Ryuu96 said:
Does that mean Activision-Blizzard shareholders? So basically Bobby would remain as CEO? Interesting but what would that mean for the contracts that Microsoft has negotiated with Nvidia and Nintendo? Will they now be void? Well...That does sound like a viable option but depending on the answer to my above questions, there could be a few negatives to it still. I'd also wonder if that would even be acceptable for the CMA if they're set on structural remedies. Wouldn't Microsoft still have some sort of notable influence over Activision even if they "operate independently" |
No this mean MS make the purchase then spin-off making MS Shareholder also the shareholder of the new Entity and not the prior ABK shareholder as this could not be done prior to the transaction completion as it would completely change what the deals is about.
In regards to all 10 years deal MS should be able to force the new entity to uphold those as the entity is created and "sold" by MS so it may include whatever clause it want in the procedure including upholding all 10 years deal. it could also add day one GamePass as mandatory but the CMA would likely again take issue with this. (ex: My father recently sold the family business to my older brother at an advantageous price but added clause that if he were to sell it he must try to sell to family member first for something like 70% the market value and that this clause remain for the next 40 years).
Wouldn't Microsoft still have some sort of notable influence over Activision even if they "operate independently
Yes as stated prior the CMA may think this avenue would only create a very strong 2nd party to MS and so be insufficient but the thing is the new entity would be publicly traded so the issue should resolve itself before long.