Replies to post #69788 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[Elmer Phud]

The actual structure of TFC is unknown and I am sure that AMD wants to keep it that way.

In the absence of details from AMD, if Intel claims the agreement has been violated, and therefore void, will it be on Intel to prove it's been violated or will it be on AMD to prove that it has not been?

[The Duke of URL]

The argument of course is that 50% is, in a sense, "control" in that it is sufficient to dead lock the corporation and in theory cause a forced liquidation and distribution of assets.

However, in Securities law, debt can sometimes be a disguised security. If here, the "profits" of the entity are subject to being paid as interest on a "debt", and it were held to be really a disguised dividend, things might be different.

For example, typically, real "partners" contribute capital. That capital is irrevocable dedicated to the business. If UAE's "contribution" is debt and if re-payment of the interest and/or principle of that debt effectively wipes out or substantially reduces what would otherwise be "profit" then it is possible that the "70%" test is in fact, met and the transaction would be a violation against transfer.

Intel has asked for this information, and has so far, been denied. Intel has the right to an audit, and therefore they have a contractual right to view the entire deal, and in addition, there may be a filing with the SEC or the FTC which will shed light on this issue.

That is why Intel has publically stated "they are not in a position (as of yet) to prevent the transfer of technology.

Stay tuned, sportsfans..... :)

[smooth2o]

re: a full examination of the facts.

I would think that's mandatory, if not, there is always court.

Smooth