The U.S. Department of Justice ’s lawsuit match AT&T ’s suggest acquisition of T - Mobile USA may not mean the end of the mass , allot to some experts .
The DOJ , in the causa filed Wednesday , said the fusion of two of the nation ’s four largest mobile carrier would significantly slim rivalry and lead to high price .
But the DOJ ’s 25 - varlet antitrust ailment file in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia understand more like a move toward a settlement than a document leading to a test , said David Balto , an antitrust attorney and former policy theater director at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission . “ A suit does n’t mean a trial , ” tell Balto , who has support the merger .
The DOJ ’s lawsuit is “ really a negotiating ploy to really put themselves in a stronger positioning to negotiate a consent decree , ” he added . “ This is n’t a case that ca n’t be fixed . ”
Sprint Nextel , Public Knowledge , and several other opponent of the US$ 39 billion unification have argued that no number of concessions by AT&T can surmount the loss of a low-toned - toll competitor in the U.S. mobile grocery .
AT&T has promise to fight the DOJ ’s suit . AT&T plan to “ ask for an expedite hearing so the enormous benefit of this merger can be to the full reviewed , ” Wayne Watts , the carrier ’s general counsel , say in a statement Wednesday . “ The DOJ has the burden of proving alleged anti - free-enterprise personal effects and we stand for to vigorously contend this matter in homage . ”
If the cause does go to trial , Balto anticipate the trial to begin presently , maybe by the end of the year . Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle has a history of asking rugged questions of the DOJ in antimonopoly cases , he allege .
Maury Mechanick , a telecommunication lawyer at the White & Case law firm in Washington , D.C. , agree that AT&T still has options . The company could reach a settlement with the DOJ or it could dominate in a trial , he said . AT&T has a large incentive to fight forward , he tell .
AT&T has committed to pay T - Mobile a $ 3 billion breakup fee , in addition to turn over it spectrum , if the deal is not completed by September 2012 , harmonize to published composition .
However , a court case could drag out for month , or even years , Mechanick read . Even if the DOJ lose its causa in tourist court , the agency could invoke . “ Litigation — even if one of the party want it to move promptly — is a slow , laborious process , ” he said .
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission still has not completed its review of the deal , and the FCC could attempt its own concessions from AT&T , he suppose .
If the proceedings hang back out until late 2012 or 2013 , the hand may no longer make as much sense for both companies , Mechanick said . “ The question becomes , how tolerant are they of that delay ? ” he said .
AT&T could propose a reconstitute deal , with the carrier keeping T - Mobile ’s spectrum and spinning off the rest of the party to carriers such as Sprint , added Jeff Kagan , an independent telecommunication analyst . The DOJ , however , may not approve that kind of deal either , he said .
AT&T could still “ come back with a ‘ hail Mary , ’ all - or - nothing pass , ” he order . “ All they really want is T - Mobile spectrum . The rest was just dissonance anyway . ”
AT&T took a “ very chesty ” position on regulatory blessing of the deal , Kagan added . “ They never in their wildest dreams thought it would be turned down , ” he sound out . “ This was a shock to them . ”
