maabus1999

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,238
US anti-trust laws really only protect the consumer; there is very little to protect the workers outside of them shutting down a company completely after purchasing which may cause red flags to pop up (mainly due to reduced consumer choice).

Also, as I've tried to mention a few times in other locations, layoffs will most likely happen if an acquisition goes through AND if it fails, especially if they are large entities already. The overall number and job type may change between the two scenarios, but blaming all job losses on an acquisition like this is somewhat short sighted (not saying it is a good thing, but just reality).
 
Oct 25, 2017
30,366
Tampa
US anti-trust laws really only protect the consumer; there is very little to protect the workers outside of them shutting down a company completely after purchasing which may cause red flags to pop up (mainly due to reduced consumer choice).

Also, as I've tried to mention a few times in other locations, layoffs will most likely happen if an acquisition goes through AND if it fails, especially if they are large entities already. The overall number and job type may change between the two scenarios, but blaming all job losses on an acquisition like this is somewhat short sighted (not saying it is a good thing, but just reality).

As has been pointed out elsewhere, job losses are occurring all throughout the industry right now, buyouts or no buyouts.
 

Kamisori

Member
Oct 26, 2017
158
France
As has been pointed out elsewhere, job losses are occurring all throughout the industry right now, buyouts or no buyouts.
The issue is not the layoff itself, but how/why it happened. Microsoft promised to the FTC that ABK would be independent from the Microsoft structure and that no layoff will happen BECAUSE of the merger.

And the memo from Spencer explicitly say that the layoff is due because of the redundancy of jobs between Microsoft and ABK (and the issue is also that Microsoft who announced the layoff instead of ABK themselves). So Microsoft broke their word (and allow the FTC to take a shot).
 

Kamisori

Member
Oct 26, 2017
158
France
Yes that was part of the reasoning I mentioned as well but in the context of the FTC charge it's just a comment being ungrounded from reality, as we just saw from iRobot.
It's more that Microsoft handled the situation poorly. They should have let ABK announce the layoff in their structures and Microsoft announce their own round of layoff in their structures only, in that way it wouldn't have opened an opportunity for the FTC. Their mistake.
 

maabus1999

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,238
It's more that Microsoft handled the situation poorly. They should have let ABK announce the layoff in their structures and Microsoft announce their own round of layoff in their structures only, in that way it wouldn't have opened an opportunity for the FTC. Their mistake.
Layoffs during a merger are extremely rare before a close for a lot of reasons.
 

Kamisori

Member
Oct 26, 2017
158
France
Layoffs during a merger are extremely rare before a close for a lot of reasons.
No i'm saying the layoff can happen after the merger, the current issue for the FTC is how it has been done (Microsoft announcing layoff at ABK instead of ABK themselves) and the reasons given (for a part because of the redundancy of jobs because of the merger, according to Spencer himself).
 

DopeyFish

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,845
No i'm saying the layoff can happen after the merger, the current issue for the FTC is how it has been done (Microsoft announcing layoff at ABK instead of ABK themselves) and the reasons given (for a part because of the redundancy of jobs because of the merger, according to Spencer himself).

unfortunately for the FTC, they dropped all employment concerns prior to bringing the case to trial

they are doing such a moronic attempt at trying to tie the layoffs into changing the structure which I hope the court just slaps them around for even trying to attempt
 

Kamisori

Member
Oct 26, 2017
158
France
unfortunately for the FTC, they dropped all employment concerns prior to bringing the case to trial
Employment wasn't their concern, their concern was that ABK to remain autonomous under Microsoft. The memo from Spencer is telling the opposite.

they are doing such a moronic attempt at trying to tie the layoffs into changing the structure
That Spencer who give them that opportunity ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,881
Employment wasn't their concern, their concern was that ABK to remain autonomous under Microsoft. The memo from Spencer is telling the opposite.

The FTC's concern was about unwinding the merger in case they were successful. When it was brought up in court, Microsoft said they planned to not fully integrate the company, meaning it wouldn't be difficult to unwind.

The FTC really does appear to be grasping for straws. This reminds me of the way they argued over Bethesda going exclusive against what they said to Merger Authorities back then, even though they really didn't. FTC's argument was MS was going to make COD an exclusive, something the judge didn't buy.
 

DopeyFish

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,845
Employment wasn't their concern, their concern was that ABK to remain autonomous under Microsoft. The memo from Spencer is telling the opposite.


That Spencer who give them that opportunity ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There is zero opportunity arising from this.

I think to sum it up a little cleaner: FTC lost. Microsoft can do whatever they want with Activision. They could fully integrate Activision and face zero penalties. Why? Because the FTC lost. Keeping them separate was the entire reason for the Restraining Order/injunction.

Saying they have an intention to keep them separate is different to committing to keep them separate. The trial wasn't about that, though. It was about the incentive to substantially lessen competition. That's it.

You can't forget the FTC is appealing and the intention to keep them separate was not a factor in the decision. It's irrelevant. On top of that the layoffs are completely unrelated to the structure but they're still trying to embarrass anyone with a brain with this argument.
 

Kamisori

Member
Oct 26, 2017
158
France
I think to sum it up a little cleaner: FTC lost.
I have no stake in this, i don't have a Xbox or Playstation console, i'm a PC player first (but i have the PC Game Pass, so it would be against my advantage if the FTC succeed if i was selfish, but i'm trying to be objective).

Microsoft can do whatever they want with Activision.
There is a limit at what they can do. The merger has been authorized because Microsoft promised to not use the acquisition to hindered competition since they will have a large chunk of the videogame western production (and can cause serious harm if they changed their stance).

If Microsoft exhibit a behavior that let think they'll abuse their position, they may be forced to let go ABK (or Zenimax) under an antitrust procedure (that can be initiated by the FTC (Section 5(a)) and then ordered by the DoJ if they validate the case if i'm not mistaken).

And i don't think Microsoft should play the smart kid and be very cautious, the FTC is way more belligerent than before (they are trying to break apart Google Search and Google Adsense for example).

Again, i'm just saying that Microsoft has handled the communication poorly, if they thought that was open bar because the merge was effective, they may be forced to undone it if they're not careful. There was nothing complicated to ask ABK to release a statement saying that will layoff people because they over-hired during the pandemic, that would have let Microsoft off the hook.
 

Sandstar

Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,764
You're going to have a hard time getting a judge to agree that "being able to unwind the decision easily" means "they can't fire anyone"
 

JTDailyUpdate

Member
Nov 1, 2017
737
Is that not the DOJ?
Yes you are correct that the Google case is being handled by the DOJ, I think they have that case confused for the FTC Antitrust lawsuit they filed last September against Amazon.
Also with that lawsuit, the FTC isn't going against Amazon alone as the Attorney Generals of 17 states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin) who have joined with FTC's lawsuit against Amazon.
 

killerrin

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,269
Toronto
The issue is not the layoff itself, but how/why it happened. Microsoft promised to the FTC that ABK would be independent from the Microsoft structure and that no layoff will happen BECAUSE of the merger.

And the memo from Spencer explicitly say that the layoff is due because of the redundancy of jobs between Microsoft and ABK (and the issue is also that Microsoft who announced the layoff instead of ABK themselves). So Microsoft broke their word (and allow the FTC to take a shot).
Technically speaking there isn't really a lie here. ABK is an independent entity within Microsoft. It operates as a subsidiary of Microsoft Game Studios. So Activision did preform these layoffs, likely on the recommendation of its board, which is owned entirely by Microsoft.

But also considering that over the past two years Activision was tied up in acquisition, they weren't in a position to layoff anyone because Microsoft would have required them under the contract to not make any major moves that would harm the asset. This being a standard clause for acquisitions. And unfortunately for them (fortunately for the employees) that meant that they were largely immune during the most painful portions where the entire Technology Industry decided to simultaneously shit itself and purge half it's workforce. And you know for a fact that Bobby-fucking-kotick would have been at the front of the line to layoff the staff of ABK, especially since he could mask it as getting rid of troublemakers that nearly drowned the company in litigation from the government.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,881

View: https://x.com/tomwarren/status/1755626533048209882?s=20

Microsoft has responded to the FTC's filing, claiming "Activision was already planning on eliminating a significant number of jobs while still operating as an independent company. The recent announcement thus cannot be attributed fully to the merger." https://theverge.com/2024/2/8/24066089/microsoft-says-activision-was-already-planning-significant-layoffs

GF09AOnXgAAdOZn


So basically they point out, as I noted myself, that it was structurally still possible to divest the Activision businesses.

They also basically confirm what some people had speculated, that there would have been layoffs even if the acquisition did not go through. I'm sure they have the documentation to prove that and it likely was uncovered during the length discovery phases.

Layoffs certainly suck in either event.
 
Oct 25, 2017
30,366
Tampa

View: https://x.com/tomwarren/status/1755626533048209882?s=20






So basically they point out, as I noted myself, that it was structurally still possible to divest the Activision businesses.

They also basically confirm what some people had speculated, that there would have been layoffs even if the acquisition did not go through. I'm sure they have the documentation to prove that and it likely was uncovered during the length discovery phases.

Layoffs certainly suck in either event.


That is thing that gets me is people are pretending that layoffs would not be happening at Activison still helmed by Bobby Kotick.
 

goflyakite

Member
Jul 21, 2023
452
You can speculate whether or not layoffs would have happened without the acquisition, but Phil literally used "identified areas of overlap" in his statement. There probably wouldn't have been overlap if the two companies didn't become one.
 

Fnor

Member
Nov 7, 2023
509
Idas

Did redundancies/divestability/labor even come up in the district court ruling? I don't remember it being mentioned but I don't recall specifically. I do recall the ftc avoiding the subject at trial because it looked like a loser for them. Layoffs suck but this seems like the FTC kicking dirt around because they couldn't prove the their case and they're angling for some PR.
 
OP
OP
Idas

Idas

Antitrusting By Keyboard
Member
Mar 20, 2022
2,074
A few updates from February:

- An Activision Blizzard shareholder is still fighting against the deal and got good news last week. He sued in Delaware's Court of Chancery over the company's $68.7 billion sale to Microsoft and last week got the nod to move forward with the proposed class action that alleges that the merger process may have violated Delaware law.

- MS and the FTC have been fighting about the relevance of the third party agreements and its procompetitive effects on the possible future hearing after the ruling of the Ninth Circuit happens. I think that it includes one new and tiny piece of info:
  • Are MS and Sony still discussing the terms of the agreement?: "On July 15, 2023, Microsoft executed an agreement with Sony that purports to keep some of Activision's content on Sony's video game consoles for a period of time ("Sony Agreement"). However, even now, Microsoft and Sony REDACTED."
- Thanks to the DMA, MS is now a gatekeeper in the EU and that means being required to inform the EC of any intended concentration where the merging entities or the target of the concentration provide core platform services or any other services in the digital sector or enable the collection of data. A couple of weeks ago the EC updated the website about "List of acquisitions" including the ABK one from MS. As you can see, it was communicated 3 days (on October 10th 2023) before the official announcement (on October 13th 2023).

- Last week the studio Toys For Bob went independent. That means that MS is divesting part of ABK. I'm sure that the FTC will say something because this changes (slightly), the promise to keep post-merger ABK readily available to divest in the (unlikely) case that the FTC wins everything from now on.


On the other hand, on March 31st we should have the first report from the CMA about the implementation of the remedies and if we are lucky during this month the ruling of the Ninth Circuit may happen.

Idas

Did redundancies/divestability/labor even come up in the district court ruling? I don't remember it being mentioned but I don't recall specifically. I do recall the ftc avoiding the subject at trial because it looked like a loser for them. Layoffs suck but this seems like the FTC kicking dirt around because they couldn't prove the their case and they're angling for some PR.

Sorry, I missed this!

Very indirectly when they argued that the merger would decrease innovation. But that point focused on game developers and publishers not wanting to work with Microsoft and the only example was Sony not wanting to share their intellectual property with MS.

In the early days of the review process the monopsony theory was studied. A monopsony refers to a market dominated by one or a few buyers that have a controlling advantage on many aspects of it, for example in paid wages. But they never went ahead with it.
 

L11ghtman

Member
Jan 19, 2022
1,373
This lawsuit would have made more sense if and when the unlikely event that Microsoft decided to make any of its acquisitions exclusive. I am increasingly convinced they won't, including currently exclusive titles like Starfield. I could see a "gamer" lawsuit in the event that Microsoft pulls ABK games or even Bethesda IP off of rival consoles. I still don't think it would have legs, but it would make more sense than this lawsuit, which seems to be more concerned with what Microsoft might do than with what they are doing or have committed to doing.
 
The merger could be invalid according to Delaware law New
OP
OP
Idas

Idas

Antitrusting By Keyboard
Member
Mar 20, 2022
2,074
A few updates from March and early April:

- In Ap-Fonden v. Activision, the Delaware Court of Chancery held that common practices the board of Activision Blizzard followed in approving its October 2023 merger with Microsoft may not have complied with technical requirements in the Delaware General Corporation Law relating to mergers, and therefore the merger may have been invalid. On that basis, the court, at the pleading stage of litigation, let survive the plaintiff's claim for unlawful conversion of his shares in the merger (i.e., an unlawful taking—essentially, a tort of theft).

The issue was that the board approved a draft merger agreement with a lot of important stuff missing:
  • The name of the target
  • The merger consideration
  • The disclosure letter
  • The disclosure schedules
  • The charter of the surviving company
  • The dividend provision (this was considered a key issue)
In the end it shouldn't affect the merger (it can be appealed and worst case scenario is likely a settlement with the plaintiff) but it's another twist to the story.

- Awards session for mergers :p "Microsoft/Activision Blizzard cleans up at GCR Awards".

globalcompetitionreview.com

Microsoft/Activision Blizzard cleans up at GCR Awards

Microsoft’s $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard scooped Matter of the Year at GCR’s annual awards ceremony last night, together with the prizes for Merger Control Matter of the Year for Europe and the Americas.

- Update from the Commerce Commission New Zealand case register: I think that they added the cross-submission documents. But still no text from the final decision.

- The first Compliance Report about the merger and its remedies should have been delivered to the CMA by 31st March.
 

Fnor

Member
Nov 7, 2023
509
A few updates from March and early April:

- In Ap-Fonden v. Activision, the Delaware Court of Chancery held that common practices the board of Activision Blizzard followed in approving its October 2023 merger with Microsoft may not have complied with technical requirements in the Delaware General Corporation Law relating to mergers, and therefore the merger may have been invalid. On that basis, the court, at the pleading stage of litigation, let survive the plaintiff's claim for unlawful conversion of his shares in the merger (i.e., an unlawful taking—essentially, a tort of theft).

The issue was that the board approved a draft merger agreement with a lot of important stuff missing:
  • The name of the target
  • The merger consideration
  • The disclosure letter
  • The disclosure schedules
  • The charter of the surviving company
  • The dividend provision (this was considered a key issue)
In the end it shouldn't affect the merger (it can be appealed and worst case scenario is likely a settlement with the plaintiff) but it's another twist to the story.

- Awards session for mergers :p "Microsoft/Activision Blizzard cleans up at GCR Awards".



- Update from the Commerce Commission New Zealand case register: I think that they added the cross-submission documents. But still no text from the final decision.

- The first Compliance Report about the merger and its remedies should have been delivered to the CMA by 31st March.
Delaware is the worst.
 

Ehoavash

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,280
User banned (3 days): Bumped a thread to engage in console war rhetoric
In light of recent events....yeah I just remembered lol
20240507_175107.jpg
 
OP
OP
Idas

Idas

Antitrusting By Keyboard
Member
Mar 20, 2022
2,074
Did you think that we were done with this? Not yet! :p

Two updates from this week:

Microsoft's Post-Merger Layoffs Cited In I-Told-You-So Appeal

A private group of gamers is pointing to Microsoft's recent layoffs of 1,900 Activision and XBox employees as evidence of market harms stemming from Microsoft Corp.'s acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc., as the group seeks to revive a private antitrust suit challenging the merger in the Ninth Circuit.

In a brief filed Tuesday, the gamer plaintiffs — whose bid to have the merger blocked was rejected by a California federal district court last year — say that since the $69 billion merger closed in October, its anticompetitive effects have only become clearer, particularly when Microsoft announced the layoffs in January.

"These facts show that many of the possible harms discussed in plaintiffs-appellants' expert report — which were entirely unrebutted by Microsoft and which the district court failed to consider — are now materializing," the plaintiffs' Tuesday filing states.

It goes on to add, "These facts show that Microsoft is harming Activision Blizzard's ability to compete, thus decreasing the effectiveness of divestiture as a remedy."

According to the plaintiffs, the layoffs — coupled with the reported cancellation of several game titles previously in development at Activision — show that Microsoft has used its acquisition to shut down competition its own gaming departments were facing.

"By firing a significant percentage of Activision Blizzard employees, cancelling AAA games that had been in development for years, and otherwise diminishing Activision Blizzard's business, Microsoft is harming Activision Blizzard's ability to compete independently as a AAA games publisher," the gamers' Tuesday filing says. "Indeed, Microsoft's management of [Activision] is harming [Activision's] ability to compete against Microsoft and others after divestiture is required."

Chancery Speeds Microsoft Query Over $68.7B Activision Deal

Microsoft Corp. is entitled to a quick court declaration on whether its $68.7 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc. in October was valid, and a pension fund shareholder that challenged the deal has a right to be involved in the process, Delaware's Court of Chancery said Tuesday

In a telephonic bench ruling following oral arguments, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick granted a motion from Microsoft and Activision to expedite their application for relief under Section 205 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, as well as a motion from shareholder Sjunde AP-Fonden to intervene in the case.

"Congratulations, you are both winners today," the chancellor said.

Microsoft and Activision filed the Section 205 application on May 2, seeking an official court declaration that the merger, which officially closed on Oct. 12, 2023, is valid under Delaware law. Section 205 gives Delaware corporations the power to retroactively correct legal errors or technical mistakes by getting an order from the Court of Chancery.

The companies' application came in response to a ruling the court issued in February that raised questions about whether the merger had fully conformed to Delaware law.

That ruling allowed Sjunde AP-Fonden's proposed class action, which challenged the validity of the merger, to move ahead.

Stephen P. Blake of Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP, an attorney for Microsoft and Activision, urged the court not to let a "straightforward" and "routine" 205 application "devolve into an unnecessary adversary proceeding."

Microsoft is simply seeking a court declaration that it owns Activision, Blake said, adding: "We just want to get our merger validated."

Chancellor McCormick found that since "everyone agrees" the Section 205 application came in response to the other lawsuit and that "practically speaking," it operates as a counterclaim, the shareholder has a right to intervene. She said she would hear the case sometime in the fall.

In the meantime, she said, "it might be good for you all to take a breath" and "see if there's peace that might be achieved on this."

And we are still waiting for the 9th Circuit and then the FTC...
 

Kopite

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,178
According to the plaintiffs, the layoffs — coupled with the reported cancellation of several game titles previously in development at Activision — show that Microsoft has used its acquisition to shut down competition its own gaming departments were facing.
Don't think that's gonna fly...
 

Mxlegend99

Member
May 20, 2018
562
Wasnt the original lawsuit because of claims they would make COD exclusive and it was a necessary gaming product for Sony to be able to be competitive?

Since then the opposite looks true and that MS could be releasing everything on all platforms. MS is being harmed by this more than Sony tbh. Ive lost faith in them and all gaming purchases have been on PlayStation the past 6 months or so.