They are hiding something and not explaining what's really gone on behind closed doors. This judge is having none of it.
Not entirely.
That's the reason the judge emphasized "you stand by your original decision"
How can the CMA stand by their original decision so fervently but also outside things have changed enough for them to come back to the table and negotiate (namely FTC appeal rejection immediately causing CMA to negotiate and the Sony contract from yesterday). How does that make this a new deal?
See, the CMA wants to frame this as a new deal so they don't a take loss but ALSO want to stand by their original decision. So they want the judge to hold this, keep their place in line, but also recognize this is a new transaction but also keeps the same queue for the old transaction being restructured. Legally, this makes no sense and the judge knows this. Basically CMA is trying to save face by calling this restructured and a new RMS while also not starting over from zero and basically just picking up where they left off. Also, if the CMA and MS don't have a concrete agreement, we risk just coming back to the court later (even if the odds are 0.01%, that is still a possibility) and thus how can they be asking to "pause" the CTA while also saving face by saying its a new RMS but also keeps all the original investigations and processes in place to save time later. It makes no sense.
How can they do that legally and not be considered to be wasting the court's time?
.
