Merging Calgary’s Macleod Dixon with London-based global law firm Norton Rose creates one of the top 10 energy practices in the world, Bill Tuer said as the ink dried on the deal announced Oct. 14.

When the merger closes Jan. 1, Macleod Dixon will be a “material” addition to the Norton Rose global energy practice, said Tuer, who was global managing partner at Macleod’s and now becomes an executive committee member with Norton Rose Group. He said he can’t specify what percentage the Calgary firm will add to Norton Rose world energy billings. This, he said, is because energy clients require services in virtually all practice areas of both firms, from patents to litigation and mergers and acquisitions.

But he confirmed the deal is a “full economic merger” and not a mere referral agreement between loosely affiliated firms. Macleod Dixon adds some 300 lawyers to the Norton Rose pre-merger complement of 2,600.

Tuer confirmed that Norton Rose was not the only global firm to approach Macleod Dixon, though non-disclosure agreements keep him from revealing which others made overtures. But DLA Piper of New York and London has publicly confirmed it has talked with more than one Calgary law firm and Tuer said it’s a safe bet more than one foreign mega-firm is kicking tires on various big Calgary law offices.

“The apparent interest by international firms is fairly constant now,” Tuer said. It’s an interest generated in part by a long string of multi-billion-dollar acquisitions and joint venture investments by foreign companies in Calgary energy producers, deals which each generate thousands of billable hours for law firms involved in cementing transactions.

But Tuer said it’s difficult to predict how many large Calgary firms might eventually be drawn into international mergers.

“I think the opportunities will be there but every firm will have it’s own strategy and its own way of looking at offers. For us, and the direction we were going, this made perfect sense,” he said.

Macleod Dixon and it’s energy clients were both becoming increasingly global in their business focus and the firm had already established offices in such energy capitals as Moscow, Almaty, Bogotá and Caracas. To keep pace with client needs, it faced a decision whether to continue solo global growth or to accept a merger with a larger firm already established in important markets, such as Asia. On that basis, they had come to the conclusion that a merger could be in their future.

“We were already positioned in terms of our mindset and we were exploring opportunities” when they were approached by Norton Rose. “Given the competitive nature of the marketplace, this was the way to go,” Tuer said. But it was definitely not a case of simply merging with the first or biggest firm available.

“That would have been too generic for us.” For Macleod Dixon, he said, an acceptable merger partner had to have a globally recognized energy practice and, ideally, a strong position in Asia.

“Prior to the merger, we didn’t have any offices in Asia. That’s a big growth area for our clients and we could only do so much there. We needed a suitcase and a plane ticket and we had to work with local counsel (in Asia) — and we had done well in that mode. But it’s far more efficient to be able to just call upon those resources internally. It’s simply more efficient and cost effective for our clients.

“When we looked at Norton Rose, we were able to check all our boxes, including the people side. You have to be able to make it work on the people side. If there isn’t chemistry there, at the human level, you’re wasting your time.

“Equally, though, we were able to provide something of interest to Norton Rose,” he said. In addition to an established position in the Calgary energy sector, that included South American offices. “We have strength in Latin America,” including 15 years in Caracas and a new office in Bogotá. Partly on the basis of its Latin American practice, the World National Oil Companies Congress named Macleod Dixon its Law Firm of the Year for 2011.

For Norton Rose, it’s the second Canadian foray in a year. In November, 2010, it announced a merger with Ogilvy Renault of Montreal and Toronto.

With the addition of Macleod Dixon, Norton Rose is not only among the top 10 global energy practices but also the tenth largest law firm in the world, overall, said John Coleman, Toronto-based managing partner for Norton Rose in Canada.

Coleman said the real strength of the Macleod deal is that there were many new areas of coverage and almost no overlap. Even in Moscow, where both Norton Rose and Macleod Dixon have offices, he said, the two groups will combine seamlessly into a single office because Macleod’s people are energy specialists, while Norton Rose lawyers are financial experts.

“It’s accretive everywhere,” he said. “It’s a perfect-fitting merger from all angles.” And he confirmed that Norton Rose is especially pleased with the energy strength they gain in Calgary and Latin America.

Coleman said Macleod Dixon will be merged into a Norton Rose Group structure that sees financials merged by nation or global region in order to simplify accounting, while strategy, clients and partner evaluations are managed globally.

He said he has heard “lots of rumours” about the potential for other global firms to acquire Calgary partners. “I wouldn’t be surprised if other firms are looking to model themselves after what we’ve done there.”

Top 5 worldwide

In 2009-2010, Norton Rose billed more than 300 million pounds sterling or about $490 million, making it the 10th largest London-based international law firm by revenues.

Profit per equity partner was listed at 486,000 pounds sterling or about $780,000.

With the addition of Macleod Dixon in January, Norton Rose will have 2,900 lawyers in 43 offices worldwide, operating in 26 countries on six continents.

By number of lawyers, it will be a top-5 firm worldwide. In Canada it will have a total of 700 lawyers, making it one of the three largest firms in the country.

Norton Rose has jumped from zero presence in Canada two years ago by merging with Ogilvy Renault of Montreal and Toronto in January 2010 and then with Macleod Dixon this year.

Earlier this month, we mentioned that Lions Gate Entertainment’s The Hunger Games must make at least $100 million in order to justify the sequels being made. While there’s no doubt in my mind the movie will make that at the box office, the independent film company does have another source of income: merge with Summit Entertainment. The studio that’s behind the current Twilight series (which has earned over $1 billion through 4 of its 5 planned films) is reportedly in talks with Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. about a potential merger. The benefit to Lions Gate would be a much-needed cash infusion. This, in turn, could ensure the production of The Hunger Gamessequels, which could pay dividends for Summit if successful. Hit the jump for more on the possibility of a merger.

Bloomberg reports that although the two companies have had difficulties reaching common ground in the past, citing differences of opinion on price and control issues, merger talks have resumed. Summit had raised $750 million this year to finance productions, repay debts and pay dividends to investors, while Lions Gate currently has racked up around $550 million in debt. While Summit has a guaranteed money-maker in The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1 and Part 2, Lions Gate’s The Hunger Gamesfranchise is, as of yet, untested. In short, this is a small risk for Summit while being a stabilizing move for Lions Gate.

However, insiders also report that Summit has additional suitors in the mergers and acquisitions game. Spokespeople from either side declined to comment due to privacy of talks and the fact that the deal is far from assured. Perhaps a neighborly presence will go a long way as both Lions Gate and Summit are run out of Santa Monica, California.

The Federal Communications Commission’s move against the proposed AT&T merger with T-Mobile may have sparked an outcry, mostly from AT&T, but the main battle is still in court with the Justice Department.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski circulated a draft order last week that would call for an administrative hearing of AT&T’s bid to buy T-Mobile’s wireless spectrum licenses. AT&T said on Thursday it was withdrawing its request to transfer T-Mobile’s wireless licenses while it tries to fight off a Justice Department lawsuit and on Friday threatened to sue the FCC if it blocked the withdrawal.

But the FCC flap is just a sideshow to the venue where the deal will actually live or die: federal court, where Judge Ellen Huvelle will have the most important say over whether the $39 billion deal violates antitrust law. The deal has good odds if AT&T either settles with the Justice Department or wins in a trial set to start in February, meaning its legal status is basically the same now as before the FCC voiced concern.

 
AT&T proposes a $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile USA. Here’s our take on its prospects for success as regulators, consumer groups and Congress weigh in. 

However, the FCC’s actions do give AT&T someone to take aim at with angry statements and complaints to Capitol Hill, because the agency is more politically vulnerable than Justice — a law enforcement agency that has less political calculus in its decisions.

As AT&T tells it, the FCC’s decision to contest the deal hurt its chances so much that it now has to count a $4 billion charge against its earnings in anticipation of paying the sum to T-Mobile. T-Mobile would win the breakup fee if the deal falls through, and accounting rules force AT&T to post the outlay when the payment is “likely.”

In AT&T’s construal, the FCC action has made the outlay “likely.”

“As a result of the FCC’s action, AT&T expects to recognize a pretax accounting charge of $4 billion ($3 billion cash and $1 billion book value of spectrum) in the 4th quarter of 2011 to reflect the potential break up fees due [to T-Mobile's owner] Deutsche Telekom in the event the transaction does not receive regulatory approval,” the company said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission last week.

The company made further hay of the FCC’s action in a high-drama statement from Larry Solomon, its senior vice president of corporate communications.

“The FCC’s action today is disappointing. It is yet another example of a government agency acting to prevent billions in new investment and the creation of many thousands of new jobs at a time when the U.S. economy desperately needs both,” Solomon said.

But AT&T’s public reaction toward the FCC is a bit unusual. The agency’s actions, after all, don’t greatly change the deal’s legal prospects.

In addition to the terrible optics, the FCC’s actions only change two things about the legal status of the deal: timing and documents. It gives AT&T another process to negotiate should it overcome the Justice Department’s opposition, and it gives DOJ an expert document it can use to argue that the deal is anticompetitive.

Beyond that, the legal prospects AT&T faces today are the same as before the FCC moved, with a Justice Department lawsuit the defining test of whether deal will go through. If AT&T can overcome the department’s legal pushback through settlement or court victory, analysts see the FCC hurdle as dissipating.

“Should AT&T prevail over DOJ in court, we believe the FCC would approve the merger as well, despite having initiated the merger rejection process.  We say this because the FCC and DOJ analysis of telecom mergers is so similar: both agencies’ principal inquiry is the merger’s impact on competition,” Paul Gallant, telecom analyst at Guggenheim Securities, wrote in a note to clients last week.

With this in mind, AT&T’s rhetoric about the giant FCC impact should be taken with a grain of salt. In fact, not everyone’s buying it.

“I wonder to what extent [posting the breakup fee] is the function of the FCC’s recent opposition to the deal versus the development of antitrust case law since the suit by DOJ was filed,” says Daniel Sokol, a professor of antitrust law at the University of Florida, on an antritust and competition blog.

In other words, AT&T may have already been about to post the breakup fee when the FCC moved. But the agency’s action gave AT&T a chance to cite the FCC as the merger’s primary ailment without acknowledging other, possibly more meaningful ones.

Sokol’s theory is that the Justice Department’s win in another antitrust case, United States v. H&R Block, makes the T-Mobile deal less likely to prevail because of bad precedent. Merger opponents push the same argument, though AT&T’s backers dismiss it. 

Other things have been less than ideal for AT&T in the litigation process as well. Sprint and anther cell-phone company, C Spire, were granted standing to bring a suit, meaning AT&T has some additional red tape to clear. And AT&T lost a procedural effort to prevent the Justice Department from sharing certain confidential documents with outside consultants, a tiff that could have made the Justice Department’s case much more difficult if AT&T had won.  

The most significant development in recent weeks to make the deal less likely: AT&T has still been unable to convince the Justice Department to settle despite insisting that its trying.  

A settlement “is still possible, but we’ve seen little evidence that such an event is probable,” says analyst Jeffrey Silva of Medley Global Advisors in a note to clients.

That leaves beating the Justice Department in court as the merger’s best shot at survival, and that was always going to be a tough fight — one that becomes more and more defininitive every day AT&T can’t find another way out. 

THE government is seeking to plug a $9 billion revenue hole that threatens its budget surplus pledge, by making changes to business tax laws that were only passed last year.

In a move criticised by tax experts, Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten yesterday flagged changes to laws that had delivered significant tax savings to companies involved in mergers that took place as long ago as 2002.

A government review had found the laws gave companies much larger tax savings than expected, and threatened to cost the budget as much as $9 billion.

In response, Mr Shorten said the government was acting to protect revenue against an unexpected threat.

”This is about shutting down a loophole,” Mr Shorten said. ”All the players acknowledge that this law has been interpreted in ways that no one foreshadowed and has gone much further than anyone intended.”

The law on deductions relating to mergers was first introduced by the Howard government in 2005, but was not enacted until Labor passed amendments last year.

After other retrospective tax changes in recent months, Mr Shorten’s move was controversial with corporate tax experts.

The tax counsel at the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, Yasser El-Ansary, said it was part of a worrying trend towards retrospective changes that pulled the rug out from under business.

”We need to recognise that every retrospective law change puts another dent in the perception of Australia’s brand in the international marketplace,” Mr El-Ansary said.

The Tax Institute’s senior tax counsel Robert Jeremenko said the move would have a ”significantly adverse” impact on some taxpayers going back to 2002.

”A fundamental principle of the legislative process is that laws which adversely affect taxpayers should not apply retrospectively except in extremely rare situations, such as addressing significant tax avoidance.”

Brussels- The European Commission has approved under the EU Merger Regulation the proposed acquisition of Hitachi Global Storage Technology (HGST), a subsidiary of Hitachi of Singapore recently renamed Viviti Technologies, by rival Western Digital of the US. The approval is conditional upon the divestment of essential production assets for 3.5-inch hard disk drives (HDD), including a production plant, and accompanying measures. Western Digital cannot complete the acquisition of Viviti until it has found a suitable purchaser that is approved by the Commission.

” Hard disk drives are a key component of computers and other sophisticated electronic devices as they are used to store a growing bulk of data in the digital economy. The proposed divestiture will ensure that competition in the industry is fully restored before the merger is implemented,” said Commission Vice-President in charge of competition policy Joaquín Almunia.

The Commission’s in-depth examination showed that there are separate worldwide markets for HDDs based on their form factor (3.5-inch or 2.5-inch) and end use (such as desktop computers, mobile computers, consumer electronics devices and enterprise business critical and mission critical applications). The Commission also identified a separate market for external HDDs (or XHDDs), which is downstream from HDDs, in the European Economic Area (EEA) 1 .

On the markets for 3.5-inch Desktop HDDs and Consumer Electronics HDDs, the merged entity would only face competition from the recently merged Seagate/Samsung. This is a problem because for security of supply reasons, most customers on these markets multi-source HDD purchases. Toshiba only recently entered the market for 3.5-inch Business Critical HDDs and it is uncertain whether it could replace the competitive constraint presently exerted by Viviti..

To gain regulatory clearance, Western Digital proposed to divest essential production assets for the manufacture of 3.5-inch HDDs, including a production plant, the transfer or licensing of the IP rights used by the divestment business, the transfer of personnel and the supply of HDD components to the divestment business. WD committed not to close its proposed acquisition of HGST before concluding a binding agreement for the sale of the divestment business to a suitable purchaser approved by the Commission.

As a result, the Commission concluded that the proposed merger, as modified by the commitments, will not significantly impede effective competition in the EEA.

Background
Western Digital notified its proposed acquisition of HGST to the Commission on 20 April 2011. Pursuant to a priority rule (“first come, first served”) based on the date of notification, the present merger is assessed taking into account the Seagate/Samsung merger in the same sector that was notified one day earlier and approved by the Commission on 19 October (see IP/11/1213). After the Seagate/Samsung merger, there remain worldwide four active HDD suppliers: Western Digital, HGST, the merged Seagate/Samsung and Toshiba. The proposed WD / Hitachi transaction would reduce the number of competitors to three and in some markets to two. The Commission was concerned that the transaction would have a negative effect on prices and consumers in Europe and opened an in-depth investigation in May 2011 (see IP/11/660 ). A statement of objections, setting out the concerns, was sent to the parties on 18 August.

Hard disk drives (“HDDs”) store and allow access to data. They are used in desktop computers and laptops, consumer electronics devices such as DVR players, as well as servers and data centers run by companies. External hard disk drives (“XHDDs) are finished products sold to consumers. They allow consumers to supplement the storage space of their computers, small networks or consumer electronics devices. HDDs are their key component. Solid-state drives (“SSDs”) are data storage devices that use a different technology (flash memory). They have improved technical characteristics such as faster access and higher reliability but are sold at a much higher price than HDDs.

Western Digital (“WD”) designs, develops, produces and sells HDDs, SSDs, XHDDs and media players. WD also produces key HDD components, such as read/write heads and media.

Hitachi Global Storage Technologies (“HGST”), recently renamed Viviti Technologies, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hitachi, Ltd. It develops and manufactures HDDs and SSDs, branded XHDDs and also produces key HDD components such as heads and media.

Merger control rules and procedures
The Commission has the duty to assess mergers and acquisitions involving companies with a turnover above certain thresholds (see Article 1 of the Merger Regulation ) and to prevent concentrations that would significantly impede effective competition in the EEA or any substantial part of it.

The vast majority of mergers do not pose competition problems and are cleared after a routine review. From the moment a transaction is notified, the Commission generally has a total of 25 working days to decide whether to grant approval (Phase I) or to start an in-depth investigation (Phase II).

There are currently three other ongoing phase II investigations: In the first one, the Commission is examining the proposed acquisition of NYSE Euronext by Deutsche Börse (see IP/11/948 , with a deadline of 23 January 2012). The second one assesses the proposed acquisition of Synthes by Johnson and Johnson, both US companies active in the area of orthopaedic medical devices (see IP/11/1306 , with a deadline of 19 March 2012).

A bipartisan “supercommittee” is racing against a Wednesday deadline to reach agreement in the US. Failure would trigger mandatory cuts from January 2013, but that timeframe means Congress can wriggle out of the supposed ultimatum.

News service CNN, citing both Democratic and Republican aides, reported the 12 members of the supercommittee had already accepted the likely failure of talks and were planning a press conference today to formally announce the impasse.

The US budgetary stalemate adds to global economic concerns dominated by the financial woes threatening to unravel Europe’s cherished monetary union.

Westpac New Zealand senior market strategist Imre Speizer said the news from the US caused risk sentiment to weaken today and pushed the Australian dollar lower.

At 07:00 AEDT today, the Australian dollar was trading at US99.86 cents, up marginally from US99.82c on Friday afternoon. Since 17:00 AEDT on Friday, it has traded between $US1.0107 and US99.65c – the currency’s lowest since October 12.

“It’s back to where we were around the middle of this year, where the US debt-ceiling talks got to the point where parts of the government could actually be forced to stop,” Mr Speizer said.

“Unless something gets cobbled together within the next few days, the outlook for US government activity in the near term doesn’t look too good.”

Meanwhile, early this morning, Spain’s right wing candidate Mariano Rajoy stormed to a landslide election victory, according to an exit poll, as voters toppled yet another eurozone government engulfed in a deepening debt crisis.

Mr Speizer said the news from Spain was a “minor positive” for risk markets.

He said the Australian dollar may trade below US99.65c today.

The lingering global financial crisis has had a significant impact on corporate and M&A markets. It is obvious that clients are more prudent when it comes to acquisitions of local companies, and even more careful when it comes to cross-border acquisitions.

On the other hand, a positive consequence of the financial crisis in corporate and M&A is an increase in the number of internal group reorganisations. This development is driven by management’s intention to finally streamline internal group structures and to cut the internal expenses necessary for their operation.

One of the legal tools widely used in internal company reorganisations is a merger. Under the Slovak Commercial Code No. 513/1991 Coll. “merger by acquisition” (in Slovak: zlúčenie) – means a procedure in which one or several companies cease their legal existence without liquidation and their assets are transferred to another existing company, which becomes the legal successor of the merged companies. The Slovak Commercial Code distinguishes this from another merger procedure, called“merger by formation of a new company” (in Slovak: splynutie) – a procedure whereby two or more companies cease their legal existence without liquidation and the assets of the merged companies are transferred to another newly established company, which upon its establishment becomes the legal successor of the merged companies.

It is important to know that the Slovak Commercial Code will only enable the execution of a “merger by acquisition” or a “merger by formation of a new company” if the “merged” company and the company to which the assets of the merged company are transferred, the “successor company”, have the same legal form. There is only one exception – merger by acquisition when a limited liability company is wound-up and its assets are transferred to a joint stock company. The procedure of merging limited liability companies is less complicated than that of merging joint stock companies.

Fundamental documents and steps which must normally be carried out when merging joint stock companies on behalf of all joint stock companies participating in the transactions include in particular:

• Interim financial statements if more than six months have passed between the date of the last regular financial statement and the date of the merger agreement, 
• The merger agreement draft,
• A written report by an independent expert reviewing the merger agreement draft; the expert must be an entity independent of the company and must be appointed by the court following a proposal made by the company’s board of directors, 
• A written report by the company’s board of directors, 
• A statement of the supervisory board of the company, 
• Filing the merger agreement draft with the Collection of Deeds and publishing a notice of this filing no later than 30 days before the date of the general meeting deciding on the draft, 
• Convening the general meeting, 
• Filing required documents in the registered seat of the company for inspection by the shareholders, 
• Holding the general meeting approving the merger and the merger agreement draft, and if the company ceases its legal existence, also on its winding-up without liquidation, 
• Signing the merger agreement in the form of a notarial record laying down a legal act by the members of the board of directors authorised to represent the company.

Although the standard procedure may appear lengthy and costly, merger by acquisition is also a popular means to reorganise because it does not create a new entity and the companies may make use of several exceptions which allow them to streamline and speed up the entire merger process.

One such exception enabling the process to be streamlined is that the Slovak Commercial Code contains certain provisions stating that the standard procedure for merger by acquisition need not be applied, provided all shareholders of each of the participating companies agree, or where all shareholders have waived their relevant right. When companies are merged within a group, there is a high chance that agreement between all shareholders is feasible. This then makes it possible, for instance, to skip the process of preparing regular interim financial statements, having the draft agreement reviewed by an independent expert who must be appointed by a court, and drafting a report by the board of directors and a statement from the supervisory board.

The Slovak Commercial Code further provides in Section 218k other special exceptions applicable solely to the following two situations, when we speak of simplified merger by acquisition:

a) if companies are merged and the successor company owns in excess of 90% of the shares, but not all of the shares, of the merged company, and voting rights are attached to the shares, or

b) if companies are merged and the successor company owns all shares of the merged companies, and voting rights are attached to the shares.

The Slovak Commercial Code specifies which provisions shall not or need not be used in the above situations. By way of example, this means in both situations that the merger by acquisition and the merger agreement draft need not be approved by the general meeting of the successor company, provided the relevant requirements and conditions and procedures have been fulfilled.

Currently, cross-border mergers of companies have grown increasingly popular. Their realisation has been possible since the adoption of the third Directive 2005/56/EC on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies and a follow-up amendment to the Slovak Commercial Code.

For the purposes of the Slovak Commercial Code,“cross-border merger by acquisition” or “cross-border merger by formation of a new company” means merger of one or several companies with its seat in the Slovak Republic with one or several companies with their seat abroad, i.e. in one of the EU member states or a state of the European Economic Area.

Cross-border mergers require that all merged participating companies and the successor company have the same legal form, unless legal regulations of the member states where the participating companies have their seats allow mergers of several legal forms of companies.

Likewise in cross-border merger by acquisition, the Slovak Commercial Code allows for certain specified provisions governing the standard process of cross-border mergers to be skipped, provided all shareholders of each of the participating companies have so agreed. Section 218k of the Slovak Commercial Code provides a special exception for “simplified cross-border mergers by acquisition”; the exception applies exclusively to cross-border mergers by acquisition in which the successor company owns all the shares of the companies participating in the cross-border merger and voting rights are attached to the shares.

WASHINGTON — The steady drumbeat of advertisements by AT&T claiming huge job growth if the merger with T-Mobile is allowed to go through is impossible to escape in Washington.

The ads appear daily in everything from newspapers to bus signs to broadcast commercials. Each time, the claim is the same—if AT&T is allowed to acquire T-Mobile, it will result in 96,000 new jobs, plus 5,000 jobs brought back to the U.S. from overseas. The ad seems to imply that AT&T will help spur job growth in the struggling U.S. economy to an extent that even the government can’t manage.

Of course, if you read the fine print that accompanies these ads, you’ll see that most of those numbers are highly speculative, but the ads trumpet them nonetheless. Now, an economic study, sponsored by mobile competitor Sprint but carried out by David Neumark, professor of economics at the University of California, Irvine, suggests otherwise.

The study says that contrary to its claims, AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile will almost certainly result in the loss of thousands of jobs as redundancies are eliminated, staff streamlined and costs reduced. The Neumark study claims that previous AT&T mergers have resulted in significant job losses and that in the period leading up to the merger, AT&T was already shedding U.S. jobs. The study also noted that during the same period T-Mobile was adding jobs, a trend the study indicated would be reversed after the merger.

All of this was presented at a high-profile news conference Nov. 8 in the new Capitol Building Visitors Center. The media event also included representatives from the Media Access Project (MAP), a public interest group opposing the merger that is trying to get AT&T’s advertising dropped by media outlets because it is, the group claims, not truthful.

AT&T, in response to the MAP claims, has said that the company has a First Amendment right to run those commercials. Currently, MAP has approached one television station in Washington, the highly rated CBS affiliate WUSA-TV, and formally requested that the station stop carrying the ads. There’s no indication of how the television station plans to respond.

For its part, the supporters of AT&T also had their own news conferences. The Communications Workers of America released a study of its own claiming that AT&T really will manage to come up with 96,000 new jobs. The CWA is backing the merger because T-Mobile isn’t unionized, and if the merger happens, the CWA is counting on signing up those new employees as union members, assuming they still have jobs after the merger.

Adding to the day’s merger media madness, think tank Tech Freedom presented a discussion by George Mason University professor Josh Wright about the AT&T–T-Mobile merger.