They’ve taken this route because its quicker and also has a far higher chance of success - like infinitely higher.
Their own lawyer explained its quicker in court on Monday!
1 Like
Every day now when it doesn’t close you’ll see social media and other forums ‘must be dead’
1 Like
I think MS will have learned an amazing amount from this acquisition. Not just the gaming side either, the whole company. Every email, phone call with another company, public statement, interview etc matters. You need to get advice beforehand about current regulatory trends and from even before you acquire you need to be very clear and very careful about what you are aiming for and act that way.
I’d also imagine that they may consider throwing the odd bone to competitors isn’t a bad thing and may help paint a better picture of the company in some court 10 years in the future. Who knows what side of the case you are on at that point. Also lessons learned from Sony, don’t lie. They blatantly lied and looked like idiots and I really think we haven’t heard the end of it.
7 Likes
FTC and DOJ lay out rules for merger review to reflect digital economy (cnbc.com)
Mergers should not significantly increase concentration in highly concentrated markets.
Mergers should not eliminate substantial competition between firms.
Mergers should not increase the risk of coordination.
Mergers should not eliminate a potential entrant in a concentrated market.
Mergers should not substantially lessen competition by creating a firm that controls products or services that its rivals may use to compete.
Vertical mergers should not create market structures that foreclose competition.
Mergers should not entrench or extend a dominant position.
Mergers should not further a trend toward concentration.
When a merger is part of a series of multiple acquisitions, the agencies may examine the whole series.
When a merger involves a multi-sided platform, the agencies examine competition between platforms, on a platform, or to displace a platform.
When a merger involves competing buyers, the agencies examine whether it may substantially lessen competition for workers or other sellers.
When an acquisition involves partial ownership or minority interests, the agencies examine its impact on competition.
Mergers should not otherwise substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.
6 Likes
What about? Anything new happen?
Merger agreement officially extended after doomers swore Bobby and ABK would take the $3B and walk and blow their $70B payday
4 Likes
It’s pretty much set to close, but first do things legally aka make everyone happy. It will be fine though. That said the doom poster need something.
1 Like
None of this matters, they’re both powerless to stop mergers without going to federal court
4 Likes
Why though, why would he all of a sudden do this after 18 months, and so close to closure? Who even thinks of such things?
Hopefully these are applied to market leaders as well as companies in last place.
4 Likes
Because its copium from people who are anti deal like Colin Moriarty
They hoped regulators would stop the deal, when they failed they switched to ABK walking
This deal has caused severe trauma to a certain fanbase
9 Likes
Think of it as taking two roads to reach the same destination. One road is shorter and has less bandits, but does have an annoying toll that you fundamentally disagree with and find ridiculous. The other road is longer, doesn’t have the toll, but does have more bandits and also taking it might anger the local lord who might decide to not trade as freely with you in the future.
Not sure why I used a medieval analogy, but I think it works. 
5 Likes
Anyone dismissing those guideline changes is being shortsighted. We are about 15 months from an election cycle where congress can flip back to full democratic control (which I am fine with). A sympathetic congress can easily make new laws and codify this perspective.
Is that guaranteed? No. But dismissing it out of hand isn’t wise.
You should prepare yourself for a climate where things are going to get more contentious, not less.
4 Likes
Most companies can be discouraged by default of a fight being intiated. This will unfortunately impact things, but companies can fight through it. I doubt many companies can actually fight through it.
1 Like
Many democrsts themselves are pro corporate, pro business. You would need a congress where not only do democrats have a majority in both chambers but that the democrats in power are far left like Bernie and Elizabeth Warren. You already have people like Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema who may as well be republicans and many others who are moderate and not extreme left wingers that would tank anti big business bills
To point out how pro business democrats are, the current house democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries is pro corporate
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi is extremely pro corporate and has been one of the biggest proponents of supposed insider trading
Lets also not forget that the SCOTUS all unilaterally voted against the FTC in the Axon case, including all 3 of the democratic appointed justices
7 Likes
It’s completely irrational. I’ve been trying to get my head around them even suggesting a thing. It makes no sense in any language, on any planet in any solar system. Just bizarre thinking…
5 Likes
So, in the future when Xbox tries to buy another publisher how does the current stance of MS benefit them? CMA can just go ahead and block the deal and say we are not accepting behavioral remedies only structural, MS working with regulators helped with the EU not the UK because the law gives the CMA way too much power. I feel MS accepting this divestiture is because they want to close the deal quickly. If the Uk cloud market would be projected to be as big as the US for example, I find it hard to believe that MS would be willing to give away the business so easily.
1 Like
2 Likes