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

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I assume they still plan to close with urgency this just gives them more breathing room? Do you think we can still see a late July early aug closing ?

All depends on the CMA really. They say they expect they can complete this prior to August, but has anything gone according to plan in this thing?
 
All depends on the CMA really. They say they expect they can complete this prior to August, but has anything gone according to plan in this thing?
When does the FTC have a chance to come back into this? I know they wanted it done with the cma before they could creep back in
 
When does the FTC

Animated GIF


lol....seriously, I don't know.
 
Wanna see how anybody is defending these bozos now
The defense is primarily from the camp in question that loves to war themselves. That was always the major red flag in all of this. If they even felt a sniff of bias in the other direction, they would not defend and rake them over the coals, the defense force comes from the one time subtle but now not so subtle confirmation bias they constantly receive.

When I see the biggest brand warriors online and on here defending DF tooth and nail and calling them "unbiased," you know damned well you're over the target.
 
Last edited:
Yeah CMA never would believe MS had any leverage, but just tucked tail between legs and reversed their block though. Weird. Those zany regulators. You never know what they'll do next.
MS is the one who apparently caved and came up with some sort of divestment that fits the CMA's ruling.

People just keep ignoring that part to make it seem like this was some conspiracy.
 
Sure. But that's a trick you typically can only play once. Never underestimate a team that has been embarrassed. They now know how a repeat will play out and also have the administrative court to rehearse any round 2 in Federal court.
It also gives Lina a chance to renew her bar membership LOL.
 
Last edited:
The Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice said Wednesday that their new focus when evaluating mergers will include the impact a deal will have on competition for workers along with how a series of acquisitions, rather than one-offs, could result in harmful effects on the market.

The new guidelines, currently in draft form, encapsulate the agencies' push to keep pace with the digital age and a changing market. The proposed rules apply to both vertical and horizontal mergers. Almost two years ago, the FTC voted to withdraw the previous version of the vertical merger guidelines released in 2020, citing flaws.

In the new guidelines, they outlined 13 points they will use to evaluate whether a merger should be blocked:

1. Mergers should not significantly increase concentration in highly concentrated markets.
2. Mergers should not eliminate substantial competition between firms.
3. Mergers should not increase the risk of coordination.
4. Mergers should not eliminate a potential entrant in a concentrated market.
5. Mergers should not substantially lessen competition by creating a firm that controls products or services that its rivals may use to compete.
6. Vertical mergers should not create market structures that foreclose competition.
7. Mergers should not entrench or extend a dominant position.
8. Mergers should not further a trend toward concentration.
9. When a merger is part of a series of multiple acquisitions, the agencies may examine the whole series.
10. When a merger involves a multi-sided platform, the agencies examine competition between platforms, on a platform, or to displace a platform.
11. When a merger involves competing buyers, the agencies examine whether it may substantially lessen competition for workers or other sellers.
12. When an acquisition involves partial ownership or minority interests, the agencies examine its impact on competition.
13. Mergers should not otherwise substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.

 
Last edited:
Wanna see how anybody is defending these bozos now
I dont know. There's still value there for me. But its not a great look when added to some of Linneman's takes. More and more of late I'm just wondering if I've been incredibly naïve to a lot of the industry media shenanigans....
 
That's the whole issue.

FTC presented a weak case. The PI was a long shot

They got overconfident and here we are

Best move would have been to do nothing
The PI was to prevent the deal from closing. So doing nothing would've been a close for MS/ABK.

The PI, while a long shot, but at least gave them a chance. I've always thought the FTC was going to have a weak case anyway. I didn't expect them to be that incompetent though.
 
MS is the one who apparently caved and came up with some sort of divestment that fits the CMA's ruling.

People just keep ignoring that part to make it seem like this was some conspiracy.
They're going to get something, but the way they're going about it makes it clear something else happened. CMA didn't need to say anything about suspending the CAT appeal. They could have just waited for MS to submit a new deal and start over. Here, they are rushing it through in 5 weeks. There is more going on than what your explanation covers.
 
Yeah CMA never would believe MS had any leverage, but just tucked tail between legs and reversed their block though. Weird. Those zany regulators. You never know what they'll do next.
Except the legislation in the UK doesn't allow them to do that, hence why the CAT judge has become far more active in the outline of the substance of the report and is literally begging a 3rd party to challenge the backdoor deal to help him clean the slate and wash away that look of corruption/collusion that the CMA have given to the recent weeks of the process.

God knows why Sony have embarrassingly noped out of challenging the backdoor deal so far.
 
He just wants it to be over with.

Trying to get extra money would have only prolonged things.

I don't know if they would have been able to find another buyer that was willing to pay this much either. Any potential ones like Tencent or Saudi would undergo the same, maybe even more, scrutiny than MS did.
 
I don't know if they would have been able to find another buyer that was willing to pay this much either. Any potential ones like Tencent or Saudi would undergo the same, maybe even more, scrutiny than MS did.

I'd be interested in hearing why you think the bold would be the same consindering the fact that the PIF is nothing more than an investment fund.
 
Tom Warren as a special guest, are they kidding?
Ok, I was always waving off the whole "DF is biased"-thing but this is a little too much. The dude was spreading some of the most ridiculous FUD about PS5 before the consoles launched.
As were they. No hardware RT, 9.2, TF count mental gymnastics, etc., etc..
 
I'd be interested in hearing why you think the bold would be the same consindering the fact that the PIF is nothing more than an investment fund.

I don't have enough knowledge on it to comment, but does being an investment fund exclude or lessen the regulatory burden ?
 
Last edited:
Again, what I'm referring to has nothing to do with the outcome of the PI.

Things would be no different now if they were still waiting on the PI ruling. A deal extension would have been necessary and they would have been able to get one due to things very much still being in a state of flux.

The US judge bent over backwards for them and made a rushed decsion/report when she didn't need to, the UK CAT judge refused to fall into the same pitfall. The end.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom