Microsoft Has Acquisition Deal With Nvidia

I don't quite see how an old deal could be relevant for stock holders now if it wasn't in the past, sounds to me like a new deal ... so NVIDIA going into the next xbox.

nope.

The obscure pact is more than a decade old, but is apparently still in effect—even though Nvidia lost the contract to provide GPUs for the Xbox to ATI Technologies in 2003.
 
According to All Things D this clause has been present in all SEC filings since 2000. Nvidia was smaller back then so it's likely Microsoft wanted to ensure someone couldn't take them over and jeopardize the Xbox supply chain.
 
Pretty sure it just means that MS can match any offer that takes in more than 30% of NV's shares. I assume the exclusive part is that NV can't have a similar agreement with someone else.

And can nv say to ms actually we want to sell to the other guys or must they sell to ms if the price is matched ?
 
NV must do what's written in the contract that they signed.
 
but the article doesnt explain whats in the contract, and it doest make sense
"The deal gives Microsoft the exclusive right to match any offer for 30% or more of Nvidia's outstanding shares by a third-party"
that means if someone offers 1billion ms can offer 1billion, but for example I or another company cannot also offer 1billion, how can nv create a contract that says I cannot make them an offer
thats nonsense
"oi nv i'll give you £5 for 30% of your shares", thats that clause buggered ;)
And isnt common stock shares held by people how can nv give ms permission to tell me that i cannot sell my shares (if I had any)
 
It sounds more like that in the event of someone wanting to take a massive stake (ie controlling interest) in Nvidia (ie a buyout), then MS would have first refusal to match that offer. That makes sense when you consider what Nvidia was supplying to MS with the first Xbox, but it seems unlikely now that MS would exercise that option. MS seems to have moved away from the Nvidia Xbox contract where Nvidia did the design, manufacture and got to keep patents and dictate prices. With the 360, MS got ATI to do the design, but then bought the IP and did their own manufacturing.

I wonder why Nvidia is waving around what seems to be an outdated poison pill clause that would make any sort of hostile takeover or buyout very expensive. Maybe they have had a few unwanted approaches, and are trying to put out a message?

Having said that, Nvidia's grand entry (not) in the HPC market now seems to be swept under the rug, and all they can talk about is mobile and pads, and that sort of technology might make Nvidia an attractive takeover target for some of the mobile players.
 
Davros said:
And isnt common stock shares held by people how can nv give ms permission to tell me that i cannot sell my shares (if I had any)

The provision only applies to offers made to the board of directors. You can sell your shares to whomever you please but a hostile acquisition by a thousand bites is more easily defended and more expensive to pull off. This is just MS saying "if you guys get an offer you have to let us counter offer if we want to". It's very simple.
 
it's the exclusive bit I still have problems with
and what if ms do match the offer, can nv still take the first offer
 
it's the exclusive bit I still have problems with
and what if ms do match the offer, can nv still take the first offer

No.

If the agreement wasn't exclusive it would be useless. NV could just make another agreement with whoever and sell to them, essentially screwing over the first agreement.

I find it odd that it has an undefined term and I don't know that it would stand up in court in perpetuity. Not that MS gives a damn anymore as its original purpose has long since passed, I guess it's quite possible they could still extract some value from it, by negotiating it away (if they wanted to own NV they wouldn't have this clause, they would have bought them).
 
I'm surprised this thread is still missing the obvious. Microsoft bothered with this exclusive counter offer deal, yet they made the worst possible contract possible for the actual chip by allowing NVIDIA to keep selling it at a fixed cost. I don't know who negotiated this stuff, but they clearly should never be let near a negotiation table ever again. And thankfully that was apparently the case looking at the much more reasonable XBox360 deals.
 
Does that mean no one else can match the offer

Anyone can offer anything they like for a big chunk of Nvidia. If that happens, Nvidia has to give Microsoft the option to pay that same amount of money for that same amount of Nvidia instead of the original buyer. It's an option for first refusal, and MS can decline. If the original buyer wants to offer more, and MS doesn't want to match it, they don't have to, and the original buyer gets the shares (and the company).

There's probably a lot more stuff in the small print of such a complex corporate contract, but that's the gist of it ie. MS gets first refusal in the event of someone trying to buy Nvidia.
 
Still seems like a bizarre contract
company makes nv an offer, ms can match it, company counters by offering 1 cent more. ms matches offer, ect, ect, ect.
as opposed to the non contract way
company makes nv an offer, ms offers more, company offers more again ect, ect, ect.
 
Still seems like a bizarre contract
company makes nv an offer, ms can match it, company counters by offering 1 cent more. ms matches offer, ect, ect, ect.
as opposed to the non contract way
company makes nv an offer, ms offers more, company offers more again ect, ect, ect.

Yes, it's a way for Nvidia to protect itself from hostile takeovers via the poison pill of MS always having the option of first refusal, and for MS to protect itself against losing the supply for Xbox 1 chips.

It's just the same as if you promised your next door neighbour first crack at your house if you decide to sell it. Your neighbour may really like your house, or he may not want anyone else to have it so that he can have a nice quiet next door house by owning it himself.

Don't forget, that companies don't always have to take the highest offer because other factors may come into play. With this contract, MS can always have the opportunity to match the other buyer, even if the other buyer is a much better match or long term proposal.
 
How is it there was no clause for the condition ending upon supply of the xbox 1 chips no longer being produced?
 
How is it there was no clause for the condition ending upon supply of the xbox 1 chips no longer being produced?

Good question. Perhaps they originally intended for NVIDIA to supply the Xbox 2's GPU as well…? When the Xbox was released, in 2001, or rather when it was designed, perhaps a couple of years earlier, ATI wasn't really much of a contender.
 
Good question. Perhaps they originally intended for NVIDIA to supply the Xbox 2's GPU as well…? When the Xbox was released, in 2001, or rather when it was designed, perhaps a couple of years earlier, ATI wasn't really much of a contender.
8500 would have been competitive, arguably better than what wound up in the xbox.
 
Back
Top