Questions Overhang DOJ Decision on T-Mobile/Sprint, New Street Says

“the consensus view -- with which we agreed -- was that Delrahim was more likely than not to approve the deal, assuming a deal was struck to create a fourth competitor,” Levin wrote: “The more difficult question was how much pressure he would put on the T-Mobile to strike a deal in which the odds of that fourth competitor providing a sustainable competitive dynamic were significant. To do that, of course, Delrahim had to signal to T-Mobile that he would be willing to block the deal. There were no signs that he had done so until last week. But now he has done so, meaning that despite the companies’ assertions in court, the DOJ effectively joining the states’ effort to block the merger is a material risk.” The most likely outcome is a deal between Dish and T-Mobile/Sprint, Levin said. T-Mobile may want conditions keeping Dish from doing deals with major tech and cable companies, but the court reviewing the state challenge (see 1906210033) may be reluctant, Levin said: “Adding a constraint on DISH's ability to raise capital (and any constraint on a sale is a constraint on raising capital) is a red flag for the court that the deal is structured to create something less than the competitive dynamic Sprint offers.” Investors are asking if cable operators are “behind the black curtain?” Wells Fargo’s Jennifer Fritzsche said in a note to investors: “And if so, is it all of them or just one?” She expressed skepticism on news DOJ will make a decision this week. Meanwhile, motions continue in the state challenge before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Comcast, Charter and Altice asked for a new, single deadline for motions made under the stipulated interim protective order. They suggested "any such motions should be due three days after the resolution of the non-party motions to amend the protective order.” The rules are “unnecessarily burdensome for non-parties that seek to mitigate the risk to their commercial interests caused by discovery in this action,” the cable groups said (in Pacer): “Defendants have been identifying their designated in-house counsel piecemeal, creating a stream of rolling deadlines.” AT&T asked the court to restrict access to information filed. The court should “follow the usual practice of requiring a particularized need before allowing Defendants’ employees access to competitively sensitive information from their competitors,” the carrier said (in Pacer): “Under this practice, which AT&T and Time Warner lived with in their recent merger litigation, Defendants can show why specific in-house counsel should have limited access to specific non-party confidential information.”