HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Nope waiting in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Nope waiting in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
People are waiting for the other news when it comes to the FTC's appeal.
And we're right back to the last few pages lol.And they think that's coming tonight?
I dunno if it would fit, but I love Giancarlo Esposito's actingKumail Nanjiani as me or Kal Penn.
I dont know any other popular brown actors.
The FTC had asked for the court to decide on the pause as soon as possible, noting that an existing temporary restraining order on the deal was meant to end just before midnight on Friday.
"We're disappointed that the FTC is continuing to pursue what has become a demonstrably weak case, and we will oppose further efforts to delay the ability to move forward," Microsoft President Brad Smith said earlier in an emailed statement.
In its motion for the pause to Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, the FTC argued her denial of a preliminary injunction to halt the deal "raises serious, substantial issues for the Court of Appeals to resolve."
"The FTC asks this Court to enjoin the merger at issue pending resolution of the FTC’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The motion is denied," the judge said in the order late on Thursday.
The FTC had said it was seeking a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the deal until an internal FTC judge could assess it. But Corley applied the standard needed to permanently stop the deal instead, which the agency argued was inappropriate.
It is rare for a merger fight to go to an appeals court. That said, the FTC appealed a ruling more than 10 years ago when it lost its fight against Whole Foods' purchase of Wild Oats. The agency settled with the companies before the appeals court made a decision.
Reporting by Diane Bartz and David Shepardson; additional reporting by Kanishka Singh; Editing by Tim Ahmann, Josie Kao and Jamie Freed
What would the functional difference be?Full bloomberg article without the paywall
Thanks. Seems like though anything MS changes will have to go back through the CMA process, maybe a lot faster but I don't see it happening before Monday. Maybe the plan is just to try to get the CMA to agree to something so the FTC has no fall back "block" to show the 9th.Full bloomberg article without the paywall
Tom says otherwise.Thanks. Seems like though anything MS changes will have to go back through the CMA process, maybe a lot faster but I don't see it happening before Monday. Maybe the plan is just to try to get the CMA to agree to something so the FTC has no fall back "block" to show the 9th.
Dude you can’t fault us for seeing earlier articles and wondering if you just found the final chapter. Well, I guess you can if you want.Reuters article was once again updated minutes ago. I just hope that's not too old for you omniscient legal eagles.
I bolded the names of the reporters so you can tell them they're late with news you already know.
US asks appeals court to pause Microsoft deal after lower court refuses
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Thursday asked an appeals court to temporarily stop Microsoft from closing its $69 billion purchase of "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard , just hours after a federal judge rejected a similar request.www.reuters.com
Dude you can’t fault us for seeing earlier articles and wondering if you just found the final chapter. Well, I guess you can if you want.
Sorry if this was already posted
I don't know this person but I laughed at this
Tom says otherwise.
Well maybe Tom knows if the CMA can just undo their previous ruling like that, the article said they would need the deal resubmitted.Tom says otherwise.
Who knows at this point what CMA wants to do. Tommarow or Monday we will know where the deal stands.Well maybe Tom knows if the CMA can just undo their previous ruling like that, the article said they would need the deal resubmitted.
I think they can come to an agreement; I'm just wondering about the timeline. Can they move the process before Monday so MS could close and not be in violation.Who knows at this point what CMA wants to do. Tommarow or Monday we will know where the deal stands.
Hottest of takes.AS I SAID, divesting COD was never an option
yes they can. but Monday seems to be the day.Can the Deal be Closed on Saturday if they want?
Microsoft Corp. and Activision Blizzard Inc. are considering giving up some control of their cloud-gaming business in the UK as a way to appease regulators so they can complete their $69 billion merger by the July 18 deadline, according to people familiar with the matter.
That could involve selling off the cloud-based market rights for games in the UK to a telecommunications, gaming or internet-based computing company, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential planning. A private equity company might also be interested, said one person.
If your problem with other people is that they are rich and spend their money how they see fit, I have bad news for you there. They aren't going to stop being rich or spending their money how they see fit because you disapprove.This is beyond your favorite company, this is worldwide gaming issues.
Its mainly due to people having disposable income, which they spend it like its 1$. Companies are abusing that.
I witnessed this from mobile gaming and now console/pc gamers are experiencing this hell.
Just wait until $100 becomes your normal spending.
I don't know this person but I laughed at this
If the order expires, they can close anytime until and unless a new order enters without being in violation. No clear court order = no clear court order was violated.I think they can come to an agreement; I'm just wondering about the timeline. Can they move the process before Monday so MS could close and not be in violation.
you said? you haven't been here for a month according to your profile.AS I SAID, divesting COD was never an option
i think they let them close in the meantime BUT they will have to divest if they find errors. Thats my guess. That should be reasonable for both parties.I would be shocked if the CMA evaluated/approved a new deal before the 18th. That seems ridiculously optimistic. But I've been shocked multiple times in this case. So I'm going to assume for a moment that it won't be approved by the 18th.
Either way - if the CMA does not approve, I don't see ANY reason why Activision WOULD grant Microsoft the ability to close without the CMA. Activision has ALL the leverage in this scenario, and it can ONLY advantage them to renegotiate or drop the deal entirely.
- Microsoft closes without CMA approval, but this explicitly requires approval from Activision who has granted them to proceed. CMA issues some minor fines, and the only way this blows up in Microsoft's face is if the CMA ultimately rejects their divestiture proposal and MS is now forced to sell ATVI at potentially a big loss. This means that Activision truly is still "in the deal" as much as possible and considers getting the deal done as swiftly as possible the best course of action for them.
- Microsoft cannot close the deal in time for the 18th because Activision does not approve without CMA approval per the original contract.
- Possibility A: Activision decides to not proceed and collects $3B. Signals that the environment has turned around enough for the deal to not be satisfactory to shareholders. Also means that their cheerleading by Lulu and crew was all marketing to ensure they can collect the $3B fee (remember, they are legally obligated to pursue it at all costs up until the deadline).
- Possibility B: Activision renegotiates for an extension. Higher share price to buy them more time to get the CMA issue settled.
Are there any flaws in this reasoning? So basically, Microsoft MUST come to some sort of agreement with the CMA before the 18th to get this truly closed per the original terms of their contract with Activision.
Violation with the UK, under the current CMA decision they would be in violation if they closed even if there is no block in the US. From what I understand anyway.If the order expires, they can close anytime until and unless a new order enters without being in violation. No clear court order = no clear court order was violated.
For the wording in the Article looks like it´s the rights of All cloud based games in the UK.I think xbox is giving up more than ABK cloud.
i said it earlier today. But still lolyou said? you haven't been here for a month according to your profile.
I mean I agree with the statement but lol
I dont know how up to date or outdated it was, but I saw a Bloomberg article recently that said CMA was good with MS making cloud gaming licenses to hardware makers free. I dont know if this is true or the extent of the offer.i think they let them close in the meantime BUT they will have to divest if they find errors. Thats my guess. That should be reasonable for both parties.
i think they let them close in the meantime BUT they will have to divest if they find errors. Thats my guess. That should be reasonable for both parties.
My guess is that ONLY MS can refuse closing due to CMA if MS waives it. Could be wrong cause guessing. But they are US based. Why would Activision care if worse case scenario in UK is fines? MS would pay them not Activision.I would be shocked if the CMA evaluated/approved a new deal before the 18th. That seems ridiculously optimistic. But I've been shocked multiple times in this case. So I'm going to assume for a moment that it won't be approved by the 18th.
Either way - if the CMA does not approve, I don't see ANY reason why Activision WOULD grant Microsoft the ability to close without the CMA. Activision has ALL the leverage in this scenario, and it can ONLY advantage them to renegotiate or drop the deal entirely.
- Microsoft closes without CMA approval, but this explicitly requires approval from Activision who has granted them to proceed. CMA issues some minor fines, and the only way this blows up in Microsoft's face is if the CMA ultimately rejects their divestiture proposal and MS is now forced to sell ATVI at potentially a big loss. This means that Activision truly is still "in the deal" as much as possible and considers getting the deal done as swiftly as possible the best course of action for them.
- Microsoft cannot close the deal in time for the 18th because Activision does not approve without CMA approval per the original contract.
- Possibility A: Activision decides to not proceed and collects $3B. Signals that the environment has turned around enough for the deal to not be satisfactory to shareholders. Also means that their cheerleading by Lulu and crew was all marketing to ensure they can collect the $3B fee (remember, they are legally obligated to pursue it at all costs up until the deadline).
- Possibility B: Activision renegotiates for an extension. Higher share price to buy them more time to get the CMA issue settled.
Are there any flaws in this reasoning? So basically, Microsoft MUST come to some sort of agreement with the CMA before the 18th to get this truly closed per the original terms of their contract with Activision.
My guess is that ONLY MS can waive any right to refuse closing due to CMA. Could be wrong cause guessing. But they are US based. Why would Activision care if worse case scenario in UK is fines? MS would pay them not Activision.
Everyone said it from day 1. Well everyone but those trying to push that it was only about King at one time.you said? you haven't been here for a month according to your profile.
I mean I agree with the statement but lol
I reworded what I was saying. But you understood so I can respond.The original contract signed with activision stipulates it must be aproved by the largest global regulators, of which the CMA is one of them. I don't know why this would somehow be under Microsoft's control. If they close without approval of the CMA, they are violating the terms of the contract with Activision
If a person spends 100k on mtx, then it affects everyone's experience.If your problem with other people is that they are rich and spend their money how they see fit, I have bad news for you there. They aren't going to stop being rich or spending their money how they see fit because you disapprove.
Mobile gaming is where all the innovation is these days. Console gaming is an endless parade of sequels, remakes, remasters, and knockoffs. But free of the shackles of existing console platforms and publishers, many small companies have sprung up in the mobile space making new types of games which genuinely offer new things instead of retreading the same old things forever.
I reworded what I was saying. But you understood so I can respond.
I am just guessing 100%. It just feels like something intended for MS benefit. Activision is being completely purchased I think. If all existing shares go to MS, why would Activision care. Whereas violating court order would be possibly punishable by jail for people acting.
Just a feeling.
Their not closing without the CMA approval. Their is plenty of evidence to support that.The original contract signed with activision stipulates it must be aproved by the largest global regulators, of which the CMA is one of them. I don't know why this would somehow be under Microsoft's control. If they close without approval of the CMA, they are violating the terms of the contract with Activision
I don't know this person but I laughed at this
Never trust a regulator no matter what, even if they say they wont change their decision.I would be shocked if the CMA evaluated/approved a new deal before the 18th. That seems ridiculously optimistic. But I've been shocked multiple times in this case. So I'm going to assume for a moment that it won't be approved by the 18th.
Either way - if the CMA does not approve, I don't see ANY reason why Activision WOULD grant Microsoft the ability to close without the CMA. Activision has ALL the leverage in this scenario, and it can ONLY advantage them to renegotiate or drop the deal entirely.
- Microsoft closes without CMA approval, but this explicitly requires approval from Activision who has granted them to proceed. CMA issues some minor fines, and the only way this blows up in Microsoft's face is if the CMA ultimately rejects their divestiture proposal and MS is now forced to sell ATVI at potentially a big loss. This means that Activision truly is still "in the deal" as much as possible and considers getting the deal done as swiftly as possible the best course of action for them.
- Microsoft cannot close the deal in time for the 18th because Activision does not approve without CMA approval per the original contract.
- Possibility A: Activision decides to not proceed and collects $3B. Signals that the environment has turned around enough for the deal to not be satisfactory to shareholders. Also means that their cheerleading by Lulu and crew was all marketing to ensure they can collect the $3B fee (remember, they are legally obligated to pursue it at all costs up until the deadline).
- Possibility B: Activision renegotiates for an extension. Higher share price to buy them more time to get the CMA issue settled.
Are there any flaws in this reasoning? So basically, Microsoft MUST come to some sort of agreement with the CMA before the 18th to get this truly closed per the original terms of their contract with Activision.
I don't know this person but I laughed at this
Somone here was saying that the deal says "waiver" not "waive", meaning it's about getting a waiver from the regulator not MS or ABK waiving the requirement. Not sure if that is true but maybe that is the plan for tomorrow, getting a waiver from the CMA.I don't see how it's intended for MS' benefit. Otherwise, they could stipulate the sale requires NO regulatory approval and hold all the cards. Seems like it's more for Activision as a way to collect their termination fee.
MS would be the party stuck with new asset they must sell, essentially at compelled auction. Activision shareholders already would have their bags.I don't see how it's intended for MS' benefit. Otherwise, they could stipulate the sale requires NO regulatory approval and hold all the cards. Seems like it's more for Activision as a way to collect their termination fee.
Somone here was saying that the deal says "waiver" not "waive", meaning it's about getting a waiver from the regulator not MS or ABK waiving the requirement. Not sure if that is true but maybe that is the plan for tomorrow, getting a waiver from the CMA.
I have no clue, I am trying to figure out the timeframe for all this also. Tom Warren is saying it's all done pending the 9th circuit though.So the CMA is supposed to let Microsoft close on a preliminary basis, but they could later reject the deal if they find it unsatisfactory once they have time to review? That seems like a strange thing to do. What's in it for the CMA? They love MS or something?
CMA is getting what they wanted. Cloud divesment, while MS gets the deal.So the CMA is supposed to let Microsoft close on a preliminary basis, but they could later reject the deal if they find it unsatisfactory once they have time to review? That seems like a strange thing to do. What's in it for the CMA? They love MS or something?
Comity and the "public interest."So the CMA is supposed to let Microsoft close on a preliminary basis, but they could later reject the deal if they find it unsatisfactory once they have time to review? That seems like a strange thing to do. What's in it for the CMA? They love MS or something?