Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Antwix said:
phil ain't worried. he's just chillin'


etwp3hpmhfbb1.jpg
Click to expand...
He didn't seem phased by being shit at his job for 10 years either.
 
Lasha said:
Why did you quote all of those messages? Lina Khan's strategy of taking tech companies to court and losing is being critiqued as wasteful and pointless in many circles. Especially since the FTC has ignored more impactful consolidations in sectors like agriculture. The FTC allowed farm equipment manufacturers to consolidate which has reduced options and increased costs for farmers while it tilts at tech. Do you think that an appeal is an intelligent use of public funds after the FTC's abysmal showing in court?
Click to expand...

I'm curious: why aren't you in favor of more resources to be allocated to the FTC for the purpose of boosting future trial preparedness and court performance? It's widely understood that federal regulators have a very difficult time competing with their counterparts in the private sector, with funding being the constant differentiator, regardless of which private industry they choose to focus their attention on. Or would you rather the FTC not attempt to execute their mandate at all?
 
ChiefDada said:
What's your point here? Are we suddenly requiring journalist to abandon their traditional sourcing methods and become c-suite execs in order to confirm which company said what?
Click to expand...
I think he is just saying that no-one with any authority actually said that the CMA had accepted a deal and the tweet was also an incorrect summary of what was actually said during the interview on TV.
 
.... basically the CMA in a nutshell: "FTC has lost their court case, shit lets negotiate this out.... hold on the FTC indicates they may appeal? Well, we just want to be clear while we are open to negotiate we are still against it and may investigate a new deal".
 
Dlacy13g said:
.... basically the CMA in a nutshell: "FTC has lost their court case, shit lets negotiate this out.... hold on the FTC indicates they may appeal? Well, we just want to be clear while we are open to negotiate we are still against it and may investigate a new deal".
Click to expand...
Not what happened at all.

MS approached CMA and said they want to submit a re-structured deal.

CMA said yes, and so they are putting a pause on current proceedings to let MS go through with that.

The End
 
adamsapple said:
Absolutely. Just the fact that CMA have agreed to reopen the discussion is an unheard of thing. They didn't offer this for the Giphy case to my knowledge.

Irrespective of the FTC lawsuit going in MS's favor, the deal is a lot closer to closing today than it was before the weekend.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't they save the tax payer money and help free up time for justices and other bar members? The drop dead date - as Microsoft called - is probably unchanged and so them listening to Microsoft's ramblings in hope of a resolution is really a nothing lost burger for them.

Microsoft are almost certainly going to take the lesser of two evils outcomes from this, and accept the CMA's original divestment
 
Last edited:
Topher said:
I don't know. I'm saying that if this is a part of the process then it isn't unheard of.
Click to expand...
Negotiator101 said:
Well I see what you're saying but if it's not happened before one could say its "unheard of", wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
globalcompetitionreview.com

CMA considers structural remedy in foam deal after first-ever Phase II concession

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority is considering a divestiture proposal from two foam products manufacturers after the pair became the first-ever merging parties to concede during a Phase II probe that their deal significantly harmed competition.
globalcompetitionreview.com globalcompetitionreview.com
 
ChiefDada said:
I'm curious: why aren't you in favor of more resources to be allocated to the FTC for the purpose of boosting future trial preparedness and court performance? It's widely understood that federal regulators have a very difficult time competing with their counterparts in the private sector, with funding being the constant differentiator, regardless of which private industry they choose to focus their attention on. Or would you rather the FTC not attempt to execute their mandate at all?
Click to expand...
The FTC always had a limited budget tho, knowing that they should focus on cases that they have higher chances to win like Kroger/Albertsons and Illumina/Grail than MS/ABK and Meta/Within for example.
 
XesqueVara said:
The FTC always had a limited budget tho, knowing that they should focus on cases that they have higher chances to win like Kroger/Albertsons and Illumina/Grail than MS/ABK and Meta/Within for example.
Click to expand...
Which is why they want to build a record and case law to present to congress.

Negotiator101 said:
Sorry Sir could you point out that Microsoft did indeed approach them? That changes everything IMO.
Click to expand...
NickFire said:
It doesn't show up in quotes, but from your quotes of the article:

"The discussions over a new deal were instigated by Microsoft, according to one person familiar with the talks. A former CMA lawyer said it was unusual for companies to bring a reconstituted deal in front of the regulator to begin the process again."

If that is accurate, there would have been ZERO reason for CMA to say no. They just asked for more time to prepare and got told no. Being offered a chance to spend more time preparing would be an offer they'd have no reason to refuse as it would be a gift horse without conditions.

Now I'm wondering if this was more of a power play that MS laid down against AB. Is there some clause in their deal requiring renegotiations before demanding a break up fee they are triggering?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
IntentionalPun said:
Not what happened at all.

MS approached CMA and said they want to submit a re-structured deal.

CMA said yes, and so they are putting a pause on current proceedings to let MS go through with that.

The End
Click to expand...
I have no doubt it ran as you said...but it was rather comical how the public statements and reporting played exactly as how I laid it out from a timing perspective. FTC got denied their PI and was made public, The hours after that reports & official statements came forward after the ruling saying MS & CMA both agreed to pausing CAT, then just about 24hrs later we get bloomberg (and possible other sources) saying they have heard FTC is likely to appeal, Subsequently after that nugget we then get the public statement from the CMA saying while they are open to negotiate they are still against it, etc. The timing of it all is undeniably funny.
 
Negotiator101 said:
Well I see what you're saying but if it's not happened before one could say its "unheard of", wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

Not what was said. adamsapple adamsapple said CMA "agreeing" to this is "unheard of". It isn't. It is Microsoft's right to present a restructured deal. It isn't about CMA agreeing or not.

If he had said Microsoft was taking steps with the CMA that are rare then I'd agree.
 
Last edited:
Things are probally moving fast behind the scenes, it will take sometime to have a clear picture of the actual scenario tbh.
 
Last edited:
Dlacy13g said:
.... basically the CMA in a nutshell: "FTC has lost their court case, shit lets negotiate this out.... hold on the FTC indicates they may appeal? Well, we just want to be clear while we are open to negotiate we are still against it and may investigate a new deal".
Click to expand...
This basically proves that UK is still America's lapdog or to be more politically correct, America's bitch.
 
XesqueVara said:
The FTC always had a limited budget tho, knowing that they should focus on cases that they have higher chances to win like Kroger/Albertsons and Illumina/Grail than MS/ABK and Meta/Within for example.
Click to expand...

Again I think people are kinda misunderstanding the playbook the FTC are working from. Individual cases won and lost are less important to them than proving certain principles in law, because ultimately they are a governmental institution and aren't going anywhere. So if they can create a precedent wherein a certain argument needs to be considered by a sitting judge, it expands their arsenal for all future litigation.

Here's a recent example regarding FTC versus Meta acquiring Within, a case they lost but legal scholars believe gained the FTC legal grounds.

Lets not forget their powers aren't just to block deals, they can in theory demand divestitures and breakups.
 
Dlacy13g said:
I have no doubt it ran as you said...but it was rather comical how the public statements and reporting played exactly as how I laid it out from a timing perspective. FTC got denied their PI and was made public, The hours after that reports & official statements came forward after the ruling saying MS & CMA both agreed to pausing CAT, then just about 24hrs later we get bloomberg (and possible other sources) saying they have heard FTC is likely to appeal, Subsequently after that nugget we then get the public statement from the CMA saying while they are open to negotiate they are still against it, etc. The timing of it all is undeniably funny.
Click to expand...
Yeah it was a pretty crazy over-reaction by everyone, assuming CMA was about to just cower and submit to MS and sign some deal in a few days because of the FTC hearing.

What's actually happening makes way more sense.

MS probably knew they were dead in the water without divestiture and this is their last ditch effort really. Will it be enough? I kinda doubt it still. CMA basically suggested they divest the entirety of Activision, or Blizzard WORLDWIDE... and it sounds like MS has some small "local" divestiture planned.

They must be really hoping the CMA feels pressured by the rest of the world failing to block.
 
Last edited:
Negotiator101 said:
Not a rock solid source but better than anything else we've got, Microsoft ain't over the line yet by any stretch.
Click to expand...
The CMA was not going to initiate while they have the CAT appeal process started, they stand by their block in their most recent update. MS/Activision were agreeing on a "small divesture" all reports are saying, and offered it to the CMA, which it was rejected. They have a right to, it has happed before after a Phase 2 between two companies.

CMA will listen to a new proposal based on structural remedies/divesture. That does not guarantee a yes or a no, but sources are saying that is a new 3 month process and it would be kicked back to all regulatory bodies as well since it would need to be a new deal drawn up. So far this is the info we have.

It could all change, who knows.
 
DeepEnigma said:
The CMA was not going to initiate while they have the CAT appeal process started, they stand by their block in their most recent update. MS/Activision were agreeing on a "small divesture" all reports are saying, and offered it to the CMA, which it was rejected. They have a right to, it has happed before after a Phase 2 between two companies.

CMA will listen to a new proposal based on structural remedies/divesture. That does not guarantee a yes or a no, but sources are saying that is a new 3 month process and it would be kicked back to all regulatory bodies as well since it would need to be a new deal drawn up. So far this is the info we have.

It could all change, who knows.
Click to expand...
MS/ABK could have avoided all of this if they had actually worked with the CMA when the CMA listed out the concerns

instead Microsoft just played the PR game and here we are
 
IntentionalPun said:
Yeah it was a pretty crazy over-reaction by everyone, assuming CMA was about to just cower and submit to MS and sign some deal in a few days because of the FTC hearing.

What's actually happening makes way more sense.

MS probably knew they were dead in the water without divestiture and this is their last ditch effort really. Will it be enough? I kinda doubt it still. CMA basically suggested they divest the entirety of Activision, or Blizzard WORLDWIDE... and it sounds like MS has some small "local" divestiture planned.

They must be really hoping the CMA feels pressured by the rest of the world failing to block.
Click to expand...
I still can't shake the feeling that a deal was already worked out. Trillion dollar entity, executives flying across the world to meet with politicians, trillion dollar entity.

Its that trillion dollar thing. It may not mean much for managing a studo, but it matters a ton when buying one.
 
XesqueVara said:
The FTC always had a limited budget tho, knowing that they should focus on cases that they have higher chances to win like Kroger/Albertsons and Illumina/Grail than MS/ABK and Meta/Within for example.
Click to expand...

In other words, discriminate against the smaller fish and embolden the mega corps by signaling that they are free to do as they please? While I agree it is a difficult balance, there is value in targeting large corporations beyond judicial victory, such as heightened consumer awareness, minimize appetite of future deals sought by other large companies, etc.).
 
Red5 said:
Sony can go for the Fifa license, EA doesn't hold it anymore and it's the world's most played video game and it's literally a console seller, balances it out with the potential of loosing COD. FIFA is looking for a new license holder last I read.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand that "the world's most played video game" doesn't come with the FIFA license.


By Q4 this year, the vast majority of FIFA players will be on EA's FC.
 
DeepEnigma said:
The CMA was not going to initiate while they have the CAT appeal process started, they stand by their block in their most recent update. MS/Activision were agreeing on a "small divesture" all reports are saying, and offered it to the CMA, which it was rejected. They have a right to, it has happed before after a Phase 2 between two companies.

CMA will listen to a new proposal based on structural remedies/divesture. That does not guarantee a yes or a no, but sources are saying that is a new 3 month process and it would be kicked back to all regulatory bodies as well since it would need to be a new deal drawn up. So far this is the info we have.

It could all change, who knows.
Click to expand...
That honestly sounds unlikely that Microsoft or Activision will go through this once again, if that's the case I think the deal is dead. I have a feeling though Microsoft are thinking outside the box on this, let's see what happens.
 
graywolf323 said:
MS/ABK could have avoided all of this if they had actually worked with the CMA when the CMA listed out the concerns

instead Microsoft just played the PR game and here we are
Click to expand...
It's all right here by the CMA themselves this morning:

"Whilst merging parties don't have the opportunity to put forward new remedies once a final report has been issued, they can choose to restructure a deal, which can lead to a new merger investigation," a spokesperson said.

"Microsoft and Activision have indicated that they are considering how the transaction might be modified, and the CMA is prepared to engage with them on this basis. These discussions remain at an early stage and the nature and timing of next steps will be determined in due course.

"While both parties have requested a pause in Microsoft's appeal to allow these discussions to take place, the CMA decision set out in its final report still stands."
Click to expand...
www.ign.com

CMA Warns Microsoft's Activision Blizzard Renegotiation Would Require Whole New Investigation - IGN

A new statement from the CMA warns Microsoft that a new proposal could result in the regulator launching "a new merger investigation".
www.ign.com www.ign.com

ChiefDada said:
In other words, discriminate against the smaller fish and embolden the mega corps by signaling that they are free to do as they please? While I agree it is a difficult balance, there is value in targeting large corporations beyond judicial victory, such as heightened consumer awareness, minimize appetite of future deals sought by other large companies, etc.).
Click to expand...
I mean, fines and some overbearing regulations are only designed to hurt the little guy (outside of M&A). Like small businesses and farmers for example.

The big guys always get around them or have the financial means to do so, and even lobby for such overreaching regulations to stifle competition from growing as they lobby against M&A ones.
 
Last edited:
The CMAs issue was with cloud, so I imagine any discussion with MS would be related to that. I believed they were berated by one of the CAT members for not at least seeking a remedy with MS for their objection, so although late, my guess is that is what's going on.

There is already an EU remedy, so I think that's the roadmap. It would be weird for MS to agree to pausing CAT for something that wouldn't be in their favor or at least fairly close to what they wanted. Delaying the closing of the deal only gives the FTC more time to come up with a stronger appeal even if they don't have a case. We should know soonish either way….probably by friday.
 
ChiefDada said:
In other words, discriminate against the smaller fish and embolden the mega corps by signaling that they are free to do as they please? While I agree it is a difficult balance, there is value in targeting large corporations beyond judicial victory, such as heightened consumer awareness, minimize appetite of future deals sought by other large companies, etc.).
Click to expand...
Smaller Fish? Bro thats now how it works every deal is a case, If you choose to fight a case without the ammo to back it you are just wasting time.
 
CMA (OFT) are bloody useless, they were supposed to be sorting out the cartel of supermarket fuel/petrol price fixing but still paying over the odds :messenger_pouting: Thank god switching over to an EV at the end of the month.
 
DeepEnigma said:
The CMA could also be licking their chops at the new information made public now, that was revealed and collated in this thread here:
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/ctrl-alt-deceive-all-the-dirt-info-lies-and-lols-we-found-during-ftc-vs-microsoft.1658430/
They know a restructure would kick it back to all regulatory bodies. This isn't a sign of weakness (that even myself thought at the newswire manipulation yesterday) than some think it is. This actually lines up with the CMAs date later this year.
Click to expand...
But why are they renegotiating?

If they were availed of new information during the FTC hearing, that would simply entrench their position. And they could sit tight, and wait for CAT.

A regulator does not reopen a case unless it has legitimate intentions of resolving that case and reaching an acceptable position. Otherwise it would simply be a pointless waste of already stretched resources.

And a UK specific restructure does not automatically open it for all other regulators. Whoever said that on Twitter is talking nonsense. It *could*, if the change had material impact on those jurisdictions. But, for example, Xcloud being removed in the UK doesn't need EU sign off. What's that got to do with Belgians and their waffles?
 
ChiefDada said:
I'm curious: why aren't you in favor of more resources to be allocated to the FTC for the purpose of boosting future trial preparedness and court performance? It's widely understood that federal regulators have a very difficult time competing with their counterparts in the private sector, with funding being the constant differentiator, regardless of which private industry they choose to focus their attention on. Or would you rather the FTC not attempt to execute their mandate at all?
Click to expand...
I think the best piece of advice would be to pick your battles and go after the ones that you can win.
 
Ogbert said:
But why are they renegotiating?

If they were availed of new information during the FTC hearing, that would simply entrench their position. And they could sit tight, and wait for CAT.

A regulator does not reopen a case unless it has legitimate intentions of resolving that case and reaching an acceptable position. Otherwise it would simply be a pointless waste of already stretched resources.

And a UK specific restructure does not automatically open it for all other regulators. Whoever said that on Twitter is talking nonsense. It *could*, if the change had material impact on those jurisdictions. But, for example, Xcloud being removed in the UK doesn't need EU sign off. What's that got to do with Belgians and their waffles?
Click to expand...
This was the CMA statement:

"Whilst merging parties don't have the opportunity to put forward new remedies once a final report has been issued, they can choose to restructure a deal, which can lead to a new merger investigation," a spokesperson said.

"Microsoft and Activision have indicated that they are considering how the transaction might be modified, and the CMA is prepared to engage with them on this basis. These discussions remain at an early stage and the nature and timing of next steps will be determined in due course.

"While both parties have requested a pause in Microsoft's appeal to allow these discussions to take place, the CMA decision set out in its final report still stands."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ogbert said:
But why are they renegotiating?
Click to expand...

The problem with this statement is that they're not renegotiating.

They've publicly reiterated that their decision still stands. Microsoft has submitted a new proposal and asked for the CAT appeal process to be paused. Fanboys have turned that Microsoft request into "The CMA has to renegotiate." Like they give a fuck about events beyond their own sovereign borders.
 
Last edited:
Ogbert said:
But why are they renegotiating?

If they were availed of new information during the FTC hearing, that would simply entrench their position. And they could sit tight, and wait for CAT.

A regulator does not reopen a case unless it has legitimate intentions of resolving that case and reaching an acceptable position. Otherwise it would simply be a pointless waste of already stretched resources.

And a UK specific restructure does not automatically open it for all other regulators. Whoever said that on Twitter is talking nonsense. It *could*, if the change had material impact on those jurisdictions. But, for example, Xcloud being removed in the UK doesn't need EU sign off. What's that got to do with Belgians and their waffles?
Click to expand...
Because when it finally goes to CAT, the CMA can claim that they were reasonable in giving MS another opportunity. Civil Service logic with an appeal, meet the appellant and go through the motions to show you tried. It becomes part of the report.
 
Ogbert said:
But why are they renegotiating?

If they were availed of new information during the FTC hearing, that would simply entrench their position. And they could sit tight, and wait for CAT.

A regulator does not reopen a case unless it has legitimate intentions of resolving that case and reaching an acceptable position. Otherwise it would simply be a pointless waste of already stretched resources.

And a UK specific restructure does not automatically open it for all other regulators. Whoever said that on Twitter is talking nonsense. It *could*, if the change had material impact on those jurisdictions. But, for example, Xcloud being removed in the UK doesn't need EU sign off. What's that got to do with Belgians and their waffles?
Click to expand...
Is the CMA actually negotiating, or are they just allowing MS to present a new deal for review before the 10 year ban kicks in?

Has the "case" actually been re-opened, or is case 1 being stayed while case 2 gets started?

My reading of today's news is that CMA is not really negotiating anything right now, and that they instead are getting the delay they wanted last week while MS submits a new deal. Admittedly, I am not sure I believe that because in the back of my mind I suspect MS already paved the landing strip behind the scenes. Can only speculate either way.

Regarding your last point - I agree that non-UK nations do not automatically have to review the original deal if MS cuts a deal directly with UK about post-merger operations. But if it is the actual MS and AB deal being modified, I would disagree with you. Might just be the modification that needs reviewing, but I just don't see how you can change the terms of something that was approved by a sovereign government without them reviewing the change as well.
 
Having a read over all of todays events.

Microsoft has basically inadvertently admitted they didn't stand a chance with the appeal.

Essentially handing some insane confidence boost to the CMA right now.

CMA basically can kill the deal right after the new probe, and MS probably won't have the appetite to fight this and certainly not abk.

If a new probe takes what 3-4 months, then add in another possibly lets say 2-3 months to get an appeal going, and if it gets sent back to the CMA add in another few months we are looking at all the way to 2024.

Basically microsoft are at the mercy of the CMA right now to get this done quick and in their favour.
 
Last edited:
Red5 said:
Sony can go for the Fifa license, EA doesn't hold it anymore and it's the world's most played video game and it's literally a console seller, balances it out with the potential of loosing COD. FIFA is looking for a new license holder last I read.
Click to expand...
One of the requirements from the FIFA itself in order to get the gaming rights is to release the game in every platform, full game exclusivity is not allowed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
‘Microsoft’ said they were streamlining 9000 people across XGS/ABK/ZM
Rumor 
19
461
Topher replied
Microsoft wins FTC appeal challenging $69 billion Activision Blizzard deal
News Business  2 3
125
3K
Unknown? replied
MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
3K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
8K
MDSLKTR replied
Battlefield 6 Beta |OT| Open Beta/Closed Weapons.
|OT|  60 61 62 63 64
3K
5K
Branded replied
Top Bottom