Court Blocks Penguin Random House, S&S Merger - Publishers Weekly

Panzer just found a breaking news release at the Publishers Weekly site about the Penguin Random House (PRH) and Simon and Schuster (S&S) merger lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

 

Doesn't surprise me.

According to the post by Andrew Albanese, the case has been decided in the Department of Justice's favor and the merger will not be allowed to go forward.

 

Panzer says, "This little kitty thinks PRH will probably appeal the decision."

 

Note: This is a long post. Bring a cup of tea and muffin for today's reading selection.

 

To read the post tootle over to PRH S&S Merger

Florence Pan, Judge in DOJ vs. PRH Case, Confirmed to U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. - Publishers Weekly

Today Panzer made a quick trip to the Publishers Weekly site. There he found a post about the judge in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) case against Penguin Random House (PRH). The case to stop PRH from acquiring Simon and Schuster (S&S).

 

Interesting.

According to the post by John Maher, Judge Florence Pan has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate to a position on the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C.

 

Panzer says, "Hmm ... This little kitty thinks it's interesting to watch how the court system works."

 

Note: This is a long-short length post. Bring a glass of lemonade for today's reading selection.

 

To read the post tootle over to Judge Florence Pan

In Post-Trial Briefs, PRH Attorneys Say DOJ Failed to Prove Its Case Against S&S Merger - Publishers Weekly

Today's trip into the Catosphere took Panzer to the Publishers Weekly site. There he found a post about the Department of Justice's (DOJ) case against the Penguin Random House (PRH) and Simon and Schuster (S&S) merger.

I want to see the DOJ's brief too.

According to Andrew Albanese's post, Penguin Random House submitted its post-trial brief to explain why the Department of Justice has not proved its case to stop the merger with Simon and Schuster. The PRH brief says the DOJ only concentrated its arguments on lower advances for authors who have previously received advances of $250,000 or more. PRH says these authors won't suffer any monetary loses because of the merger. PRH also says the DOJ didn't address any harm to consumers caused by the merger. The post doesn't address the DOJ's post-trial brief, but they haven't seen it yet. The post contains several links for more information about the case.

Panzer says, "This little kitty wants to know, when is a publisher too big?"

Note: This is a long medium length post. Bring a glass of iced tea and a bowl of ice cream for today's reading selection. If you plan to follow the links in the post, you'll have to decide what to bring to eat and drink.

To read the post tootle over to DOJ vs. PRH

DOJ v. PRH: "Ending Where We Started" - Publishers Weekly

Today's trip into the Catopshere took Panzer to the Publishers Weekly site. There he found a post about last Friday's closing arguments in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) case to stop Penguin Random House's (PRH) acquisition of Simon and Schuster (S&S).

 

Who will win? Authors or Publishers?

According to Ed Nawotka's post, there were three closing arguments in the case on Friday. The DOJ presented their argument first. DOJ's basic argument was, if the merger goes through, PRH will have 49 percent of the book market.There will be less competition for books and authors will make less money. PRH's closing argument was second. PRH's basic argument was it doesn't matter how big their market share is. S&S's closing argument was third. S&S's basic argument was PRH offered the most money for the company.

 

Panzer says, "It will be interesting to see what the final decision is."

 

Note: This is a very, very long post. Bring a thermos of iced tea, three chocolate chip cookies (biscuits) and a brownie.

 

To read the post tootle over to DoJ v. PRH Closing Arguments

DOJ v. PRH: Challenges over Bid Competition, Market Share - Publishers Weekly

Today, Panzer made another trip to the Publishers Weekly site to get the latest news for you about the Department of Justice's (DOJ) case against Penguin Random House's (PRH) acquisition of Simon and Schuster (S&S).

Back and forth. Makes me dizzy.

According to Ed Nawotka's post, PRH's witness Edward Snyder again took the stand to be cross-examined by the DOJ about his statements concerning book auctions and book advance bidding. Following his testimony, the DOJ brought in Nicholas Hill to rebut Snyder's testimony about the bidding and show why it was unsupported. Included in the post are links to previous posts.

 

Panzer says, "Depending on how you arrange them, statistics will say whatever you want."

Note: This is a long post. Bring a large glass of iced tea and a big muffin for today's reading selection. If you plan to follow the links in the post, you'll need to decide what to bring to eat and drink.

To read the post tootle over to Bid Competition

DOJ v. PRH: 'Agents Don't Have Guns, They Have Tactics' - Publishers Weekly

Here's Panzer's update from the Publishers Weekly site on the Department of Justice's (DOJ) case against Penguin Random House's (PRH) acquisition of Simon and Schuster (S&S).

Ed Nawotka's post covers Edward Snyder's testimony that his research supports his opinion that authors whose book advances are $250,000 or more won't be impacted by the acquisition. This post's title comes from his answer to a question about book agents. The post also says today (Thursday) is expected to be the last day of testimony for PRH's defense of the acquisition.

The office is all mine tonight.

Panzer says, "We're doing posting early today because Mom and What's His Name have plans for tonight."

Note: This is a long post. Bring a milkshake for today's reading selection.

To read the post tootle over to Agents

DOJ v PRH: Judge Tosses PRH Exec Testimony - Publishers Weekly

Panzer has your daily dollop of news from the Publishers Weekly site about the Department of Justice's (DOJ) case to stop Penguin Random House (PRH) from acquiring Simon and Schuster (S&S).

 

She's right.

Today's Publishers Weekly post is a doozy. According to the post by Ed Nawotka, Judge Florence Pan tossed out the testimony by PRH's Manuel Sansigre. Included in the post are extensive quotes from the testimony and a breakdown of the judge's questions and why she excluded the testimony. Following that decision, approximately the last third of the post describes testimony by Yale Professor Edward Snyder about agents and author advances.

Panzer says, "It's interesting why she threw out his testimony."

 

Note: This is an extremely long post. Bring a thermos of iced tea, a muffin, a brownie, and a bowl of ice cream.

 

To read the post tootle over to Excluded Testimony

DOJ v PRH:Madeline McIntosh Details PRH's Publishing Process - Publishers Weekly

Today Panzer has the latest update from the Publishers Weekly site on the Department of Justice's (DOJ) attempt to stop Penguin Random House's (PRH) merger/acquisition of Simon and Schuster (S&S).

What is good for the employees?

According to Bethanne Patrick's post, Alex Berker of ViacomCBS testified why the company thought the sale of S&S to PRH would be "good" for "employees and executives." Madeline McIntrosh US CEO of PRH was next to testify about the book publishing process. Manuel Sansigre PRH vp for global mergers and acquisitions was the last to testify about cost cutting measures by moving S&S employees to PRH headquarters and then the company wouldn't need the S&S building any more.

Panzer says, "You'll need to go to the Publishers Weekly site to read all the information about the testimony."

Note: This is a long post. Bring a big glass of iced tea, a brownie and a bowl of ice cream for today's reading selection.

To read the post tootle over to Madeline McIntosh testimony

DOJ v PRH: Agents Have Their Say - Publishers Weekly

Today, Panzer has another update on the Department of Justice's (DOJ) case to stop Penguin Random House's (PRH) acquisition of Simon and Schuster (S&S).

 

I'm finished for now.

According to Bethanne Patrick's post, there were six people testifying for PRH's defense of the acquisition. In order, they were: W.W. Norton's editor-in-chief John Glusman (finishing his testimony), author Charles Duhigg, Putnam senior v.p. Sally Kim, agent Elyse Cheney, agent Andrew Wylie, and agent Gail Ross. There is no more testimony until Monday.

 

Panzer says, "You'll need to go to the Publishers Weekly site to read about the testimony."

 

Note: This is another very, very long post. Bring a thermos of iced tea, a muffin and a brownie.

 

To read the post tootle over to Agents

DOJ v PRH: Agents, Publishers Move Center Stage - Publishers Weekly

Today, Panzer has your daily update on Publishers Weekly's coverage of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) court case to stop the merger of Penguin Random House (PRH) and Simon and Schuster (S&S).

 

I need a nap after all that.

According to the post by Bethanne Patrick, five witnesses were called to testify today. The testimony for the DOJ was first provided by economist Dr. Nicholas Hill. He was followed by agent Christy Fletcher. When she finished, the government rested it's case and the PRH defense began. Their first testimony came from agent Jennifer Rudolph Walsh. The next testimony came from Gallery Books publisher Jennifer Bergstrom. She was followed by W.W. Norton and Co. editor-in-chief John Glusman.

 

Panzer says, " You'll have to go read the post to learn what they all said."

 

Note: This is a very, very long post. Bring a thermos of iced tea, a muffin and a brownie for today's reading selection.

 

To read the post tootle over to agents and publishers

DOJ v PRH: Brian Murray Still Wants S&S at HarperCollins - Publishers Weekly

Today, Panzer is bringing you the latest news from the Publishers Weekly site about the Department of Justice's (DOJ) lawsuit to stop the Penguin Random House (PRH) and Simon and Schuster merger (S&S).

The defense starts next.

John Maher's post is about HarperCollins CEO Brian Murray's testimony explaining how PRH obtained the right to buy/merge Simon and Schuster. An economist's testimony is also included.

Panzer says, "This little kitty wants to know, 'How big is too big?'"

Note: This is a long post. Bring a glass of iced tea and muffin for today's reading selection.

To read the post tootle over to More DOJ vs. PRH

DoJ v. PRH: All Our Coverage - Publishers Weekly

Today Panzer made a stop at the Publishers Weekly site. There he discovered a post about the Department of Justice's (DOJ) lawsuit against Penguin Random House (PRH) to stop the acquisition of Simon and Schuster.

 

It's humongous.

The post is a compilation of all the posts which have appeared on the Publishers Weekly site about the case. The posts contain information about what happened before the lawsuit was instituted and then the first week in court.

 

 Note: This is a very, very long post. Bring a thermos of iced tea, six muffins and three cookies (biscuits) for your reading adventure. If you plan to follow the links in the post, you'll need to decide what to bring to eat and drink.

 

To read the post tootle over to DoJ vs PRH

 

Publishers, Agencies Start Receiving Subpoenas as DOJ-PRH Case Ramps - Publishers Weekly

Today as Panzer was tootling around in the Catosphere he decided to make a stop at the Publishers Weekly site. With no digging at all in the posts there our illustrious kitty boy found one about the Department of Justice and the Penguin Random House court case. Panzer told you about the court case back in December.

Why 10 years?

According to the post by Rachel Deahl and Jim Milliot, subpoenas are being issued in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) court case to block Penguin Random House's (PRH) acquisition of publisher Simon and Schuster (SS). Publishers and literary agencies are receiving subpoenas from the DOJ, PRH and SS. While the DOJ is only asking for information from 2019 and forward, PRH and SS are in some instances asking for 10 years of information. Gathering the information is part of the Discovery Process to determine how much, if any, damage publishers and literary agents (authors) would suffer if the acquisition is allowed to proceed. Publishers who have received the subpoenas state it will be time consuming and expensive to comply.

Panzer says, "Hmm ... Let's see. ... PRH and SS want 10 years of their publisher competitors' publishing information. Of course, they say they won't look at it only their attorneys will."

Note: This is a long-medium length post. Bring a cup of cocoa and a muffin for today's reading.

To read the post tootle over to DOJ case against PRH

To read the previous post about the case tootle over to trial date"

Justice Department Sues to Block Penguin Random House Aquisition of S&S - Publishers Weekly

 Panzer was tootling around in the Catosphere when the Panzermobile was shaken by clapping and cheering coming from outside. Following all the noise took our adventuresome kitty boy to the Publishers Weekly site. There he found a post about the Penguin Random House acquisition of Simon and Simon was causing all the noise. Panzer has been telling you about the proposed acquisition and the opposition to it since it was announced last year.

According to the post by John Maher and Andrew Albanese with reporting by Jim Milliot, the United States Department of Justice has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to stop the acquisition of book publisher Simon and Schuster by Germany's Bartelsmann's book publisher Penguin Random House. In the suit the DOJ says if the acquisition were allowed to go through PRH could use its market dominance to control author incomes and books published. The post includes links to other posts with addition information about the acquisition.

This post was a lot of work.

Panzer says, "This little kitty thought since there was so much opposition to the acquisition that the Department of Justice would step in."

Note: This is a long post. Bring a thermos of tea and three muffins for your reading. If you plan to follow the links in the Publishers Weekly post, bring another thermos of tea, eight more muffins and your sleeping bag for a nap in the middle.

To read the post tootle over to Dept. of Justice and PRH

To read Panzer's original post about the acquisition tootle over to Germany's Bertelsmann

To read Panzer's post about the Authors Guild's stand on the acquisition tootle over to Authors Guild 

CMA launches merger investigation into PRH and S&S deal - The Bookseller

 Panzer was cleaning out the glove box in the Panzermobile when he found a wadded up post in there. Smoothing it out, he discovered it was a post from The Bookseller site about an investigation into the merger of book publishers PRH and S and S. A couple of months ago Panzer told you about the Authors Guild's requested investigation of the merger by the U.S. Department of Justice.

 

According to the post by Mark Chandler at The Bookseller site, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is looking into the Penguin Random House (PRH) merger with Simon and Schuster (SS). This investigation would be similar to the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) investigation. Both would be looking to see if the merger would in any way stifle competition in the book publishing industry.

 

I'm not getting down.

Panzer says, "Hmm ... It looks like there will be one really big pit bull and a bunch of teacup poodles left."

 

Note: This is a long-medium length post. Bring a large mug of cocoa and a muffin for today's reading selection.

 

To read the post tootle over to merger investigation

To read Panzer's earlier post tootle over to Authors Guild 

Apple Fires Back at DoJ - Publishers' Weekly

Let me out of here.

Panzer was tootling around in the Catosphere when he noticed a pungent smell coming through the ventilation system. Following the odor took our fearless kitty pilot to the Publishers' Weekly site. Since a cat's nose can smell things seven times stronger than a human's nose, our kitty boy put on a gas mask before he left the Panzermobile. But even wearing the mask without any digging at all he discovered a post about the ongoing saga of Apple's price-fixing conviction.
 
According to the post by Andrew Albanese, Apple's attorneys have filed more paperwork (called a brief) with the Supreme Court again rebutting their original conviction of ebook price-fixing. After reviewing Apple's and the DoJ's briefs and the amicus briefs from seven of Apple's supporters, the Supreme Court will decide if they will accept Apple's appeal for consideration. If the Supreme Court does not agree to review the case, Apple's court fight should be over. However, if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the Court could rule in favor of Apple (basically "not guilty of price-fixing"), in favor of the DoJ (basically "guilty of price-fixing") or send the case back to the lower courts to re-do (basically "a do-over").

Panzer says, "Note on the legal stuff: Look ... I'm a cat, not an attorney ... So all that human legal mumbo jumbo is just to best of what my kitty brain understands. Don't go into court and quote me ... Unless it's a cat court of course."

Note: One cup of tea for today's reading.

To read the post, tootle over to Apple

Douglas Preston and Authors United vs. Amazon Continues

Panzer was trying to take a nap this afternoon when he got bounced out of his cat bed by some whiny noises coming from the Catosphere. Against his better judgement my poor tired kitty boy took the Panzermobile out to track down the crying. It didn't take long to find the source of all the tears in a post by Judith Rosen at the Publishers' Weekly site.

It turns out best selling author Douglas Preston and his Authors United group is still  chasing after Amazon and nipping at its heels. Mr. Preston isn't satisfied with Hachette and Amazon's contract agreement and hopes to hamstring the bookseller by siccing the U.S. Department of Justice on it.

Why?

Amazon is too big. They sell too many books.

And ...

And this is the really big reason ...

Really? You don't know how?

Amazon doesn't treat books as authors' children ... they treat books as commodities, like TVs and diapers. According to Amazon, books don't need to have their noses wiped and their diapers changed. Books are to be sold.

Panzer says, "Um, Mr. Preston, apparently that's one of the big differences between cats and humans. Cats know where babies come from and it's not from pushing keys on a keyboard."

To read the full post, tootle over to Douglas Preston