Reading all of this just makes me wonder how this deal is even getting this much scrutiny from regulators (granted just two of them as 40 other countries have approved the deal). FTC and CMA both have basically no case and are trying to block the deal on the most flimsy (can it even be called flimsy when the evidence is flat-out cherry-picked data to suit their argument? 
) of evidence. I don't see any way the FTC gets the injunction it's requesting, this looks like a slam dunk for MS (knock on wood some bizarre happenings where they rule in favor of the FTC)
On another note, MS is going to have to extend the deadline (renegotiate with ABK) as the CAT trial is set well after the deadline. So either MS closes over the CMA regardless of the CAT trial or they must 100% know that ABK is going to stay at the table and renegotiate the deal in order to give CAT the time it needs to have its trial. The latter option seems kind of risky imo, assuming the FTC loses its injunction request..... nothing is there to really stop MS from just closing over the UK regulator and keeping the deal as is. Compared to renegotiating with ABK (in order to allow the CAT to have its trial), who will 100% demand more money. Plus there's no guarantee that CAT will go out of its way to allow the deal to go ahead instead of doing what it always does in just sending the case back to the CMA (which even if CAT blocks the CMA from using certain arguments, who's to say they don't block on some equally dumb reasoning or revive the console harm reasoning (delaying the acquisition even further).
Beating the FTC and then just closing over the UK seems like the more viable choice from my perspective and one with fewer variables.
