“Post completion, the target (NCR Atleos ) shall be wholly owned and controlled by the acquirer,” the regulator said in a statement.

In February, Brink’s Company had announced its acquisition of NCR Atleos in a cash-and-stock deal valued at about $6.6 billion, including debt.

Both Brink’s and NCR Atleos are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Brink’s provides cash and valuables management, digital retail solutions and ATM managed services in over 100 countries. In India, it mainly provides cash replenishment services and ancillary first-line maintenance service through its subsidiary Brink’s India.

NCR Atleos is a financial technology company providing self-directed banking solutions globally, the regulator said. In India, its activities mainly comprise manufacture and supply of ATM hardware (including through its Chennai manufacturing facility), development and licensing of ATM software and ATM management and maintenance services.

The transaction, NCR Atleos had earlier said, would combine two major global financial technology infrastructure providers, joining Brink’s global cash management expertise and route-based infrastructure with NCR Atleos’ end-to-end ATM management and services expertise as well as its owned-and-operated ATM network.

The post CCI clears cash logistics provider Brink’s acquisition of NCR Atleos first appeared on M&A Critique.

But the green light comes with certain conditions.

The European Commission – which serves as the EU’s antitrust enforcer – said that even with a Paramount-Warner combo, enough competitors would exist across markets like film production and streaming in its 27-nation bloc. Still, when it comes to distributing movies to theaters, the Commission warned of high concentration that could lead to “worse rental and distribution terms for cinema operators, ultimately disadvantaging consumers.”

To address this, the Commission said Skydance-owned Paramount agreed to end its European Economic Area stake in United International Pictures – a longstanding venture with another major studio, Universal, that Paramount has used to distribute films in theaters outside North America. The company must end that partnership within 13 months of closing its Warner acquisition, the Commission said, and not enter any new agreements with Universal for the next 10 years.

Among other terms, current distribution of Warner films must be shifted to the same pipeline Paramount is using in these European countries. The European Commission said its approval was conditional on the company’s commitments and that it would monitor their implementation, without expanding further on how that would be enforced.

Paramount welcomed the EU’s greenlight, which it said represented “a major milestone” toward completing its acquisition. In a Wednesday statement, the company added that such clearances reflect how a Paramount-Warner combo “will enhance consumer choice” and create a business with a scale “capable of competing with the tech companies that have come to dominate the industry.”

Universal did not respond Wednesday to a request for comment about Paramount’s new film distribution commitments in Europe.

A Paramount-Warner combo would mean putting HBO Max, fan favorite titles like “Harry Potter” and even CNN under the same roof with CBS, “Top Gun” and the Paramount+ streaming service. Beyond movies and streaming, both American companies also own a handful of European-based TV assets – including Warner’s TVN Group in Poland, as well as localized channels for flagship Paramount brands like MTV and Nickelodeon.

Ongoing challenge from US states

The EU’s blessing marks the latest in a chain of regulatory clearances inching the merger closer to becoming a reality, but the deal faces other challenges. In the U.S., a federal judge on Monday ordered the companies to pause their transaction for at least two weeks.

That spans from a lawsuit brought forth by California and 11 other states seeking to block Paramount and Warner’s merger altogether – on the grounds such a tie-up would “extinguish competition” in Hollywood and lead to fewer choices for consumers, particularly moviegoers and cable customers in the U.S.

Paramount has called the states’ claims meritless. And the company reiterated that on Wednesday – saying findings from the EU’s approval “directly refute key assumptions that underpin the state AGs’ complaint,” particularly when it comes to competition from newer or smaller film studios.

Either way, the deal is set to be halted until at least a preliminary injunction hearing, currently slated for Aug. 3. When granting the temporary restraining order earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin said states had made a strong case about a combined Paramount-Warner’s potential to “substantially lessen competition” and that the merger would be “difficult, if not impossible, to unwind” without a pause.

Other regulatory clearances

In contrast to the states’ case, the Trump administration’s U.S. Justice Department said it wouldn’t block the deal – and instead released a lengthy statement in support, maintaining a Paramount-Warner combo would bring “benefits for American consumers and workers.”

Paramount says it’s also received regulatory clearances from countries like Australia, China and Canada. Other reviews remain in progress – including from the U.K., which has separately suggested it may intervene.

The clock is ticking. The company has pledged to start paying Warner shareholders added “ticking fee” compensation amounting to about $7 million per day if the deal isn’t closed by Sept. 30.

Including debt, Paramount’s proposed purchase of Warner is valued at nearly $111 billion based on current outstanding shares.

Beyond central antitrust reviews, regulators in Europe have also effectively approved of the billions of dollars in financial backing Paramount has secured from three Gulf states: Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. In regulatory filings, Paramount has maintained that these sovereign funds will not have any voting rights. Still, critics have sounded the alarm about what their money could mean in terms behind the scenes influence.

The post EU approves Paramount’s $81 billion Warner Bros. mega merger deal with conditions first appeared on M&A Critique.

“As you can tell from ‌the many collaborations ⁠on ⁠so many fronts with SpaceX, there’s more and more overlap,” Musk said on Tesla’s earnings call. “We can’t talk about, you know, combining companies ​and that kind of thing on an earnings call,” he added.

“It’s got to be done with the appropriate process.” Investors and ​analysts have long speculated about the possibility of combining Musk’s electric vehicle and space firms, with the discussion intensifying during SpaceX’s record $75 billion initial public offering process.

After Musk’s comments, he called on Tesla General Counsel Brandon Ehrhart, ​who stuck to boilerplate language calling SpaceX a “great partner” that provides “numerous beneficial transactions.”

Gene ⁠Munster, managing ‌partner at Tesla investor Deepwater Asset Management, said the call left him more convinced the companies were destined to be joined over the next few years. “I would put the odds ⁠that these two will combine at 90% today,” he said in a video posted on social media. “If you were going to ask me yesterday I would have said it’s 80%.” Tesla already supplies batteries and manufacturing technologies for some SpaceX projects, while the companies are jointly developing Terafab, a semiconductor manufacturing facility designed to produce AI chips.

Proponents argue that combining the companies could simplify Musk’s corporate empire and create a more integrated company spanning artificial intelligence, robotics, manufacturing, energy and space infrastructure. JPMorgan analysts said this month that “operational integration between the two entities is already deep,” citing shared engineering talent, AI ‌infrastructure, Terafab and Musk’s leadership as factors that “would facilitate an eventual combination.”

Stifel analysts struck an even more bullish note, writing that “many investors consider it inevitable that Musk will move to combine ​SpaceX with Tesla – ​for them the question ⁠is not if but when.” SpaceX President and Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell has also acknowledged potential benefits, telling CNBC in June that folding the companies together “might make Elon’s life a little easier” by streamlining management across his businesses. Others, ​however, caution that any transaction could face formidable hurdles. In the same research note, JPMorgan pointed to the “practical bottleneck” of getting regulatory approvals for both companies, particularly in China, where national security concerns over SpaceX’s U.S. government ties could pose problems.

Analysts also note that Musk controls a much larger voting stake in SpaceX than in Tesla, complicating governance considerations for Tesla’s public shareholders.

The post Musk leaves door open to Tesla-SpaceX merger first appeared on M&A Critique.

Britain’s Capricorn Energy said on Wednesday it ​has received a £268.8 million ($359.33 million) all-cash ‌bid from private investment firm Samos Energy, weeks after agreeing to a near-identical proposal ​from Genel Energy.

The London-listed oil and ​gas producer had agreed to a $360 ⁠million all-cash buyout offer from Kurdistan, ​Iraq-focused peer Genel earlier in July.

Here are some ​more details:

The post Samos rivals Genel Energy with $359 million bid for UK’s Capricorn first appeared on M&A Critique.

The companies are aiming to finalise an agreement before Nestle reports first-half ​earnings on Thursday, the report said. ​Nestle declined to comment.

The company has been reshaping its ‌portfolio ⁠under CEO Philipp Navratil, who has sought to improve growth and profitability by focusing on the company’s core brands.

Reuters reported ​in May ​last year ⁠that Nestle had hired Rothschild to explore a partnership or ​sale of a stake in ​its ⁠European water business while retaining part ownership. The unit includes brands such as Perrier, ⁠San ​Pellegrino and Acqua Panna.

The post Nestle nears sale of water business stake at close to €5 billion valuation, FT reports first appeared on M&A Critique.

The post Portugal to use $875 million from Novo Banco sale to pay down debt first appeared on M&A Critique.

Paramount Skydance Corp on Wednesday gained European Union antitrust ​approval for its $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery after ‌agreeing to ditch a film distribution joint venture with Universal Pictures.

The European Commission, which acts as EU competition enforcer, said Paramount Skydance’s offer to end the ​United International Pictures JV in Europe within 13 months of closing ​the deal addressed its concerns, confirming a Reuters story.

The company ⁠will not do any film distribution deal with Universal in Europe ​for 10 years and will not transfer the distribution of Warner’s films ​in theatres to its own distributor, the Commission said.

“These commitments fully address the competition concerns identified by the Commission by ensuring that the films of the merged ​entity will not be distributed jointly with those of Universal or ​Disney,” it added.

The transaction faces tougher U.S. challenges.

Last week Paramount Skydance was ordered by a ‌U.S. ⁠court to pause the deal, which has been cleared by the U.S. Department of Justice, after a California-led coalition of states argued the merger would irreparably harm competition.

A prolonged interruption will cost Paramount Skydance financially ​as Paramount CEO ​David Ellison would ⁠be on the hook to pay Warner Bros. shareholders a 25-cent-per-share “ticking fee,” or about $7 million a day ​for each calendar day the merger is delayed past ​September 30.

The ⁠deal is also the target of a lawsuit by the Writers Guild of America which said it would jeopardize writers’ livelihoods and threaten the health ⁠of ​U.S. entertainment.

The post Paramount secures EU nod for $110 billion Warner Bros deal, US hurdles ahead first appeared on M&A Critique.

The post Critical mineral refiner Nth Cycle to go public in $585 million SPAC deal first appeared on M&A Critique.

Twelve states, led by California, sued to block Paramount’s pending buyout of Warner last week, alleging that such a combination would “extinguish competition” in Hollywood and lead to fewer choices for consumers, particularly moviegoers and cable customers across the US.

The states’ top prosecutors called on Warner and Paramount to not close the transaction until after a court had time to fully evaluate their claims. And when the companies refused, they filed for a temporary restraining order – which is what District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted on Monday. That opens the door to a potential preliminary injunction that the states are also seeking to effectively block the deal.

“This is a critical first win in our case to ensure this megamerger never sees the light of day,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement.

“What happens when a few people have great power over markets that are central to Americans’ lives: fewer opportunities for more people, worse products and services for all people.” A Warner-Paramount tie-up would bring together two of the five last legacy studios in Hollywood – as well as a host of TV networks, titles filling streaming libraries and news operations. Warner’s HBO Max, fan favourites like “Harry Potter” and even CNN would come under the same roof of Paramount-owned CBS, movies like “Top Gun” and the Paramount+ streaming service.

Paramount, which was bought out by Skydance just last year, has vowed to vigorously defend its acquisition – and touts regulatory greenlights the deal has received elsewhere, including from President Donald Trump’s administration last month.

On Monday, Paramount said the states’ antitrust arguments “are without merit” or “any basis in modern market realities” – and maintained that its merger with Warner will benefit consumers and workers alike. Timing for next steps also falls in line with the company’s previous requests.

Deal is paused for at least two weeks. The temporary restraining order granted Monday halts the deal from progressing for at least 14 days, although the pause could be extended for up to 28 days. The court has set August 3 as a date for a hearing on the states’ preliminary injunction motion, but the schedule could also be pushed back.

The clock is ticking. Ahead of Monday’s decision, the companies proposed wrapping up a preliminary injunction hearing by the end of August, leaving time to make a possible appeal by September 30 – a date on the top of Paramount’s mind because it’s pledged to pay shareholders added “ticking fee” compensation amounting to about $7 million per day if the deal isn’t closed by then.

But the states called such a timeline unprecedented and unfair. They maintain that payments Paramount might have to incur after September 30 were the risk of a decision the company made on its own – and argued in a hearing held Friday that commencing a trial in April 2027 would allow enough time for discovery and presenting proper evidence.

Including billions of dollars in debt, Paramount’s proposed purchase of Warner is currently valued at nearly $111 billion based on outstanding shares.

What the states are challenging. Paramount has repeatedly pointed to tech and streaming companies’ growing reach across the entertainment industry – and argues that merging with Warner would particularly help it compete with bigger rivals like Netflix. Last week, it said the states’ challenge would help shield Netflix and others “who have harmed the market for theatrical exhibition” from meaningful competition.

The states’ case doesn’t focus on streaming. It alleges that a combined Paramount-Warner merger violates federal antitrust law because of what the companies’ combined reach would become across three markets: theatrical movie distribution, theater releases of bigger blockbusters and the licensing of basic cable channels.

Their complaint says a combined Paramount-Warner could control nearly a third of both the theatrical film distribution market as well as basic cable programming. The states argued this would create a “media behemoth” with enough power to both raise prices for consumers and threaten workers’ wages, while reducing production and quality of content.

In terms of movie theater releases, Paramount’s lawyers have pointed to a growing list of blockbuster hits from studios that are not in Hollywood’s “big five,” such as A24 and Amazon’s MGM. The states maintain the core legacy studios – which beyond Warner and Paramount include Disney, Universal and Sony – still make up the vast majority of the market.

Beyond California, states challenging the deal include Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Washington.

Meanwhile, the Writers Guild of America has filed its own lawsuit seeking to block the merger and Paramount faces additional legal fights, including from a shareholder accusing CEO David Ellison and his father Larry Ellison (who is putting up tens of billions of dollars to back the deal for his son’s company) of promising “illegal, private benefits” to Trump in order to get the merger through.

Paramount has repeatedly dismissed such accusations, and the U S Justice Department maintained its review was not political.

The post Federal judge halts Paramount and Warner merger for at least two weeks first appeared on M&A Critique.

The transaction will give Attestor full ownership of Condor, which ​it rescued alongside the German government following the collapse of former parent Thomas ​Cook and the COVID-19 crisis.

Attestor is exploring the possibility of bringing in a strategic airline partner to support Condor’s future growth, but intends to complete the purchase regardless of whether it ​finds one before the deadline, the source said.

The British asset manager acquired a ​51% stake in Condor from the German government in 2021, investing 200 million euros ($228.5 million) in ‌equity ⁠and committing a further 250 million euros to fleet expansion.

Although there is no immediate timetable, Attestor would ideally like to sell a minority stake to a larger airline or airline group at a later stage, the source added.

Attestor and Condor ​declined to comment.

Condor Chief ​Executive Peter Gerber ⁠told Stern magazine this month that Gulf carriers and Turkish Airlines could be potential partners, while suggesting a domestic buyer ​such as Lufthansa would face greater antitrust hurdles.

Turkish Airlines did ​not immediately ⁠respond to a Reuters request for comment.

Airline analyst John Strickland said a strategic airline shareholder could support Condor’s expansion and would be a logical fit for Attestor, which ⁠is ​not a specialist aviation investor.

Condor operates a fleet ​of nearly 60 aircraft, employs around 5,500 people and carries close to 10 million passengers a year.

The post Attestor to take full control of Condor by Sept. 30, source says first appeared on M&A Critique.