5 ms·
I don't understand how that kind of clause can be legal. Its existence puts anti-trust enforcement in a catch-22, either they allow the merger, which reduces co
by thayne 10mo ago
I don't understand how that kind of clause can be legal. Its existence puts anti-trust enforcement in a catch-22, either they allow the merger, which reduces competition, or they reject it, and the acquiree is decimated, also reducing competition.
- bmacho 10mo ago8.3(b) on pg. 79 says that "Regulatory Termination Fee" is $5,800,000,000 from Netflix to WB. (IANAL)
- toyg 10mo ago> I don't understand how that kind of clause can be legal. Arguably they promote a chilling effect around acquisitions, which does help competition: "don't try to buy something unless you're prepared to deal with a possible fallout" should result in fewer attempts at consolidating dominant positions. I'd almost be tempted to posit that such a clause should become mandatory for deals over a certain threshold (e.g. $1bn), with amounts determined according to certain parameters.