AT&T and DirecTV Merger AT&T recently acquired DirecTV after the latter’s shareholders voted to endorse the acquisition or merger. The acquisition was first endorsed by the boards of these companies in May 2014 before being subjected to a review by anti-trust regulators in the Department of Justice and Federal Communications Commission (England-Nelson, 2014). The approval of the acquisition would result in the merger of the country’s largest wireless carrier with the biggest satellite TV provider in the country. The merger between these two firms is geared towards creation of a leading content provider across various platforms i.e. video, mobile, and broadband services. However, the acquisition was influenced by various factors and is associated with several significant effects in light of the organizational structure.
Circumstances Resulting in the Acquisition As previously mentioned, the acquisition of AT&T and DirecTV was recently approved by the boards of both companies. The deal implied that the AT&T would have to pay the shareholders of DirecTV $95 per share as well as the company’s debt that would make the total transaction value to amount to $67.1 billion. The acquisition or merger between these two companies was fueled by various factors that were geared towards creating one company that will be strategically positioned to accomplish significant incremental growth. The growth would be achieved through providing customers competitive and innovative services
Facts: The plaintiffs (Imburgia, Greiner) filed a class action lawsuit against the defendant (Directv) for allegedly charging early termination fees improperly. The defendant was unsure about the application of state vs. federal law and put forth a motion to stay or dismiss the case in preference of arbitration, which was denied by the trial court. The court of appeals affirmed by stating that the state law precedent applies and the arbitration clause was unenforceable.
Mergers and acquisitions have become a growing trend for companies to inorganically grow a business within its particular industry. There are many goals that companies may be looking to achieve by doing this, but the main reason is to guarantee long-term and profitable growth for their business. Companies have to keep up with a rapidly increasing global market and increased competition. With the struggle for competitive advantage becoming stronger and stronger, it is almost essential to achieve these mergers. Through research I will attempt to dissect the best practices for achieving merger success.
This article written by Leslie Picker and Cecilia Kang primarily focuses on the issue regarding the merger of cellular phone giant AT&T with the entertainment conglomerate Time Warner. In late October the New York Times broke the news of these two joining and many industry annalists viewed the merger with skepticism as well as, outraged consumer groups. Individuals believed that AT&T and Time Warner would terminate any competition and create unfair pricing in order to encourage more mass media consolidation resulting in a market that would be strikingly similar to a pure monopoly.
It is necessary for a firm to expand in order to gain profits or leverage in a market place. One of the ways firms can do this is by executing a merger. There are two types of mergers, horizontal and vertical mergers. There are many incentives for companies to perform either type of merger; however, both types of mergers will always raise suspicion when being executed because they are usually perceived as anticompetitive. In order to prevent an anticompetitive environment, our government established a federal agency called the Federal Trade Commission. Their job is to review the activity of any given firm and decide whether or not to allow them to continue. Presently, CVS and Etna are currently undergoing a vertical merger to gain profits and
This article is about the threat of merger and the influence of a monopolistic media. The
Our case study titled, The AT&T and McCaw merger negotiation, provides us with an opportunity to negotiate the terms of the merger between McCaw cellular and AT&T. McCaw was the largest competitor in the rapidly growing cellular telephone communications industry. AT&T was the dominant competitor in long-distance telephone communications in the United States, and one of the largest corporations. Prior to the negotiations, it had no position in cellular communications.
If they are able to maintain the loyalty of most of their current customers, the companies will then have a shared amount of about 100 million customers. This potential customer volume for the merging companies would greatly outnumber the customer volume of the industry leaders, AT&T and Verizon. This kind of turnout would create greater competition between the two merging companies and the two leading companies (Sprint Wireless News, 2014). Although the outcomes seem promising for Sprint and T-Mobile, there are also potential negative effects of a merger that the companies should take into consideration. Current Sprint and T-Mobile customers have expressed their fear of the possible merger for multiple reasons. The two biggest worries for telecommunication services consumers is the potential for rising costs and a reduction in provider options (John, 2016). In making a final decision, the companies, as well as the Federal Communications Commission, should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of a
The predominant view in the United States is that The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was passed with the intent to protect consumers from inefficient market forms, and predation by large corporations. The specific provisions of the Sherman Act, as well as the later Clayton Act of 1914, prohibit acts that are considered to be anti competitive such as cartels, monopolies, price discrimination, and predatory pricing. Mergers and acquisitions are also individually reviewed to ensure they won 't have an anti competitive effect on the market. We will look at each of these acts to try to determine their actual impact to the consumer. We will also
You would not buy a home, car or other large purchases without researching what product offered you the most for your money. The same is true when investing in a company. Investors do avid research on multiple companies to find what company matches the investors' criteria. In this paper Team C will research both AT&T and Verizon's financial documents. Team C will compare selected ratios, cash flow and make recommendations how both companies can manage cash flow for the future.
Through the cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) that a company receives from the merger, we were able to see the effects of second requests and complaints on the company’s stock price over time. This methodology of using event studies to gauge the effects of mergers and the antitrust agency involvement was first applied by Eckbo (1983), and most recently by Filson, Olfati, and Radoniqi (2015). The event studies used in both of these journals and the others mentioned within the review of literature give us a good understanding of how accurate event studies are for predicting the effects that second requests or complaints given out by antitrust agencies can have on merging firms and within their
As a consequence of the governments intervention, the AT&T lawsuit settlement, as well as the shift in the telecommunication industry, it was clear that AT&Ts local telecommunication business was slowly moving away from a monopoly franchise environment. It was moving towards a more competitive environment characterized with more consumer choice and greater competition. Companies such as IBM saw the divestiture of AT&T as an opportunity to provide new telecommunication equipment and services, which would allow them to gain a higher market share. AT&T's stock had up till then been regarded as a stable utility-type stock because of its steady growth and consistent dividend yield. However, AT&T should have kept in mind that they would not have as much market control in the future as they did prior the divestiture, much due to the intensifying competition and regulatory environment changes.
Over the next four years, AT&T took action to succeed in changing the environment. It invested 35 billion dollars upgrades to its infrastructure. By mid –2000 AT&T had evolving networks- data, broadband and wireless. IN January 2005, AT&T bought SBC for 16 billion dollars and this created the industry’s premier communications and networking company. And just recently AT&T has merged with Cingular to created even more ties to what you like.
Time Warner Corporation has numerous subsidiaries which are moving media materials across media boundaries. They are doing this in numerous ways, based on synergies and joint ventures. For example some of these include gaining more access to cable lines by a joint venture with US West, and merging with AOL. They are also using a tactic called co-development as properties are knitted together by sister companies both interested in profiting off of them. This is a type of synergy because it occurs within one media conglomerate itself, and it encourages cross-media activity between the two sister companies. Time Warner can place some of its music on its television shows or movies, or write about its
The Act will prevent a single broadcast group owner from dominating the national media market (The American Presidency Project, 2016).” The problem with this statement is that in today’s society this is not true. Currently, 90 percent of the media is owned by just six companies: Viacom, News Corporation, CBS, Comcast, Disney, and Time Warner (Corcoran, 2016). These six companies shape global political views and cover Presidential elections in America. AT&T whom which currently owns Directv has now purchased Time Warner Inc. (De la Merced, 2016). This purchase is still pending approval from the Federal Communications Commission and the United States Department of Justice (James, 2017). AT&T would own HBO, Cartoon Network, Boomerang, Turner Classic Movies, TNT, TBS, Tru TV, SNY, Peachtree TV, and The CW. AT&T would sell cable service and own cable content. The interesting thing about AT&T is that they were the sole provider of telephone service in the United States. An anti-trust lawsuit broke up the Bell system phone companies to relinquish the monopoly that AT&T had on phone service (New America, 2010).
The General Electric (GE) and Honeywell International (HI) case illustrates the complexities of structuring mergers and acquisitions when the combined firms are capable of exerting market influence that threatens the competitive landscape. While General Electric's CEO, Jack Welch, characterized the deal as, "This is the cleanest deal you'll ever see," European anti-trust regulators were not so inclined to view the transaction as harmless to competition (Elliot, 2001).