By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ryuu96 on 14 March 2023
Edit Thread
Machiavellian said:
Ryuu96 said:

I still think CMA will block the deal though, they aren't acting rational and it feels like they made their mind up on blocking the deal from the very start. But I'm 100% convinced that Microsoft will appeal to CAT now, although I'm trying to think on what grounds would CAT rule against CMA, I'm honestly not sure if CAT ever has and it usually requires CMA doing some procedure incorrectly or breaking some rules.

Like CAT said CMA fucked up by redacting key data in the Meta/Giphy acquisition but ultimately agreed with the block, Lol. It'll be interesting to see what angle Microsoft tries to argue because while we can disagree on their interpretation on the data, I wouldn't say that breaks any rules or procedure.

It really does not matter if the CMA block the deal.  MS would just create a subsidirary of Activision/Blizz to operate in UK.  Basically that corp will just operate just like ABK/Blizz does today.  An analysis talked about this whole thing so really the CMA pose absolutly no obsticle to the deal going through.  This whole drama is pretty much dead.  The EU was the biggest hurtle and from all reports, that is a done deal.  THe US FTC is a joke and has no teeth.  If everything continue to move as it does now, MS is pretty much done with this drama.

It absolutely does matter if CMA blocks the deal, Lol.

If they block the deal then it's either...

  • Appeal to CAT; Decision thrown back to CMA.
  • Abandon the merger.
  • Microsoft pulls out of UK and/or faces massive fines.

Microsoft can not create a subsidiary of Activision-Blizzard (a company they don't own) until the merger is complete and the merger can only be complete if the CMA approves the deal. Microsoft does not have any say of Activision-Blizzard's structure until the deal closes and CMA would have to approve a "subsidiary" option. Microsoft could invest in Activision-Blizzard as a minority shareholder after the deal is abandoned though.

That analysts was Patcher and he doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to the UK, Lol. Multiple actual antitrust lawyers have said that what he has proposed/said is complete nonsense. Almost every lawyer who has commented on the deal have said that CMA is absolutely the biggest obstacle from near the start.

Multiple lawyers have been very nonchalant on EC because most have expected EC to approve from day one, even the EC themselves heavily hinted at them approving the deal months ago. There are American analysts like Patcher (not antitrust lawyers) who really don't have a clue how the CMA operates and think they work like FTC/EC...They don't, Lol.

There's one huge difference between FTC/CMA right from the start and that is that the FTC does not approve deals, they simply choose whether or not they will take someone to court to block a deal, it is the courts who decide whether a deal is blocked or not. While in the UK, the CMA is the one who approves whether a deal can happen or not, the CMA have massively more powerful than the FTC does.

You can't take CMA to court (at least, there is zero precedence of it so far), there is no "Federal Court" equivalent to take the CMA to like the FTC. Although CAT is a judicial body but they simply throw the decision back to CMA to make again if they rule against them. In order for CAT to go against the CMA (which is an extremely high bar) they need to find usually that CMA have broken some laws or procedural rules.

Patcher does not know what he is talking about, don't listen to him. CMA is the final boss here and has way more power than FTC and even EC.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 14 March 2023