One possibility for the mooted meeting is that MS will simply say ‘we’re going to close over the top of you - what will you do about it?’.
Because they might want to gauge the reaction. The CMA might give a light penalty as a face saving move and then MS move on. But you need government on board for that - hence Hunt - to ensure it doesn’t become some huge regulatory fight that obviously MS wants to avoid.
End of the day as many keep saying I don’t think you can easily shoot the CMA off their ladder nor do I think they climb down it without some sort of an extra face saving bridge.
I suspect, if MS want to be blunt they could simply say ’ do you want us to offer a different concession or do you want to be seen to give us a fine and we all move on’.
Whether that works or not I don’t know - but why not?
As of now I do believe it does, but I think if the interim order was quashed and ABK moved it wouldn’t. The Giphy thing is somewhat different I think since it was basically only the CMA that investigated the merger. I think if the merger was subject to more jurisdictions with real presence it might have been different.
I agree that I think all the political pressure will be placed on CAT, behind the scenes, to throw it out and make CMA reconsider, whilst there will also be political pressure on CMA to change it’s mind once handed back to them.
That way, the UK gets to say that it’s structures still worked in the end, whilst achieving the desired result. If they squeeze one more concession out of MS along the way, another win.
Ultimately this deal is going through, now. Either with ABK being part of the UK or not.
I’m of the opinion Microsoft wants the deal closed before the end of June. I think they don’t want to take any chances. I don’t know how long they can waive the deadline. I think this gets settled this month.
I don’t see the CAT being politically pressurised - again this isn’t the USA.
Our judiciary retain independence. There is a clear separation between the law and policy and although this government love to violate that I can’t see them doing it here.
The easiest pressure can be applied to the CMA - after all the government can choose to sack them all - so there is a definite lever there.
The problem is whether a) government is that bothered about this - they have bigger issues - and an election they will struggle to win coming up next year probably (and this is NOT a vote winner) and b) even if government applied pressure the CMA could stand their ground and say ‘we’re an independent regulator and we have made a decision’ its then unlikely the government will force the issue because they have little to gain and even if they did - the time taken to work through that process and construct a new CMA and revisit the decision is too long for MS.
Microsoft has until July 3rd to inform of close and force the FTC to either get a PI or not if they want to close the deal by July 18th. The FTC has 14 days were they can stall closing without a PI when closing ia otherwise imminent.
Fines over acquiring a company that doesnt even operate in the UK and then merging in every territory that approved the deal except the UK? Seems like a far overreach. i would say no fines at all and the UK government would not allow them to play world police. If both MS and ABK operated in the UK then ok there woukd be some fines. But ABK leaving the UK jurisdiction seems like a different scenario altogether.
Realistically, if this is remanded to the CMA, the CMA wont have any wiggle room to do anything. The judge stated about 50 times that he wants a clear decision with certainty from all of this, not more uncertainties. The CAT if they remand will not leave the CMA any room to do anything to stall or make some decision. They will essential be a stamp.
but Meta does and the CMA looked into it after it had closed. Giphy I believe had some kind of global presence that allowed UK regulators to look into it. It also didn’t help that in the US they were trying to block it. I would imagine the EU would have blocked it as well.
I dont think anyone here has any idea on the jurisdiction question. The Meta/Giphy case was based on speculating that Giphy will do business in the UK. That is part of their outlook.
If Activision set it up so they couldnt and required a 3rd party that may change how jurisdiction is interpreted.
Im not qualified to make an assertion to the validity of such statement, Im just pointing out that nuances can and do exist between the Meta/Giphy case and this one.