Support NeoGAF

[Topher]

Read todays Financial Times. They said complete opposite of this, ex-CMA lawyer saying they're saving face and this is an unprecedented move by CMA. They're in a bad spot.

Here an excerpt thanks to Idas:

Idas cut out a crucial part of that article:

"The CMA needs to tread a very careful line here between seeming reasonable and seeming weak," said Tom Smith, a former CMA lawyer now at Geradin Partners. However, he said the CMA had "no choice but to consider a new deal that is put to it".

 

[Ginzeen]

FTC has been disingenuous and arguing in bad faith from the start. They could of did a PI way back in December but chose to wait until the last second. Trying to deploy stall tactics to kill mergers. Got Destroyed at court and now are trying again at winning a miracle at the appeals court. Appeals court will have to give them an emergency stay tomorrow or their done. They need a miracle to get that. good luck.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Their is no world where MS sells COD. The deal won't happen. CMA would not have paused the CAT if that is what they wanted, because MS said their not selling COD. Not practical.

What about the world where Microsoft can either make a good investment on the remaining investment or lose $3b and lose 18months of inflation on $69b, and then need to use the deflated $69b as a dividend for shareholders, that might then reduce their investment because the merger was blocked and then go buy a competitors stock, such as Apple, Google, Meta, Amazon, resulting in Microsoft wiping 0.5% of their trillions of dollar market cap (stock)?

 

[MasterCornholio]

Idas cut out a crucial part of that article:

"The CMA needs to tread a very careful line here between seeming reasonable and seeming weak," said Tom Smith, a former CMA lawyer now at Geradin Partners. However, he said the CMA had "no choice but to consider a new deal that is put to it".

Current deal is blocked but new deal might get approval from the CMA?

How is this going to be done by Monday?

 

[Gudji]

Idas cut out a crucial part of that article:

"The CMA needs to tread a very careful line here between seeming reasonable and seeming weak," said Tom Smith, a former CMA lawyer now at Geradin Partners. However, he said the CMA had "no choice but to consider a new deal that is put to it".

The guy who wrote that is the same on the video I posted on the previous page, Tom Smith ex-CMA Legal Director.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Anyways, I'm back.

Ironic isn't it?

 

[Topher]

Current deal is blocked but new deal might get approval from the CMA?

How is this going to be done by Monday?

Doesn't seem possible, does it?

 

[drganon]

 

[Ginzeen]

What about the world where Microsoft can either make a good investment on the remaining investment or lose $3b and lose 18months of inflation on $69b, and then need to use the deflated $69b as a dividend for shareholders, that might then reduce their investment because the merger was blocked and then go buy a competitors stock, such as Apple, Google, Meta, Amazon, resulting in Microsoft wiping 0.5% of their trillions of dollar stock?

Microsoft is not selling COD. Deal is dead if they have to sell cod. They would lose way more then 3 billion if they had to sell COD.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Doesn't seem possible, does it?

I'm not sure how they are going to do this.

If they want to satisfy the SEC filing then an extension is what they need to do. I'm just surprised it wasn't announced already. Despite what happened with the CMA I don't see them giving Microsoft the go ahead before the 18th. What they are talking about sounds like a long process to me. The first deal already took the CMA a long time to study. I don't know if they can study a new deal in just a few days.

Maybe something is happening that we are not seeing. That's the only way I can see this happening on Monday.

 

[adamsapple]

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Current deal is blocked but new deal might get approval from the CMA?

How is this going to be done by Monday?

The Judge has until midnight tomorrow night to decide if he will allow the appeal or throw it out (which is likely) then MS is free to close over the CMA and take care of that problem after the fact

The CMA alone will not stop this deal imo

 

[reinking]

Wait - he said MS doesn't want to spend money on AAA games, and that's a trait it shares with Xbox fans!

Cold.

who cares about AAA games when the objective is to beat Sony? That seems to be all they care about.

 

[Topher]

I'm not sure how they are going to do this.

If they want to satisfy the SEC filing then an extension is what they need to do. I'm just surprised it wasn't announced already. Despite what happened with the CMA I don't see them giving Microsoft the go ahead before the 18th. What they are talking about sounds like a long process to me. The first deal already took the CMA a long time to study. I don't know if they can study a new deal in just a few days.

Maybe something is happening that we are not seeing. That's the only way I can see this happening on Monday.

The only thing I can think of, which goes back to what HeisenbergFX4 hinted at, is that MS and CMA have already negotiated a resolution to all this and CMA is being entirely disingenuous about where things stand.

 

[adamsapple]

The Judge has until midnight tomorrow night to decide if he will allow the appeal or throw it out (which is likely) then MS is free to close over the CMA and take care of that problem after the fact

The CMA alone will not stop this deal imo

The concept of closing over CMA seems so fucking wild .. unless those negotiations are more far along than we are privy to.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Extreme levels of bad reporting.

 

[zapper]

Current deal is blocked but new deal might get approval from the CMA?

How is this going to be done by Monday?

if they open a new case wouldn't that mean the current block no longer exists? come on, it seems logical to me that they retired

 

[MasterCornholio]

The Judge has until midnight tomorrow night to decide if he will allow the appeal or throw it out (which is likely) then MS is free to close over the CMA and take care of that problem after the fact

The CMA alone will not stop this deal imo

But then Microsoft will have to fight a legal battle with the CMA since the deal is blocked by them.

 

[Topher]

The Judge has until midnight tomorrow night to decide if he will allow the appeal or throw it out (which is likely) then MS is free to close over the CMA and take care of that problem after the fact

The CMA alone will not stop this deal imo

And then the real fireworks begins if that happens.

 

[MasterCornholio]

if they open a new case wouldn't that mean the current block no longer exists? come on, it seems logical to me that they retired

They said the current deal was blocked. A new one would take time to analyse.

 

[Deleted member 848825]

Doesn't seem possible, does it?

I'd expect an extension between ABK and MS. But then doesn't that require shareholder approval? And also didnt MS say themselves that deal would implode by date....

 

[Sanepar]

The Judge has until midnight tomorrow night to decide if he will allow the appeal or throw it out (which is likely) then MS is free to close over the CMA and take care of that problem after the fact

The CMA alone will not stop this deal imo

Yeap and any fine CMA can settle will be much less than 3bn.

 

[Topher]

Yeap and any fine CMA can settle will be much less than 3bn.

I don't think this is a matter of simply paying a one time fee and all is well.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

The concept of closing over CMA seems so fucking wild .. unless those negotiations are more far along than we are privy to.

Just my 2 cents this all hinges now on the appeal

But then Microsoft will have to fight a legal battle with the CMA since the deal is blocked by them.

Yeah it will be blocked by them but I do not think that stops MS from closing everywhere else

And then the real fireworks begins if that happens.

Yes it would but too much money on the line with this deadline approaching and MS does not want to do the whole extension thing

Yeap and any fine CMA can settle will be much less than 3bn.

Not to mention the revenue stream they pick up then deal with the CMAs issues after the fact

 

[Kilau]

Like I Said... This rollercoaster has a few more loops lol

The loops...

 

[MasterCornholio]

Yeah it will be blocked by them but I do not think that stops MS from closing everywhere else

Well depends if they want to honor the sec filing.

 

[Ginzeen]

Anybody saying MS is selling COD to get the deal done is off their rocker. Deal is DEAD, if that's the case. Put a tombstone on that sucker.

 

[Punished Miku]

The concept of closing over CMA seems so fucking wild .. unless those negotiations are more far along than we are privy to.

I don't think it's that wild, especially given the politics around Brexit vs. EU. UK will be seen by many as isolating themselves, and not the other way around.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Well depends if they want to honor the sec filing.

And everything I am saying here these last 2 days come from the standpoint of a gamer like everyone else here, I know nothing extra and haven't heard anything these last two days so I don't want anyone reading between the lines here PLEASE

I usually like to tease and be kind of vague with statement but need to be crystal clear on this one

 

[zapper]

They said the current deal was blocked. A new one would take time to analyse.

these statements seem only justifications for not looking like idiots, if ms reformulates the deal it seems logical to me that the current block collapses, therefore ms no longer have to renegotiate an extension with activision, they can temporarily close all over the world excluding the uk and the new cma investigation will pass the acquisition reformulated with ridiculous remedies as in the EU.

the cma took the bait of the new deal by ms, the ftc took the bait that ms would have closed without the uk, these regulators are a joke

 

[MasterCornholio]

And everything I am saying here these last 2 days come from the standpoint of a gamer like everyone else here, I know nothing extra and haven't heard anything these last two days so I don't want anyone reading between the lines here PLEASE

I usually like to tease and be kind of vague with statement but need to be crystal clear on this one

I read the sec filing and understand the CMA is important here. According to that they need the CMAs approval. They could always ignore that but that would cause some issues.

 

[Deleted member 848825]

And everything I am saying here these last 2 days come from the standpoint of a gamer like everyone else here, I know nothing extra and haven't heard anything these last two days so I don't want anyone reading between the lines here PLEASE

I usually like to tease and be kind of vague with statement but need to be crystal clear on this one

I think the main crux of it all, with everything at the moment. For every sound argument for one outcome, there's an equally sound opposing logic against it. Sure is engrossing to follow though.

 

[Topher]

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

I think the main crux of it all, with everything at the moment. For every sound argument for one outcome, there's an equally sound opposing logic against it. Sure is engrossing to follow though.

I still stand by my statement whatever day it was a few days ago, this feels like its happening and will happen very fast over the next couple of days

 

[Pelta88]

But it's also a deadline FTC "signed up to." Nobody told them to request a PI one month before merger agreement will ran out. They could have requested PI in December and they would have enough time for hearing and potential appeal. They brought it on themselves.
...from what I understand....If appeal judge won't grant any decision and TRO will expire (currently 14th July), Microsoft can close in US and FTC can go f*** themselves. They can keep this deal in their administrative court but that's everything they can legally do.

I don't want to come across as condescending but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. The FTC is not under any deadline. Microsoft signed upto a deadline when making this acquisition. But you're so lost in XB talking points that you think the FTC has an impending deadline too.

They don't.

 

[Godot25]

I don't want to come across as condescending but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. The FTC is not under any deadline. Microsoft signed upto a deadline when making this acquisition. But you're so lost in XB talking points that you think the FTC has an impending deadline too.

They don't.

FTC is not under deadline? Why tf do you think they are rushing with appeal? Because they know that if they can't get new TRO by the time old TRO expire (14th July), Microsoft will close the deal and their whole appeal will be pointless.
I agree that they are not obliged to follow Microsoft's timetable (and they never was), but results of FTC's late PI request is the fact that Microsoft is ready to close in USA immediately when TRO will expire.

If FTC requested PI in December (when they sued Microsoft because of this merger), judge would have time to decide and FTC would have enough time to appeal without worry that Microsoft will close the deal.

I hope that you understand that if FTC won't get TRO by tomorrow their whole appeal is going into trash, right? So is it not a deadline?

 

[Thirty7ven]

It's very impressive that the real rationale from Judge Corley's insane approach to the ruling, both in substance, law, and timeline, is all predicated on the fact that she was not willing to create precedence.

Who knew a judge would be less worried about applying the standard of the law than anything else.

 

[Kilau]

I appreciate that.

It was more whether they are sometimes removed from the index, as opposed to the underlying market, as a preparatory step before a merger.

Just seems like peculiar timing. But I understand it might just be scheduled maintenance on the index.

I don't think it is part of the maintenance on the index. Consider they are removing them on Monday, that day either ABK is merged and isn't traded anymore OR we have extension and FTC appeal with an injunction in place. Either way NASDAQ is thinking they need to be out of the index. I think it makes sense to say it is a merger related removal, but it is not an indication that the closing is for sure happening then.

 

[GHG]

It's very impressive that the real rationale from Judge Corley's insane approach to the ruling, both in substance, law, and timeline, is all predicated on the fact that she was not willing to create precedence.

Who knew a judge would be less worried about applying the standard of the law than anything else.

She's a good mother. I respect that.

 

[Ginzeen]

It's very impressive that the real rationale from Judge Corley's insane approach to the ruling, both in substance, law, and timeline, is all predicated on the fact that she was not willing to create precedence.

Who knew a judge would be less worried about applying the standard of the law than anything else.

Their PI was ALWAYS a long shot. AND their hasn't been a vertical merger, where a PI was granted in 50 years in the US. And their are probably 100s of vertical mergers a year in the U.S. So yeahhhhh

 

[Elios83]

She's a good mother. I respect that.

I wonder if FTC will have the balls to also call her conflict of interests out in their request for appeal or if they will just focus on her wrong interpretation of the legal threshold needed to grant a PI and the fact that she has done everything she could to favour Microsoft.

In this article there are many points that could have been used by the FTC in their appeal request but we'll only find out when the documents become public.

Quick Take: Why the Judge Was Wrong in FTC vs. Microsoft-Activision - American Economic Liberties Project

www.economicliberties.us

Microsoft's proposed $68.7 billion acquisition of game studio Activision-Blizzard would be the largest merger in the history of Big Tech. In emails presented by the FTC as evidence, Microsoft executives spoke to their desire to build a "moat" around Xbox, and that they are in a "unique position to spend Sony out of existence.

Judge Corley ignores this salient evidence and makes the following errors:

Judge Corley deviates from the text of the Clayton Act and decades of controlling precedent prohibiting mergers that "may substantially lessen competition" – instead adopting a "will probably substantially lessen competition" standard that is a higher bar than the statute allows.

Judge Corley dismisses extensive evidence proffered by the FTC that, even absent exclusivity, Microsoft has a clear incentive to "partially foreclose" access on competing consoles, including by degrading game functionality.

Judge Corley dismisses ample evidence that Microsoft has acquired game developers in the past only to quickly convert their games to exclusive Xbox content.
The FTC introduced bombshell evidence including emails from top Microsoft executives explicitly detailing their monopoly ambitions and intent to "spend Sony out of existence" – and Judge Corley completely ignores it.

Judge Corley misunderstands the nature of vertical mergers on content platforms, refusing to engage with ample evidence and academic research that differentiated content is not replaceable – and that anticompetitive effects are more pronounced.

Judge Corley improperly places the burden on the FTC of demonstrating the adequacy of Microsoft's behavioral remedies (e.g., side agreements with other consoles) in its initial prima facie
Judge Corley finds that it does not make financial sense for Microsoft to pull Call of Duty from competing consoles, ignoring that Microsoft can afford to take short-term positions that advance their longer-term monopoly ambitions.

Judge Corley improperly narrows the FTC's complaint to concerns about Call of Duty, even though the FTC's complaint includes other Activision-Blizzard AAA games like Diablo and Overwatch. In doing so, she also rubber stamps Microsoft's side agreements with other consoles as to Call of Duty only, with no analysis of the anticompetitive harm posed by foreclosure to Activision-Blizzard's many other offerings.

Judge Corley's Opinion is laced with inexplicable disdain for the FTC, including when she swipes at the FTC for filing its challenge "less than six weeks" prior to the merger agreement's termination date. The FTC is short-staffed and already rushing against its own statutory clock for intervening in anticompetitive mergers. By comparison, merger agreements can be amended and routinely are. This fact should not have weighed against the FTC, but nevertheless speaks to Corley's bias against the agency.

 

[DryvBy]

Microsoft is not selling COD. Deal is dead if they have to sell cod. They would lose way more then 3 billion if they had to sell COD.

I'd like to return to the old Xbox argument that this isn't about COD but about King!

The loop is almost complete.

 

[Godot25]

I wonder if FTC will have the balls to also call her conflict of interests out in their request for appeal or if they will just focus on her wrong interpretation of the legal threshold needed to grant a PI and the fact that she has done everything she could to favour Microsoft.

In this article there are many points that could have been used by the FTC in their appeal request but we'll only find out when the documents become public.

Quick Take: Why the Judge Was Wrong in FTC vs. Microsoft-Activision - American Economic Liberties Project

www.economicliberties.us

I'm truly shocked that guys who are same breed as Lina Khan (aka. big tech bad) disagreed with no-PI verdict

 

[Punished Miku]

Judge Corley dismisses extensive evidence proffered by the FTC that, even absent exclusivity, Microsoft has a clear incentive to "partially foreclose" access on competing consoles, including by degrading game functionality.

Well that's a joke.

Really sounds like they're going to cry in the last quoted portion about "inexplicable disdain" and FTC short staffing. They can't possibly be that naive. They're literally short staffed because tons of their people quit due to how its being run. Not familiar with this publication, but that article is pretty ridiculous. If you watched the trial at all, there was plenty of explanation for disdain for the FTC's performance in this case.

 

[Godot25]

I'd like to return to the old Xbox argument that this isn't about COD but about King!

The loop is almost complete.

Ehh. This deal being about mobile does not mean it is about King.
Because whole all three parts of ABK are huge in mobile gaming. Activision has COD Mobile, Blizzard has Diablo Immortal and King has Candy Crush. COD Mobile and Diablo Immortal are not under King. So if you divest Activision, you are loosing COD Mobile. I'm surprised people can't understand this simple fact.
So giving up Activision is actually going against "this deal is about mobile" argument.

 

[Ginzeen]

Really sounds like they're going to cry in the last quoted portion about "inexplicable disdain" and FTC short staffing. They can't possibly be that naive. They're literally short staffed because tons of their people quit due to how its being run. Not familiar with this publication, but that article is pretty ridiculous. If you watched the trial at all, there was plenty of explanation for disdain for the FTC's performance in this case.

Don't forget this one: "Judge Corley's Opinion is laced with inexplicable disdain for the FTC, including when she swipes at the FTC for filing its challenge "less than six weeks" prior to the merger agreement's termination date. The FTC is short-staffed and already rushing against its own statutory clock for intervening in anticompetitive mergers. By comparison, merger agreements can be amended and routinely are. This fact should not have weighed against the FTC, but nevertheless speaks to Corley's bias against the agency."

They could of did a PI trial wayyyy back in december. But they waited until JUNE to do one. And this journalist is saying this because their "short staffed." LMAO

 

[HoofHearted]

Current deal is blocked but new deal might get approval from the CMA?

How is this going to be done by Monday?

 

[Godot25]

Well that's a joke.

Really sounds like they're going to cry in the last quoted portion about "inexplicable disdain" and FTC short staffing. They can't possibly be that naive. They're literally short staffed because tons of their people quit due to how its being run. Not familiar with this publication, but that article is pretty ridiculous. If you watched the trial at all, there was plenty of explanation for disdain for the FTC's performance in this case.

Yup. Their FTC's "short-staffed" work is nothing short of "spectacular."
For example. In their appeal they are still arguing that while PS5 did not get native version of Minecraft as a "revenge" while game has optimised version on Series X/S. Which is just complete lie. Even Spencer corrected them during trial and they still put it in the appeal.

Just sad.

 

[feynoob]

And everything I am saying here these last 2 days come from the standpoint of a gamer like everyone else here, I know nothing extra and haven't heard anything these last two days so I don't want anyone reading between the lines here PLEASE

I usually like to tease and be kind of vague with statement but need to be crystal clear on this one

You are kind right on the spot.

It's due to
A) CMA willing to negotiate with MS and Activision, even though they have the upper hand with the appeal process (CMA will likely reach the same result again).

Nasdaq news. The timing is suspecious. It can't be coincidence.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

People keep saying MS can close the deal if they get past the FTC, but isn't the CMA approveal apart of a condition of the deal??