Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Topher
Identifies as young
I'm not sure CMA approval is a hard requirement. When I read the merger agreement, it says not getting CMA approval "may" require the deal to be abandoned. Either way, Microsoft is going to have to settle all legal issues in the UK whether they close over the CMA or not.
aries_71
Junior Member
Some of the previous 1525 pages covered the issue in detail.
splattered
Member
That's a good point I never really thought about the specific wording itself.. interesting
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Based on the page I shared above, all the listed conditions need to be completed before July 18, 2023. The CMA's approval will be a part of this.
Ogbert
Member
Yep.
It has the general feel of having already been agreed or, at the very least, discussed at great length. The timing of the CMA announcement following the FTC decision was too coordinated.
But this idea that MS can 'close' over the CMA is pure fiction. They have to, or will have to, satisfy the CMA's cloud concerns.
You can't just close and shout 'shotgun'.
Aguero9320
Member
These points are more suited to a full hearing on the merits, not an injunction hearing. (apart from maybe the application of the statute, which is a judgment call (no pun intended) and a big stretch at best). IF the FTC could have proven any of them it might have been different, but they didn't and their opinion doesn't really count. Neither do conversational emails - only actions taken. I could say I'm going to drive 100mph to the office today in an email, but try giving me a ticket for it.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.
But the judge's son thing is the ultimate non-starter - you simply cannot be made aware of that (which is why it was stated for the record), allow it to pass, participate in good faith in a full hearing, receive a ruling and THEN cry foul because you don't like the decision.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 848825
Unconfirmed Member
My crystal ball tells me that FTC appeal will be rejected, MS and ABK will close without CMA approval with a following statement saying "we will continue to work with the CMA to alleviate their concerns". And then for the next however many months everyone watches how that plays out....
graywolf323
Gold Member
I respect you and that you have sources but it seems absolutely insane to me that they would actually risk pissing off the UK over video games
D
Deleted member 848825
Unconfirmed Member
I would agree. But the sheer arrogance from both MS and ABK I've seen over this has been stunning. So who knows....
feynoob
Banned
HeisenbergFX4
Isn't it weird that there is no news about the extension?
The deadline is July 18, yet there is 0 peeps about the extension.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Very last resort imo and that is already sitting in a drawer in a sealed envelope ready to go if it comes to that
Isn't it weird that there is no news about the extension?
The deadline is July 18, yet there is 0 peeps about the extension.
But yeah MS does not want that to appear to be on the table, would appear weak imo
Whole stuff is so strange.
Isn't it weird that there is no news about the extension?
The deadline is July 18, yet there is 0 peeps about the extension.
CMA is still "blocking"
FTC is appealing
No talks about merger extension
ABK is being dropped from NASDAQ 100
And price is still 90+$ per share
HeisenbergFX4
Member
I have zero stock in ABK as I would feel unethical about that with who I game with
That said you want to know whats coming follow the money and not Tweets
Topher
Identifies as young
Yeah, those are the "legal issues" I'm referring to.
Yeah, I agree even though I keep reading that elsewhere and that never made any sense to me.
Here is the language used referring specifically to CMA approval.
"United Kingdom. With respect to the United Kingdom, the parties intend to notify the merger to the Competition and Markets Authority, which we refer to as the "CMA," under the Enterprise Act 2002. The CMA may issue an order that, among other things, prevents the completion of the merger or prevents the integration of the parties' businesses. The practical effect of this is typically that the merger may not be completed until the merger has been notified to the CMA and the merging parties have obtained clearance. Microsoft and Activision Blizzard intend to file a formal notification as soon as is reasonably practicable."
Yeah. I'm was not talking about it in relation to you...I have zero stock in ABK as I would feel unethical about that with who I game with
That said you want to know whats coming follow the money and not Tweets
...just in general. very strange situation.
graywolf323
Gold Member
if the CMA held strong like they did with Facebook/Giphy I wonder just how much money MS would stand to lose?Close it over the CMA cmon cmon.
edit: between the fines they'd face & the massive loss the forced sale would lead to since there's no way they'd get anything close to $70 billion
edit 2: also it'd prove the FTC's point, they sought the injunction because they said Microsoft was threatening to close over the CMA, Judge Corley really failed badly if this happens
Last edited:
Aguero9320
Member
Oversight of the FTC hearing
Could be a fun watch for everyone with new found interest in the wheels of antitrust proceedings... Starts 10 Eastern. I'll be listening in the car.
Could be a fun watch for everyone with new found interest in the wheels of antitrust proceedings... Starts 10 Eastern. I'll be listening in the car.
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Member
I didn't feel you were implying me I just wanted to make sure people knew I didn't have any money on the line here
Topher
Identifies as young
ToTTenTranz
Banned
HeisenbergFX4
Member
GHG
Member
Isn't it weird that there is no news about the extension?
The deadline is July 18, yet there is 0 peeps about the extension.
They won't talk about it unless absolutely necessary. As it stands it isn't.
Topher
Identifies as young
graywolf323
Gold Member
lol seriously? it basically boils down to "why are you being so mean to the massive corporations that give me campaign contributions?"
Aguero9320
Member
It could. Obviously every single comment needs to be filtered for partisan bullshit, but the Republicans certainly are gunning for Lina (as usual).
"Oh shit, that's not the answer I wanted... RECLAIMING MY TIME!"
Gudji
Member
Can anyone explain? What standard did the judge get wrong?
GHG
Member
Yep, right now it's still at just over a 85% chance of being concluded before the deadline according to market activity. Not much has changed in that regard since the injunction denial and CMA fold on Tuesday.
Until there's a sentiment change in the market I don't think anything concrete can stop this.
ToTTenTranz
Banned
Judge said the FTC didn't prove Microsoft will foreclose Playstation out of Activision content.
Law says the FTC doesn't need to prove Microsoft will foreclose and harm competition, it says FTC needs to prove Microsoft may foreclose and harm competition.
It's common sense, really. You can't prove something that will happen in the future, that would be silly.
Gudji
Member
Oh I thought the standard was also referring to something else. Thanks.
Topher
Identifies as young
In a nutshell....
"In her 53-page order, Corley said it was not enough for the FTC to argue that "a merger might lessen competition - the FTC must show the merger will probably substantially lessen competition."
Several legal scholars questioned that standard, saying that the U.S. antitrust law required the FTC to prove the proposed deal "may" harm competition, not that it "will."
University of Baltimore law school professor Robert Lande said "'will probably' is not the same as 'may'" and the judge got the standard wrong."
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/IKQ3J4FFPVPARG4T74PUOWXKN4.jpg)
FTC would face tough appeal of Microsoft-Activision order, experts say
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission would face hurdles in any appeal of a court's order on Tuesday that said Microsoft could move forward with its $69 billion acquisition of "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard , legal experts who specialize in competition law said.
www.reuters.com
GHG
Member
Yeh she judged as if this case was for the final ruling, not the PI.
It's like being charged for something vs being convicted.
Last edited:
graywolf323
Gold Member
she treated the trial how Microsoft wanted her to instead of what it was actually about, it wasn't Microsoft appealing the FTC's administrative court ruling but that's how she ruled on it
yep, she basically said the FTC was right and then denied their request
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
For one, to get the PI, the FTC only had to prove that there "may be harm."
The judge said that while there may be harm to competition here, the FTC failed to prove that there "will probably be substantial harm"
Banjo64
cumsessed
I know that the US legal system is stacked towards corporations. And I also recognise that the judge did not have 1 year to study thousands of documents in detail and speak to industry experts.
However if this is true and it ends up resulting in an appeal being heard, it will almost defy belief.
GHG
Member
Nah, if this doesn't go through the current options gamma exposure dictates this is going back to low to mid 80's (~$83 would be ideal for market makers from that perspective).
Ginzeen
Banned
That won't be enough to get an emergency Stay.... Judges will just have to agree on 1 of judge Corley key points and an emergency stay won't happen. An appeal is even harder then a PI
Last edited:
ChiefDada
Gold Member
Believe it or not, the burden is actually even lower; FTC had to prove that there is a reasonable probability that there may be harm.
graywolf323
Gold Member
sadly yeah, though it just further shows how screwed over the FTC is that judges don't even follow the law
HeisenbergFX4
Member
damn this old chook needs a snickers.
ToTTenTranz
Banned
This has nothing to do with the deal, though.
Or at least it won't have any direct implications AFAIK.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
1) It is true.
2) The problem is that it's not just this judge. The entire system is corrupt and follows money (and, therefore, large corporations). So the appeal will also be likely denied.
That doesn't change the fact, however, that the judge did write the incorrect law and based her decision on that.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked