Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13

[Shortbread]

Also where is activisions appeal ? Do they not get to do it

Honestly, I thought they would have done a joint appeal statement on showing a more unified front on the matter.

Maybe, ABK requested an extension, or simply allowed Microsoft to handle the appeal in this matter.

Maybe, ABK requested an extension and is waiting to reply after the renegotiation process. Essentially, seeing if the terms are still suitable for its current business and shareholders on pursing the acquisition.

Maybe, ABK sees the writing on the wall, and simply wants the $3B acquisition payout for the failed acquisition.

I can guarantee you this, ABK lawyers are most definitely going to be looking out for their client's best interest, and more than likely wanting them to take the safest bet.

 

[BRiT]

Approved by FTC (Fair Trade Commission), the Korean Regulators.

Document Viewer

FTC clears Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard

The Fair Trade Commission (FTC) gave a green light on Microsoft's acquisition of Blizzard, the biggest deal of its kind in the gaming industry.

koreajoongangdaily.joins.com

 

[SmooTh]

SAMR's official Unconditional approval

 

[iroboto]

Approved by FTC (Fair Trade Commission), the Korean Regulators.

Document Viewer

FTC clears Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard

The Fair Trade Commission (FTC) gave a green light on Microsoft's acquisition of Blizzard, the biggest deal of its kind in the gaming industry.

koreajoongangdaily.joins.com

So if every single regulator passes this except CMA (and FTC, but we assume they win FTC in courts), I’d be curious to see what MS does then.

 

[Shortbread]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1663542893053894659

 

[iceberg187]

From what I've seen today, it appears that the CMA was taken to task a bit but Microsoft's counsel and the judge.

 

[Shortbread]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1663606423119441923

From my understanding, the main trial date falls 2 weeks after the renegotiation period, which means Microsoft's hopes of acquiring ABK hinges on ABK's willingness to forgo the $3B payout (i.e., the easy payout route), and other lucrative rumored bids. Also to consider, any new terms reached, still requires shareholders (re)approval on both sides.

 

[AlphaWolf]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1663606423119441923

From my understanding, the main trial date falls 2 weeks after the renegotiation period, which means Microsoft's hopes of acquiring ABK hinges on ABK's willingness to forgo the $3B payout, and other lucrative rumored bids. Also to consider, any new terms reached, still requires shareholders (re)approval on both sides.

Blackrock and Berkshire will approve it as will other major institutions which own 85% of ATVI. I think the largest private holder might be Kotick...

 

[Shortbread]

Blackrock and Berkshire will approve it as will other major institutions which own 85% of ATVI. I think the largest private holder might be Kotick...

More than likely you're right. However, the new terms (whatever they are) will have to be more attractive than the prior. Either, ABK walks away with a guaranteed $3B, or entertain a risky move that might ultimately fail. Whatever the case, ABK is in the better position on negotiating than previously.

 

[AlphaWolf]

More than likely you're right. However, the new terms (whatever they are) will have to be more attractive than the prior. Either, ABK walks away with a guaranteed $3B, or entertain a risky move that might ultimately fail. Whatever the case, ABK is in the better position on negotiating than prior.

$3b is less than the premium MS is offering. I bet the guys at Blackrock can add.

 

[Shortbread]

$3b is less than the premium MS is offering. I bet the guys at Blackrock can add.

Sure, but that premium doesn't mean anything if the acquisition isn't approved. As of now, it isn't.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Sure, but that premium doesn't mean anything if the acquisition isn't approved. As of now, it isn't.

Well there won't be a shareholder vote then... My point was shareholder approval is not in doubt because they make decisions based on money not if they can play COD on their PS.

 

[Shortbread]

Well there won't be a shareholder vote then... My point was shareholder approval is not in doubt because they make decisions based on money not if they can play COD on their PS.

Either way, ABK has the better bargaining/negotiating position, a luxury Microsoft doesn't have this time around. We shall see within the coming days or weeks if these negotiations lead to the continuation of the acquisition, or either party walking away.

 

[iceberg187]

CMA allegedly only spent 4 weeks out of its 32-week investigation on cloud

Activision legal counsel alleges that regulators at the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) had only spent 1/8th of its total investigation on cloud.

www.tweaktown.com

As I've long thought, they wanted to block this outright from the beginning and were just fishing for reasons.

 

[Shortbread]

CMA allegedly only spent 4 weeks out of its 32-week investigation on cloud

Activision legal counsel alleges that regulators at the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) had only spent 1/8th of its total investigation on cloud.

www.tweaktown.com

As I've long thought, they wanted to block this outright from the beginning and were just fishing for reasons.

Activision's legal counsel can allege whatever they want, it doesn't make it true. This is a typical attorney tactic on discrediting the process, and those individuals that are entrusted in carrying out the process as being incompetent, unfair and/or corrupt. These tactics don't often do go over well in appeals, especially without solid evidence of such claimed biases. And proving such biases is a VERY high-bar to clear (i.e., meaning hearsay, feelings, rumors, etc., aren't evidence). Honestly, this may hurt the acquisition appeal in the long-run (on how CAT shapes it final decision on the matter), and calling CMA authorities essentially lazy and incompetent is very stupid in my opinion, especially, when they have the final say-so when everything is said and done (regardless of CAT's decision and suggested guidelines).

It's good to have hope, but it's also good to be realistic.

 

[eastmen]

Activision's legal counsel can allege whatever they want, it doesn't make it true. This is a typical attorney tactic on discrediting the process, and those individuals that are entrusted in carrying out the process as being incompetent, unfair and/or corrupt. These tactics don't often do go over well in appeals, especially without solid evidence of such claimed biases. And proving such biases is a VERY high-bar to clear (i.e., meaning hearsay, feelings, rumors, etc., aren't evidence). Honestly, this may hurt the acquisition appeal in the long-run (on how CAT shapes it final decision on the matter), and calling CMA authorities essentially lazy and incompetent is very stupid in my opinion, especially, when they have the final say-so when everything is said and done (regardless of CAT's decision and suggested guidelines).

It's good to have hope, but it's also good to be realistic.

Not sure how the CAT and CMA work but if its a claim leveled at the CMA wouldn't documentation found during discovery prove or disprove the notion ?

Anyway another domino fell and there aren't many countries left to say no. What are we waiting on now the FTC/US and the appeal with the CAT/CMA ?

 

[Shortbread]

Not sure how the CAT and CMA work but if its a claim leveled at the CMA wouldn't documentation found during discovery prove or disprove the notion ?

Assuming arguendo, that CMA had an implicit bias from start, there must be some type of direct or corroborative evidence (i.e., recordings, emails, witnesses, etc.) produced by the plaintiffs (Microsoft) to even compel the court (CAT) to act on pursuing and compelling additional information/evidence from the defendants (CMA). And if CMA officials were idiotic enough to document said biases and other conspiratorial rumors, then the acquisition could potentially be taken out of CMA's hand, which in itself would be a lengthy governmental process. In short, Microsoft and Activision can ask for documentation related to the acquisition investigation and process, but blindly digging for emails and other communications outside of that, isn't going to happen without proper evidence of said communications.

Anyway another domino fell and there aren't many countries left to say no. What are we waiting on now the FTC/US and the appeal with the CAT/CMA ?

No matter how many others 'approve,' CMA's current decision prevents the acquisition. The FTC is somewhat spineless and toothless, so, if the CMA reverses it's decision, the FTC will pretend to put up a good fight, and then fold.

Edit: As an fyi, the current acquisition deadline is July 18th, so any renegotiations on continuing the acquisition is going to be tight as the main trial commences on the 24th.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

As I've long thought, they wanted to block this outright from the beginning and were just fishing for reasons.

I see this view posted over and over. What I have yet to see beyond political conspiracies (Ministers are not involved in CMA decisions), is nothing. It's the most base of positions, somebody said 'no' to Microsoft ergo they hate Microsoft and love Sony.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Not sure how the CAT and CMA work but if its a claim leveled at the CMA wouldn't documentation found during discovery prove or disprove the notion ?

The claim here is 4 weeks were spent considering Cloud. That could be true, and documented, and not really change anything. As Cloud is a smaller market presently, why wouldn't it take less time to consider fully? The assumption is that the intention was to block, weeks were spent trying to block it but failing, and then Cloud offered an 'excuse' in the last innings. As Shortbread says, unless that's documented - the intention to block and the investigation to find any excuse to block it - it's just speculation, and obviously the most biased of speculations given the source!

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Edit: As an fyi, the current acquisition deadline is July 18th, so any renegotiations on continuing the acquisition is going to be tight as the main trial commences on the 24th.

It's looking very unlikely that this will be concluded by the 24th July. If the CAT conclude the assessment, in whole or in part, was flawed and needs to be retaken then it isn't within the court's power to assign a deadline for that other than requesting it be done in haste.

CAT's role is verifying that the assessment considered all of the facts fairly and that the findings were rationale. If CAT conclude that this was not the case then, or some fundamentals were incorrect, then the evidence collection done during stages 1 or 2 of the assessment may need to be reconsidered which could necessitate the evidence providers in the industry spaces impacted to have the opportunity to resubmit further evidence.

The whole 24th July deadline attached to the $3bn penalty is a nonsense because it's only binding if Activision-Blizzard shareholders insist upon the penalty being imposed, which is in the event of an Injunction arising from antitrust laws. Nobody here is a lawyer, but whilst the outcome is still being considered under appeal, it could be difficult say that condition has been met because a final decision has yet to be made.