feynoob
Banned
Last edited:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Bernoulli
M2 slut
IFireflyl
Gold Member
I wish people would stop pushing this narrative. Is it possible? Sure. Possibility =/= Certainty.
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
As long as she can wear gamer shirts, she's golden.
Varteras
Member
The consequence of this deal going through is even more consolidation after the fact. And no, it won't just be Microsoft, and no, gaming won't be in a better place for it. This deal doesn't exist in a vacuum, and I really don't think many people are understanding this.
After the Zenimax deal closed, Sony has since picked up 9 studios to beef up their own first party. And just when people thought they were slowing down, they come out and say they're spinning off their financial arm to bolster and focus their investments. Outright saying they refuse to be left behind.
This is at a time when it looks like the deal won't happen. Now imagine it somehow does. Expect Sony to be willing to greatly expand their debt in order to make sure they secure certain companies they deem essential. Those things many thought were off the board for them suddenly won't be.
This doesn't even consider moves made by Tencent at that point, who are already in bed with Ubisoft and made it clear they're looking for more. Especially in Europe. Conveniently for them, Embracer Group has just hit a huge wall.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
Microsoft didn't expect CMA to block, now they want to use the FTC losing to bring it to CAT, if the FTC get's the injuction it's over
Thirty7ven
Banned
Because time is the secret ingredient.
gothmog
Gold Member
I think the question is why did Microsoft wait so long to bring it up as an issue?
Varteras
Member
I think ABK already told them "figure it out" back in April.
Dick Jones
Banned
Throw a bit of background music behind her on stage and they have a winner.
Ogbert
Member
Forget the UK.
Just at a basic level. The dates are clearly established. Why hasn’t the FTC made a decision? Has MS set a too aggressive timeframe?
Say what you want about us Brits, but the courts have pushed this case through, even to appeal stage.
But the FTC are just waiting?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
And instead of "president or CEO" just add "gamer" to the bottom.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Why should MS be the one to determine the time frame in which regulators get to do their job?
As far as I know the date arranged between MS and ABK is just a contractual date between the two parties. If MS can’t close inside that time frame then they are the ones that should be out of pocket for it.
Banjo64
cumsessed
She can barely speak or appear like an actually human being when she’s on camera. To be honest I have no idea what credentials you actually need to lead Xbox.
Separately, can I just say that if Microsoft and ABK had a healthy partnership they already would have held discussions about the extension and would have an honest approach with this. The fact that they don’t seem to have, or that Microsoft is terrified they will cut and run, is beautiful karma for the childish way both companies have acted throughout.
Banjo64
cumsessed
GHG
Gold Member
Would you trust the likes of Bobby and Lulu?
I certainly wouldn't.
And if its the other way round do you trust the likes of Brad and Phil?
No again.
So there we have it.
Pelta88
Member
The problem I have with the bolded is that she doesn't need a stage presence. 99% of the PS audience have no idea who Jim or any PS exec is. Same with Nintendo. I bet every penny in my bank account that none of us know the owners of Steam. And that's exactly how it should be.
Let the games and the platform speak.
Ogbert
Member
Regulators, certainly in the UK, have to operate under the principle of accommodation and have to make best efforts to meet the relevant deadlines. Which they’re doing.
Obviously, that has to be reciprocated. So companies can’t just set absurd timelines and then cry foul.
But we’ve known about this for months. And every single regulator has opined on the case, apart from the domestic regulator for the two relevant companies.
Just seems odd.
ToadMan
Member
Yeah I don’t think that is a possible solution.
The CMA has jurisdiction now - just changing the business structure doesn’t erase history or mean COD and whatever is no longer made by ABK and as part of MS that would still operate in the UK.
The UK and CMA haven’t been concerned about blocking these big tech deals and so far the companies falling foul of the law have eventually complied with the rulings.
I don’t think MS will be able to break the chain with some obvious corporate scheme - the UK has heard all these shenanigans before. But MS may well be one company that is prepared to harm itself and shareholders by doing something foolish.
And by foolish I mean something that effectively means they lose what consumer base they do have in the UK. But that would be good news for MS competition I guess.
Topher
Identifies as young
I don't think that will happen. Phil Spencer isn't the one trying to navigate Microsoft through these regulatory waters. If anyone is in charge of that it is Brad Smith.
Dick Jones
Banned
I love those tags, they are very accurate. This is my favourite.And instead of "president or CEO" just add "gamer" to the bottom.
GHG
Gold Member
Phil is heavily involved in the process, he's said so multiple times. So much so that he admitted he wasn't sleeping at one point.
SneakersSO
Member
When MS was arguing with CAT, they were trying to ensure the appeal case would start before the closing date, and argued for something in late June, while the CMA was asking for something in August.It's funny that in the UK they asked to speed up things and here it's the opposite
MS was always planning on motioning to dismiss the FTC's admin case in August under the basis that the merger had already happened, and breaking them up now is a far more damaging prospect than leaving them together. What they are saying here is that, this Federal Case will largely take precedent over the Admin Court case which was currently set for August, which it will, and so they'd like more time since this is likely the only court case they plan on having for this merger in the US.
I'm not buying the notion that MS 4D'd chessed this at all by the way. I think they always felt this was a possibility, but I think they ultimately felt that the FTC would rather hold onto their admin court case versus taking this to a Federal Judge, and decided that they could close now and strengthen their position in both courts by arguing "Look, whats done is done - breaking us up now would do far more damage than leaving us be".
They did make a ruling back in December - they opted to sue MS to block the acquisition of ATVI. The court date to see that case in front of their Admin. Court is set for August. The only reason the FTC made this move now is because they caught wind that MS was looking to close the deal in spite of the CMA block before that court date, and the CAT's appeal court date was set to begin. FTC did this to ensure MS cannot do their current planned move.
X-Wing
Member
Yep, was thinking about that possibility a while earlier.
GHG
Gold Member
I have no idea how they have structured the team handling this deal but he's made it sound like he's more involved than he probably should be.
In all honestly it's been a shitshow from the start, you would have thought their legal team would have told them to shit the fuck up and given them a strict set of rules on what they can and can't say the moment they announced the deal but it seems to have been a free for all. Can't say it's the least bit surprising when the guy heading it all up starts telling the world that he wants to Blockbuster one of their competitors.
Dick Jones
Banned
Hopefully Brad gets another interview on BBC radio. He should try it again as the first one went so well.
X-Wing
Member
Because several interviews and audiences necessary for the trial in august will only take place in July.
Ogbert
Member
But August is too late aswell and is already past the terms of the agreement?
How can it take 8 months for a case of this size to be heard?
Apologies, this is more me asking about how things work in the US as opposed to this particular case.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Legal system backed up
Judges need to be privy to what they're judging on (brought up to speed and learn about if necessary)
Preparation by both parties and their litigation
Etc
ToadMan
Member
The FTC have made a case - they present that case to a judge as do MS and the judge makes the decision.
That judge/court is available in August - that was the date provided when the FTC said they would sue to block about 6 months ago.
Prior to that, MS had the opportunity to avoid this by providing suitable remedies to the FTC - evidently MS were not successful and your guess is as good as mine as to why.
Anyway until that case is heard in August, there is, strictly speaking, no legal reason MS couldn’t complete the purchase. The risk to MS is that having paid the money, the purchase would be illegal, they’d be forced to divest ABK again at a major loss and pay fines in many jurisdictions.
The FTC believes MS may take the above action now hence the injunction filing for next week.
PaintTinJr
Member
I've been thinking about this, and what bothers me - as someone that is glad Brexit is done and dusted and a democracy prevailed regardless of the contentions residual sentiment of the vote - is that Microsoft's plan might have been to lobby both major UK parties before the election - because both leaders are and where Pro-EU - and get Brexit reserved by either side, without a referendum, and in doing so get the CAT and CMA quashed by the EC ruling before the fines took place.
ToadMan
Member
They’ve sifted through millions of documents had various subpoenas to issue, various parties refused some information wanted others redacted etc all of which requiring a judicial decision.
It’s just a long process to get all that data ready for a sturdy legal case, and then get it in front of a suitably qualified judge.
Believe it or not, this is the expedited process….
But let’s be honest, regulators hope that corporations will play ball and negotiate this stuff before it gets to legal action or if it drags on the companies simply give up.
That is the play for the FTC now - it’s basically them trying to wind the clock down on MS, and the CMA were effectively complicit in that. Its cheaper and less risky than actually going to court for the regulators.
Look at the money MS has to spend on it’s legal team. The government lawyers get a fraction of the funding and are overloaded with cases.
Last edited:
Varteras
Member
Also important to remember that Lina Khan wants reforms to the FTC. The more the FTC struggles or fails, the stronger a case can be made. She still wants to win, sure. But she, and those in the government who share her views like Liz Warren, will still win for her losing. It'll just have to be argued that it wasn't due to incompetence.
SneakersSO
Member
Right well, thats the thing with Mergers - the US court system is basically far too corporation-friendly to really hold folks accountable outside of very rare, outlandish circumstances.
What MS' legal team was betting on, in terms of outcomes was a simple one.
-Get approval in China/UK/EU.
-Move to close the deal as soon as you have gotten them.
-Doing so would force the FTC to either file an injunction immediately, which would then get viewed in front of a Federal Judge, where MS would argue, after the merger has already closed, that 'hey, we've already closed and breaking us up now would do more public harm than good, and your ruling here would set a precedent that is probably out of your jurisdiction'.
- Judge then sides with the corporation, as they have multiple times in the past, and stays the injunction. All the Injunction does is prevent you from doing a thing until some agreed upon event or date - in this case, all the Preliminary Injunction does is prevent MS' ability to close on ATVI before the FTC Admin Court date.
MS goal was to have closed the deal prior to the FTC court date, cause once the FTC admin court ruled in the FTC's favor (it nearly always does), the FTC takes that ruling and takes it to get enforced in front of a Federal Judge, who then realizes that if he sides with the FTC, he'd effectively be reversing already completed merger, so they side with the corporation.
MS is still trying to find ways around the CMA block. Thats all this is.
Ogbert
Member
Thanks - that makes sense.
Does anyone know if this sort of injunction is usually granted?
ToadMan
Member
I personally don’t think it would go that way that quickly.
Rejoining the EU would be a years long process for the UK - perhaps decades. I don’t think MS is really going to wait that long.
To me, the idea the UK would agree to give up its currency for the Euro in order to rejoin makes the whole thing a non-starter.
The EU would need to scrap the Euro or in some way remove that requirement (thus pissing off all the current bag holders) and I don’t think there is enough love for the UK at the moment to even attempt to do that. Too much pride on both sides.
SneakersSO
Member
I'm not sure on what the percentages are but this is a unique case in that, a preliminary injunction is being sought on a company that hasn't already closed their merger attempt, and is also being prevented from closing by a block from another regulatory agency.
Typically, when we reach this point in US courts, the judge overseeing this is looking at a post-merger company. This is a pre-merger company, and one that is also in court seeking to overturn a block in another jurisdiction. There is far, far less harm in granting the injunction now, outside of the obvious being that the PI would make it so that the FTC court case will be overheard in August, which again, is outside of the Merger Agreement.
That being said, the FTC can argue that the merging entities could very well sign an extended agreement, but every move we've seen indicates that someone or both parties between MS & ATVI, for whatever reason, do not want to sign an extension.
SneakersSO
Member
Simply leaving the EU took ~5 years. Rejoining it would take a decade or longer - MS and ATVI can't even seem to want to extend their current Merger Agreement another year, let alone long enough to let this scenario play out.
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
The FTC record isn’t that hot with Federal injunctions no.
As it happens, not getting the injunction doesn’t mean the FTC gives up its case. They go to an internal court for that in August and, at the end of that process the FTC almost always comes out with it’s decision confirmed.
Whether the FTC continues to that internal court if they lose the Federal court injunction judgement is their decision to make. I don’t know which way they’d go.
PaintTinJr
Member
They would take us back in a heartbeat IMO, with all the same benefits in light of us arguably being the biggest contributor of 28 nations to the block, when factoring in our defence spending that the US appreciated and attributed as an EU contribution IIRC.
Money talks, and that gravy train is expensive to run.
Last edited:
YeulEmeralda
Linux User
"She can barely speak or appear like an actually human being when she’s on camera".
Like most gamers.
Ogbert
Member
I don’t have any M&A experience, but you would expect there to be some sort of extension that can be exercised by both parties, to accommodate regulatory and commercial hurdles. Almost a ‘best efforts’ to not walk away from a deal.
But, as you say, if they’re getting cold feet, this might be an opportunity to wriggle out.
I’m just surprised at how long the court process is taking. And I thought we were slow!
Ogbert
Member
I get the impression that MS has no problem being sued or fined.
They just don’t want to be blocked.
Banjo64
cumsessed
I just want someone that can manage studios effectively, not a GaMEr. Hurman Hulst had his PS5 upside down for fucks sake
Astray
Member
Best efforts during the duration of the agreement yes, but once that term expires with no extension or new deal in place, then all bets are off.
Everything is good for Microsoft until it isn't, then those same people come out with the tantrums.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked