T-Mobile and Sprint have likely done enough to convince a federal judge to allow their proposed US$28 billion merger to go forward, according to several leading Wall Street analysts.
According to Fortune, their predictions come after 10 days of testimony in a trial brought by attorneys general from more than a dozen states who sued to block the third and fourth-largest wireless carriers from combining. Closing arguments in the federal case in New York are scheduled to begin in two weeks.
Based on testimony from witnesses including former Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure, T-Mobile CEO John Legere, and Dish CEO Charlie Ergen, analyst Walt Piecyk at Lightshed Partners concluded that the carriers had swayed the judge to approve the deal. The Justice Department and Federal Communications Commission have already signed off on the merger.
“Our optimism continues to grow about T-Mobile’s ability to prevail,” Piecyk wrote in a report after he attended the trial and watched all of the testimony. “If T-Mobile prevails and the States are unable to obtain a stay while they appeal, we expect the companies to close the transaction.”
One key factor for Piecyk was the testimony of Dish CEO Ergen. Under a settlement with federal regulators, Sprint and T-Mobile would sell Dish some airwave licenses along with the Boost prepaid wireless brand, which has about 9 million customers. The goal is to maintain competition in the mobile market by creating a new fourth player to replace Sprint.
“Many investors believe that the case hinges on Charlie Ergen’s ability to establish himself and Dish as a viable and credible fourth wireless competitor,” Piecyk wrote. “We believe he did that…under cross examination.”
Full Content: Fortune
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Federal Judge Orders Google to Open Android App Store Amid Antitrust Pressure
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Greenlights FTC’s Antitrust Lawsuit Against Amazon, Tosses Some State Claims
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Rejects Uber and Lyft’s Appeal in California Gig Worker Suits
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Sidesteps 5-Hour Energy Pricing Case, Allowing Antitrust Claims to Proceed
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Tempur Sealy and Mattress Firm Argue FTC Proceedings Are Unconstitutional in New Suit
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh