Support NeoGAF

[HeisenbergFX4]

HeisenbergFX4
Is this is the greenlight?

Nope waiting in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

 

[Chiggs]

People are waiting for the other news when it comes to the FTC's appeal.

And they think that's coming tonight?

 

[Kilau]

And they think that's coming tonight?

And we're right back to the last few pages lol.

 

[Jigsaah]

Kumail Nanjiani as me or Kal Penn.
I dont know any other popular brown actors.

I dunno if it would fit, but I love Giancarlo Esposito's acting

 

[adamsapple]

Full bloomberg article without the paywall

 

[Chiggs]

Reuters article was once again updated minutes ago. I just hope that's not too old for you omniscient legal eagles.

I bolded the names of the reporters so you can tell them they're late with news you already know.

US asks appeals court to pause Microsoft deal after lower court refuses

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Thursday asked an appeals court to temporarily stop Microsoft from closing its $69 billion purchase of "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard , just hours after a federal judge rejected a similar request.

www.reuters.com

The FTC had asked for the court to decide on the pause as soon as possible, noting that an existing temporary restraining order on the deal was meant to end just before midnight on Friday.

"We're disappointed that the FTC is continuing to pursue what has become a demonstrably weak case, and we will oppose further efforts to delay the ability to move forward," Microsoft President Brad Smith said earlier in an emailed statement.

In its motion for the pause to Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, the FTC argued her denial of a preliminary injunction to halt the deal "raises serious, substantial issues for the Court of Appeals to resolve."

"The FTC asks this Court to enjoin the merger at issue pending resolution of the FTC's appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The motion is denied," the judge said in the order late on Thursday.

The FTC had said it was seeking a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the deal until an internal FTC judge could assess it. But Corley applied the standard needed to permanently stop the deal instead, which the agency argued was inappropriate.

It is rare for a merger fight to go to an appeals court. That said, the FTC appealed a ruling more than 10 years ago when it lost its fight against Whole Foods' purchase of Wild Oats. The agency settled with the companies before the appeals court made a decision.

Reporting by Diane Bartz and David Shepardson; additional reporting by Kanishka Singh; Editing by Tim Ahmann, Josie Kao and Jamie Freed

 

[//DEVIL//]

I don't know this person but I laughed at this

 

[NickFire]

Full bloomberg article without the paywall

What would the functional difference be?

I'm not seeing how MS would lose control over cloud. New company either pays what they're told or goes out of business with no content. Feels like a middle man who is dependent on MS to me. Maybe I'm missing something but if this works it sounds like face saving by CMA.

 

[Kilau]

Full bloomberg article without the paywall

Thanks. Seems like though anything MS changes will have to go back through the CMA process, maybe a lot faster but I don't see it happening before Monday. Maybe the plan is just to try to get the CMA to agree to something so the FTC has no fall back "block" to show the 9th.

 

[Alex Scott]

Thanks. Seems like though anything MS changes will have to go back through the CMA process, maybe a lot faster but I don't see it happening before Monday. Maybe the plan is just to try to get the CMA to agree to something so the FTC has no fall back "block" to show the 9th.

Tom says otherwise.

 

[NickFire]

Reuters article was once again updated minutes ago. I just hope that's not too old for you omniscient legal eagles.

I bolded the names of the reporters so you can tell them they're late with news you already know.

US asks appeals court to pause Microsoft deal after lower court refuses

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Thursday asked an appeals court to temporarily stop Microsoft from closing its $69 billion purchase of "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard , just hours after a federal judge rejected a similar request.

www.reuters.com

Dude you can't fault us for seeing earlier articles and wondering if you just found the final chapter. Well, I guess you can if you want.

 

[Chiggs]

Dude you can't fault us for seeing earlier articles and wondering if you just found the final chapter. Well, I guess you can if you want.

I can if I literally said:

Sorry if this was already posted

I even went back several pages and looked for the source.

 

[adamsapple]

I don't know this person but I laughed at this

I have no love for these congress people but oof if that wasn't some severe cooking. Especially the part about her representing herself as a council (counsel ?) with a delinquent license.

Tom says otherwise.

I don't know what kind of source Tom has, or if it was just a guess but let's see

 

[Kilau]

Tom says otherwise.

Well maybe Tom knows if the CMA can just undo their previous ruling like that, the article said they would need the deal resubmitted.

 

[Alex Scott]

Well maybe Tom knows if the CMA can just undo their previous ruling like that, the article said they would need the deal resubmitted.

Who knows at this point what CMA wants to do. Tommarow or Monday we will know where the deal stands.

 

[Ginzeen]

AS I SAID, divesting COD was never an option

 

[Kilau]

Who knows at this point what CMA wants to do. Tommarow or Monday we will know where the deal stands.

I think they can come to an agreement; I'm just wondering about the timeline. Can they move the process before Monday so MS could close and not be in violation.

 

[Ginzeen]

Deal will be closed barring a FTC miracle at the 9th circuit. Deal is looking very sexy

 

[DeepEnigma]

AS I SAID, divesting COD was never an option

Hottest of takes.

 

[XesqueVara]

Can the Deal be Closed on Saturday if they want?

 

[Ginzeen]

Can the Deal be Closed on Saturday if they want?

yes they can. but Monday seems to be the day.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Microsoft Corp. and Activision Blizzard Inc. are considering giving up some control of their cloud-gaming business in the UK as a way to appease regulators so they can complete their $69 billion merger by the July 18 deadline, according to people familiar with the matter.

That could involve selling off the cloud-based market rights for games in the UK to a telecommunications, gaming or internet-based computing company, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential planning. A private equity company might also be interested, said one person.

So…

 

[Unknown Soldier]

This is beyond your favorite company, this is worldwide gaming issues.
Its mainly due to people having disposable income, which they spend it like its 1$. Companies are abusing that.
I witnessed this from mobile gaming and now console/pc gamers are experiencing this hell.
Just wait until $100 becomes your normal spending.

If your problem with other people is that they are rich and spend their money how they see fit, I have bad news for you there. They aren't going to stop being rich or spending their money how they see fit because you disapprove.

Mobile gaming is where all the innovation is these days. Console gaming is an endless parade of sequels, remakes, remasters, and knockoffs. But free of the shackles of existing console platforms and publishers, many small companies have sprung up in the mobile space making new types of games which genuinely offer new things instead of retreading the same old things forever.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I would be shocked if the CMA evaluated/approved a new deal before the 18th. That seems ridiculously optimistic. But I've been shocked multiple times in this case. So I'm going to assume for a moment that it won't be approved by the 18th.

• Microsoft closes without CMA approval, but this explicitly requires approval from Activision who has granted them to proceed. CMA issues some minor fines, and the only way this blows up in Microsoft's face is if the CMA ultimately rejects their divestiture proposal and MS is now forced to sell ATVI at potentially a big loss. This means that Activision truly is still "in the deal" as much as possible and considers getting the deal done as swiftly as possible the best course of action for them.
  
  
• Microsoft cannot close the deal in time for the 18th because Activision does not approve without CMA approval per the original contract.
  • Possibility A: Activision decides to not proceed and collects $3B. Signals that the environment has turned around enough for the deal to not be satisfactory to shareholders. Also means that their cheerleading by Lulu and crew was all marketing to ensure they can collect the $3B fee (remember, they are legally obligated to pursue it at all costs up until the deadline).
    
    
  • Possibility B: Activision renegotiates for an extension. Higher share price to buy them more time to get the CMA issue settled.

Either way - if the CMA does not approve, I don't see ANY reason why Activision WOULD grant Microsoft the ability to close without the CMA. Activision has ALL the leverage in this scenario, and it can ONLY advantage them to renegotiate or drop the deal entirely.

Are there any flaws in this reasoning? So basically, Microsoft MUST come to some sort of agreement with the CMA before the 18th to get this truly closed per the original terms of their contract with Activision.

 

[HoofHearted]

I don't know this person but I laughed at this

Yeesh - aside from the idiotic commentor/commentary - watching the snippets from the hearing - they were quite brutal on Lina Khan ...

Is she ok? someone should go check on her..

 

[NickFire]

I think they can come to an agreement; I'm just wondering about the timeline. Can they move the process before Monday so MS could close and not be in violation.

If the order expires, they can close anytime until and unless a new order enters without being in violation. No clear court order = no clear court order was violated.

 

[Iced Arcade]

AS I SAID, divesting COD was never an option

you said? you haven't been here for a month according to your profile.


I mean I agree with the statement but lol

 

[Ginzeen]

I would be shocked if the CMA evaluated/approved a new deal before the 18th. That seems ridiculously optimistic. But I've been shocked multiple times in this case. So I'm going to assume for a moment that it won't be approved by the 18th.

• Microsoft closes without CMA approval, but this explicitly requires approval from Activision who has granted them to proceed. CMA issues some minor fines, and the only way this blows up in Microsoft's face is if the CMA ultimately rejects their divestiture proposal and MS is now forced to sell ATVI at potentially a big loss. This means that Activision truly is still "in the deal" as much as possible and considers getting the deal done as swiftly as possible the best course of action for them.
  
  
• Microsoft cannot close the deal in time for the 18th because Activision does not approve without CMA approval per the original contract.
  • Possibility A: Activision decides to not proceed and collects $3B. Signals that the environment has turned around enough for the deal to not be satisfactory to shareholders. Also means that their cheerleading by Lulu and crew was all marketing to ensure they can collect the $3B fee (remember, they are legally obligated to pursue it at all costs up until the deadline).
    
    
  • Possibility B: Activision renegotiates for an extension. Higher share price to buy them more time to get the CMA issue settled.

Either way - if the CMA does not approve, I don't see ANY reason why Activision WOULD grant Microsoft the ability to close without the CMA. Activision has ALL the leverage in this scenario, and it can ONLY advantage them to renegotiate or drop the deal entirely.

Are there any flaws in this reasoning? So basically, Microsoft MUST come to some sort of agreement with the CMA before the 18th to get this truly closed per the original terms of their contract with Activision.

i think they let them close in the meantime BUT they will have to divest if they find errors. Thats my guess. That should be reasonable for both parties.

 

[Kilau]

If the order expires, they can close anytime until and unless a new order enters without being in violation. No clear court order = no clear court order was violated.

Violation with the UK, under the current CMA decision they would be in violation if they closed even if there is no block in the US. From what I understand anyway.

 

[XesqueVara]

I think xbox is giving up more than ABK cloud.

For the wording in the Article looks like it´s the rights of All cloud based games in the UK.
[h2][/h2]

 

[Ginzeen]

you said? you haven't been here for a month according to your profile.


I mean I agree with the statement but lol

i said it earlier today. But still lol

 

[StreetsofBeige]

i think they let them close in the meantime BUT they will have to divest if they find errors. Thats my guess. That should be reasonable for both parties.

I dont know how up to date or outdated it was, but I saw a Bloomberg article recently that said CMA was good with MS making cloud gaming licenses to hardware makers free. I dont know if this is true or the extent of the offer.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

i think they let them close in the meantime BUT they will have to divest if they find errors. Thats my guess. That should be reasonable for both parties.

Why would they do that when they can renegotiate for a higher share price?

 

[NickFire]

I would be shocked if the CMA evaluated/approved a new deal before the 18th. That seems ridiculously optimistic. But I've been shocked multiple times in this case. So I'm going to assume for a moment that it won't be approved by the 18th.

• Microsoft closes without CMA approval, but this explicitly requires approval from Activision who has granted them to proceed. CMA issues some minor fines, and the only way this blows up in Microsoft's face is if the CMA ultimately rejects their divestiture proposal and MS is now forced to sell ATVI at potentially a big loss. This means that Activision truly is still "in the deal" as much as possible and considers getting the deal done as swiftly as possible the best course of action for them.
  
  
• Microsoft cannot close the deal in time for the 18th because Activision does not approve without CMA approval per the original contract.
  • Possibility A: Activision decides to not proceed and collects $3B. Signals that the environment has turned around enough for the deal to not be satisfactory to shareholders. Also means that their cheerleading by Lulu and crew was all marketing to ensure they can collect the $3B fee (remember, they are legally obligated to pursue it at all costs up until the deadline).
    
    
  • Possibility B: Activision renegotiates for an extension. Higher share price to buy them more time to get the CMA issue settled.

Either way - if the CMA does not approve, I don't see ANY reason why Activision WOULD grant Microsoft the ability to close without the CMA. Activision has ALL the leverage in this scenario, and it can ONLY advantage them to renegotiate or drop the deal entirely.

Are there any flaws in this reasoning? So basically, Microsoft MUST come to some sort of agreement with the CMA before the 18th to get this truly closed per the original terms of their contract with Activision.

My guess is that ONLY MS can refuse closing due to CMA if MS waives it. Could be wrong cause guessing. But they are US based. Why would Activision care if worse case scenario in UK is fines? MS would pay them not Activision.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

is seems the FTC tried to act like the tough guy in the room when they actually needed to do their job. they could've achieve some great remedies but instead they choose to focus on Playstation. isn't this frustrating for all the ones saying this is catastrophic for the industry?

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

My guess is that ONLY MS can waive any right to refuse closing due to CMA. Could be wrong cause guessing. But they are US based. Why would Activision care if worse case scenario in UK is fines? MS would pay them not Activision.

The original contract signed with activision stipulates it must be aproved by the largest global regulators, of which the CMA is one of them. I don't know why this would somehow be under Microsoft's control. If they close without approval of the CMA, they are violating the terms of the contract with Activision

 

[DeepEnigma]

you said? you haven't been here for a month according to your profile.


I mean I agree with the statement but lol

Everyone said it from day 1. Well everyone but those trying to push that it was only about King at one time.

It's a no shit news take.

 

[NickFire]

The original contract signed with activision stipulates it must be aproved by the largest global regulators, of which the CMA is one of them. I don't know why this would somehow be under Microsoft's control. If they close without approval of the CMA, they are violating the terms of the contract with Activision

I reworded what I was saying. But you understood so I can respond.

I am just guessing 100%. It just feels like something intended for MS benefit. Activision is being completely purchased I think. If all existing shares go to MS, why would Activision care. Whereas violating court order would be possibly punishable by jail for people acting.

Just a feeling.

 

[feynoob]

If your problem with other people is that they are rich and spend their money how they see fit, I have bad news for you there. They aren't going to stop being rich or spending their money how they see fit because you disapprove.

Mobile gaming is where all the innovation is these days. Console gaming is an endless parade of sequels, remakes, remasters, and knockoffs. But free of the shackles of existing console platforms and publishers, many small companies have sprung up in the mobile space making new types of games which genuinely offer new things instead of retreading the same old things forever.

If a person spends 100k on mtx, then it affects everyone's experience.

These companies are making alot of money and wont stop adding those mtx to their games.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I reworded what I was saying. But you understood so I can respond.

I am just guessing 100%. It just feels like something intended for MS benefit. Activision is being completely purchased I think. If all existing shares go to MS, why would Activision care. Whereas violating court order would be possibly punishable by jail for people acting.

Just a feeling.

I don't see how it's intended for MS' benefit. Otherwise, they could stipulate the sale requires NO regulatory approval and hold all the cards. Seems like it's more for Activision as a way to collect their termination fee.

 

[Ginzeen]

The original contract signed with activision stipulates it must be aproved by the largest global regulators, of which the CMA is one of them. I don't know why this would somehow be under Microsoft's control. If they close without approval of the CMA, they are violating the terms of the contract with Activision

Their not closing without the CMA approval. Their is plenty of evidence to support that.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I don't know this person but I laughed at this

Here's an oldie but a goodie

 

[feynoob]

I would be shocked if the CMA evaluated/approved a new deal before the 18th. That seems ridiculously optimistic. But I've been shocked multiple times in this case. So I'm going to assume for a moment that it won't be approved by the 18th.

• Microsoft closes without CMA approval, but this explicitly requires approval from Activision who has granted them to proceed. CMA issues some minor fines, and the only way this blows up in Microsoft's face is if the CMA ultimately rejects their divestiture proposal and MS is now forced to sell ATVI at potentially a big loss. This means that Activision truly is still "in the deal" as much as possible and considers getting the deal done as swiftly as possible the best course of action for them.
  
  
• Microsoft cannot close the deal in time for the 18th because Activision does not approve without CMA approval per the original contract.
  • Possibility A: Activision decides to not proceed and collects $3B. Signals that the environment has turned around enough for the deal to not be satisfactory to shareholders. Also means that their cheerleading by Lulu and crew was all marketing to ensure they can collect the $3B fee (remember, they are legally obligated to pursue it at all costs up until the deadline).
    
    
  • Possibility B: Activision renegotiates for an extension. Higher share price to buy them more time to get the CMA issue settled.

Either way - if the CMA does not approve, I don't see ANY reason why Activision WOULD grant Microsoft the ability to close without the CMA. Activision has ALL the leverage in this scenario, and it can ONLY advantage them to renegotiate or drop the deal entirely.

Are there any flaws in this reasoning? So basically, Microsoft MUST come to some sort of agreement with the CMA before the 18th to get this truly closed per the original terms of their contract with Activision.

Never trust a regulator no matter what, even if they say they wont change their decision.

I would suggest you wait for this friday-monday ride. We will see whether MS or CMA will comeout on top from this deal.

 

[The Pleasure]

I don't know this person but I laughed at this

He's friends with this douchebag

 

[Kilau]

I don't see how it's intended for MS' benefit. Otherwise, they could stipulate the sale requires NO regulatory approval and hold all the cards. Seems like it's more for Activision as a way to collect their termination fee.

Somone here was saying that the deal says "waiver" not "waive", meaning it's about getting a waiver from the regulator not MS or ABK waiving the requirement. Not sure if that is true but maybe that is the plan for tomorrow, getting a waiver from the CMA.

 

[NickFire]

I don't see how it's intended for MS' benefit. Otherwise, they could stipulate the sale requires NO regulatory approval and hold all the cards. Seems like it's more for Activision as a way to collect their termination fee.

MS would be the party stuck with new asset they must sell, essentially at compelled auction. Activision shareholders already would have their bags.

Anyway, just a guess. Might be wrong. Hope so. Might be irrelevant if CMA already folding too.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Somone here was saying that the deal says "waiver" not "waive", meaning it's about getting a waiver from the regulator not MS or ABK waiving the requirement. Not sure if that is true but maybe that is the plan for tomorrow, getting a waiver from the CMA.

So the CMA is supposed to let Microsoft close on a preliminary basis, but they could later reject the deal if they find it unsatisfactory once they have time to review? That seems like a strange thing to do. What's in it for the CMA? They love MS or something?

 

[Kilau]

So the CMA is supposed to let Microsoft close on a preliminary basis, but they could later reject the deal if they find it unsatisfactory once they have time to review? That seems like a strange thing to do. What's in it for the CMA? They love MS or something?

I have no clue, I am trying to figure out the timeframe for all this also. Tom Warren is saying it's all done pending the 9th circuit though.

 

[feynoob]

So the CMA is supposed to let Microsoft close on a preliminary basis, but they could later reject the deal if they find it unsatisfactory once they have time to review? That seems like a strange thing to do. What's in it for the CMA? They love MS or something?

CMA is getting what they wanted. Cloud divesment, while MS gets the deal.
If MS cant control cloud option, there is no risk for this deal.

 

[Ginzeen]

So the CMA is supposed to let Microsoft close on a preliminary basis, but they could later reject the deal if they find it unsatisfactory once they have time to review? That seems like a strange thing to do. What's in it for the CMA? They love MS or something?

Comity and the "public interest."