this is taking too long and China's approval is unattainable in a reasonable time.

OP here. Yes it is a speculation and I could be wrong. I based this on the following factors:

Thanks for stating this is a speculation, nothing in https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2023/11/open-commission-meeting-november-16-2023 suggests it has anything to do with VMW & AVGO, its more about the Business Practices or Providers.

Now, since it is public and attend and could provide your comments when it's about Competition and make your argument why VMW and AVGO together might be a bad idea, That's about it.

if you are interested, since you got this far dig deeper, in the same links you will find enough information about the event, a blog post and a link to FTC RFI, https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2023-0028-0001, a PDF detailing what information they are looking for, Keep digging.

No decision for or againest is coming out of this meeting on the said date, I think.

Appreciate the attempt in the Due diligence though.

Quote "If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail." - Abraham Maslow

"Another view: unless China says “no”, it is possible they may yet extend the deal. It appears that would be an option they have. If China continues to do nothing, a further deal extension cannot be ruled out."

There is no provision for extending the contract. They would have to start over and get BOD approval and everything. This has been covered in detail many times.

Another view: unless China says “no”, it is possible they may yet extend the deal. It appears that would be an option they have. If China continues to do nothing, a further deal extension cannot be ruled out.

"What in there gave you a clue it is about VMW and AVGO?"

OP here. Yes it is a speculation and I could be wrong. I based this on the following factors:

1. While Broadcom ststes HSR waiting period has expired, this does not constitute "approval" from FTC
2. While it is true companies can legally close a merger without explicit approval from FTC, not having consent order or letter of no contest keeps the acquirer under risk of legal challenge even after the HSR expiration date.
3. The timing is right before the end of the final outside date for the deal
4. They will be discussing competition in the cloud industry in the open meeting right before the closed one

I would like to invite you to look up "Broadcom VMware" on FTC website. Nothing comes up. What about the recent deals that was allowed to close such as ICE - Black Knight or Amgen - Horizon? FTC lists consent letter on their website.

The public believes that this deal has FTC blessing just based on Broadcom statement of HSR waiting period expiration as well as "no legal impediment" statement.

FTC has been radio silent on this deal. While silence does not mean they will challenge, it does not mean approval either.

I just can't think of a feasible scenario in which FTC will let one of the largest tech deals of history (and a very controversial one at that) slide through without even consession. This does happen with smaller, non-controversial deals all the time but Broadcom-VMware? I am not sure

Chip sector sanctions goes into effect Nov 16, 2023.

30 days after their announcement on Oct 17, 2023.

There will be no china agreement, this deal will close without china.

The deal can be blocked by both the US and China. They are not mutually exlusive of each other. US for competition reason, China for geopolitical reason.

Or unless Hock Tan has been BSing all this time saying it was China when it really was the US all along, in order to save face. Which wouldn't be surprising

"Agreed. I think they get approval by the end of next week and all the BS ends. Good riddance."

Do you have reading comprehension issue? The OP did not say FTC will approve by next week. He just said they will make decision by next week.

If true it just means there are 2 regulators pending: US and China.

Does not mean either approve nor not approve

Agreed. I think they get approval by the end of next week and all the BS ends. Good riddance.

"I bet that's the day when decision on Avgo VMware deal is made in DC when all eyes are on SF, as this coincides with the day 2 of APEC."

The deal is being decided in Beijing. DC is an afterthough at this time. The deal will not go through.