• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

According to a suit filed June 8 in federal court, San Diego’s Qualcomm secretly contacted the federal government’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States as a ploy to thwart the hostile takeover attempt by Broadcom Ltd.

The filing is a putative class action suit allegedly representing investors who purchased Qualcomm stock between Januardy 31 and March 31 of this year. Qualcomm’s stock dropped after the committee said it opposed the takeover, according to the plaintiff, Carey Camp.

Qualcomm hurt those who bought stock in the period by not disclosing in filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it had contacted the government surreptitiously, according to the suit. Ultimately, Broadcom was unable to take over Qualcomm.

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Comments

swell June 11, 2018 @ 10:59 a.m.

It was not in the interest of the American people or the Qualcomm employees for ownership to transfer to Broadcom. But it may have been profitable for certain investors. I think they did the right thing- it was a potential threat to national security.

0

Don Bauder June 11, 2018 @ 11:38 a.m.

swell: I agree with you. A Broadcom takeover would not have been in the interest of San Diego, Qualcomm, its employees, its vendors, and others. Best, Don Bauder

0

JustWondering June 11, 2018 @ 11:40 a.m.

I too have mixed feelings about this story. I’m also just wondering about the duty to disclose every little thing a company does while in the throes of a hostile takeover.

But the real measure, which can never be made, is what would plaintiffs have done if the stock rose after the failed merger? I suspect they wouldn’t be suing, they’d be laughing all the way to the bank, overstating how smart they were. The bottom line in this case is plaintiffs were speculating/gambling on the outcome of the take over game.

And, just like in sports, somebody wins while others lose. I’d questioned these folks calling themselves “investors”. No, they are more like opportunists who thought they could make a quick buck in merger mania. Where excessive enthusiasm thwarts common sense and careful analysis.

1

JustWondering June 11, 2018 @ 11:53 a.m.

Damn auto correct, and my elderly eyes for not catching it. Could be time to visit with the Opthamologist again.

0

dwbat June 11, 2018 @ 3:38 p.m.

I'm scheduled for the ophthalmologist this month! The Golden Years have not arrived at MY door. Should have ordered them on Amazon. ;-)

0

Don Bauder June 11, 2018 @ 2:36 p.m.

dwbat: JustWondering spelled it "throes."

This raises a semi-related point, though. These spell corrector devices will be the end of me. I spell something like a name correctly and the corrector changes it to something completely unrelated. I keep threatening to turn off the device. Best, Don Bauder

0

JustWondering June 11, 2018 @ 4:27 p.m.

To be fair, I did spell correctly as I typed it, auto correct changed it to “throws”. DWBAT caught it before I did, and he was SO FAST with his comment, there was still time for me to edit it to the proper spelling for the context of the thought.

But you are correct Don, more and more auto correct changes spelling of words, especially homophones.

0

Don Bauder June 11, 2018 @ 5:46 p.m.

JustWondering: And it's embarrassing when you don't catch it. Best, Don Bauder

0

MURPHYJUNK June 12, 2018 @ 7:46 a.m.

if we did not make spelling mistakes now and then, we would deprive dwbat of one of his thrills in life :)

0

Don Bauder June 12, 2018 @ 8:41 a.m.

Murphyjunk: And he gives not an inch to the elderly who err largely because of shaky hands and the autocorrect. He was editor of a publication -- as I recall, one in Palm Springs. The staff must have been in terror 100% of the time. Best, Don Bauder

1

danfogel June 12, 2018 @ 9:02 a.m.

Could it be that, just perhaps, some of us perpetrate those egregious errors intentionally, maybe to help bolster his obviously low self esteem??? Now, since I abhor spell checkers and avoid them wherever and whenever possible, I wouldn't be one of those people. I'm just sayin'.

1

dwbat June 12, 2018 @ 2:47 p.m.

No "low self esteem" over here. Obviously you don't know me at all. Nor does Bauder or Murphy. Only my many friends DO. [No, they don't comment here.] But keep up the barbs; it's OK. I'm ex-Army, so I've heard it all.

1

danfogel June 12, 2018 @ 4:24 p.m.

As I said, I don't like spell checkers and for the most part, wouldn't be one of those people from whom the errors are intentional. I seems to me that several of the comments above were at the very least meant to be tongue in cheek, if not down right sarcastic. That I don't know you at all is, of course, obvious. But I can say, from my view point, you seem to not really grasp that. Personally, I really don't care what anyone here says about me or my comments. It is, after all, just the internet, where, as the late, lamented johnnyvegas used to say, anyone can shoot their mouth off.

Just my opinion.

Opinions vary.

0

Don Bauder June 14, 2018 @ 8:35 a.m.

danfogel: I would turn off my spell checker, except that once in awhile it bails me out of a typo. Best, Don. Bauder

0

MURPHYJUNK June 13, 2018 @ 6:59 a.m.

Now we can claim our spelling mistakes were deliberate, right ? :)

0

Don Bauder June 14, 2018 @ 8:22 a.m.

dwbat: i am ex-Army, too. I was a clerk-typist for six months on active duty. No war hero here. Best, Don Bauder

0

MURPHYJUNK June 14, 2018 @ 8:26 a.m.

was in more than one army., I still see and hear things that are new to me

0

Don Bauder June 12, 2018 @ 4:09 p.m.

danfogel: I wish I could say I make my errors deliberately. Alas, I can't. Best, Don Bauder

0

danfogel June 12, 2018 @ 4:25 p.m.

don bauder, You know what they say about people who can't take a joke (not referring to you, btw)

0

MURPHYJUNK June 14, 2018 @ 7:12 a.m.

I feel a bit crushed, I thought we were all friends on this forum, after all its just in fun, nothing we say here really will have much of an impact anywhere else.

0

Don Bauder June 14, 2018 @ 8:37 a.m.

JustWondering: When did we turn from a blog site to a prayer session? Best,, Don Baudeer

0

JustWondering June 16, 2018 @ 12:31 p.m.

In my case, as I get older I find myself injecting a religious thought, from time to time. But “Amen”, in this case, was meant as a statement of agreement, nothing more.

0

Don Bauder June 14, 2018 @ 8:18 a.m.

danfdogel: I wish I could say that I make these typos, and then fail to correct them, to harass dwbat or anybody else. I am not a mean person. I am a fumbling person. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder June 14, 2018 @ 8:34 a.m.

danfogel: I disagree with that analysis. Dwbat does not have low esteem. And he adds a lot to our colloquys. Best, Don Bauder

0

danfogel June 14, 2018 @ 12:26 p.m.

don abuder, It was sarcasm. Obviousl,y Mr. Batterson has a high opinion of himself.

1

MURPHYJUNK June 20, 2018 @ 7:12 a.m.

more likely a low opinion of others .

0

concernedcitizen77 June 16, 2018 @ 3:54 a.m.

Have similar complaints about auto spell checks...It is notoriously bad posting from an Android device...It will completely change surnames and 1st names it does not recognize as common names...It will change words in sentences it does not recognize...It will put misspellings on words that are not simple..It will jumble sentences...when you are posting and change the context of what you are posting...I have gone back to posts and been very surprised at some post I carefully proof read that was botched and changed by Android auto correct...If you know how to turn it off, then let me know....

0

MURPHYJUNK June 28, 2018 @ 7:16 a.m.

find the app on your device and delete it.

0

Don Bauder June 11, 2018 @ 2:31 p.m.

JustWondering: This is a putative class action supposedly on behalf of those who bought QCOM stock between January 31 and March 31. You are right that these would have been almost completely speculators -- arbitrageurs and the like. Yes, they should not be called "investors." Best, Don Bauder

0

Visduh June 11, 2018 @ 2:05 p.m.

If the QCOM board was smart, and that's not a sure thing, it would have had someone who wasn't directly involved make the contact. As in some influential person who had no dog in the fight. Then the board and its members could safely claim they knew nothing about it.

0

Don Bauder June 11, 2018 @ 2:37 p.m.

Visduh: Maybe the SD Regional Chamber of Commerce? Best, Don Bauder

0

concernedcitizen77 June 16, 2018 @ 4:05 a.m.

Investors can always find a lawyer to sue on these type cases...Let the meters run. Win or lose, I am sure these cases pay very good $$$$ Much better than chasing auto accident cases or squirrelly insurance companies..Many investment speculators on both sides of the fence: the shorters and those seeking a rise in the stock prices of Qualcomm will sue either way: If the deal goes through OR if the deal is killed.

This Qualcomm/Broadcom deal was doomed from the beginning based on national security grounds.

I could see a huge disadvantageous outcome for San Diego, California and the US economy and US National Defense.

I read somewhere that Broadcomm was using Chinese Communist government funds in the Qualcomm merger deal. The Politbureau wanted to get its hands on this vital US technology. China usually tries to steal it not buy it. Blocking the merger likely sends Chinese intelligence "underground" to try to steal the Qualcomm technology that they could not buy here/

0

dwbat June 18, 2018 @ 6:11 p.m.

Broadcom previously had its legal address in Singapore, but now has its HQ in San Jose. But it's a Delaware corporation.

0

MURPHYJUNK June 24, 2018 @ 8:43 a.m.

it would be revealing to know where its bank accounts are.

0

Don Bauder June 16, 2018 @ 7:40 a.m.

concerned citizen77: I have not heard or read that Broadcom used Chinese government funds. Yes, had the deal gone through, it would have had negative repercussions for San Diego and the nation. Best, Don Baudeer

0

caroldriscoll33 June 19, 2018 @ 3:39 a.m.

As a US network engineer (broadband, and cellular), I agree with https://domyhomeworkonline.net/ and did not want this merger approved. First, it would compromise US cyber security, and second, it would create a single monopoly company out of the only two competitors in this space.

0

Don Bauder June 19, 2018 @ 6:37 a.m.

caroldriscoll33: There were so many good non-Wall Street arguments against this merger and few if any for it Best, Don Bauder

0

dwbat June 20, 2018 @ 1:10 p.m.

You are responding to a spammer. This has been happening a lot lately in the Reader comments sections. See the link that has NOTHING to do with the subject? The comment is there just to promote some stupid website. You got reeled in.

2

Sign in to comment

Get $5 off any Reader event

Sign up for our email list to get your promo code

Close