Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Justice Dept vs. Cinemark/RAVE

This is topic Justice Dept vs. Cinemark/RAVE in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006853

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-21-2013, 05:58 PM:

According to the Louisville newspaper, the Courier Journal: "Cinemark will have to sell Stoneybrook if it buys Rave. Cinemark will have 90 days to sell off one theatre each in Kentucky , New jersey, and Texas." Article dated May 21, 2013.

Paramount Consent Decree is the basis of law for antitrust in the entertainment industry. Louis

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-21-2013, 06:20 PM:

Wow. Who brought that to the Gov't's attention?

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-22-2013, 10:20 AM:

> Paramount Consent Decree is the basis of law for antitrust in the entertainment industry.

I am confused. It is my understanding that the Paramount Consent Decree, like all consent decrees, applies only to the parties that agreed to them. A consent decree is not a law or a court judgement, it is an agreement between parties to terms that will end a court action.

Neither Cinemark nor Rave is a party to the Paramount Consent Decree, so they should not subject to them. Further, the Paramount consent decree covered movie studios owning theatres and theatre circuits owning studios. It would not relate to this merger in any event.

This seems to be a straight anti-trust issue, where the merged company would control all the venues in a given market.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-22-2013, 03:21 PM:

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
This seems to be a straight anti-trust issue, where the merged company would control all the venues in a given market.

Or at least in a given portion/zone of a market.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-22-2013, 06:23 PM:

There is a percentage rule, (value unknown to me) that if you exceed, you will sell off to get under. In Cincinnati, the Rave purchase of National Amusements put them over. National retained Showcase Cinemas, Springdale. Louis

Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 05-22-2013, 09:05 PM:

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
I am confused. It is my understanding that the Paramount Consent Decree, like all consent decrees, applies only to the parties that agreed to them. A consent decree is not a law or a court judgement, it is an agreement between parties to terms that will end a court action.

Neither Cinemark nor Rave is a party to the Paramount Consent Decree, so they should not subject to them. Further, the Paramount consent decree covered movie studios owning theatres and theatre circuits owning studios. It would not relate to this merger in any event

The consent decree is the MODEL for how the courts have handled anti-trust issues with regard to cinemas. It's not that these other cinemas are beholden to the Paramount consent decree, it is just that the "stare decisis" by which the courts have typically abided comes largely out of the Paramount case.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-23-2013, 09:28 AM:

The business has changed so much since the 1950's that the consent decrees no longer have much relevance. In fact, the Justice Department has been letting signatories out of the decrees upon request, as they did for Sony/Columbia Pictures so that they could buy Cineplex Odeon (USA), and again for Loews Theatres so they could be acquired by Sony Theatres, which was subsequently renamed back to Loews Theatres before AMC acquired them.

The point being that the consent decrees were the product of a time when most theatres were single screen and only played films of their respective studios, denying independents a venue for their product. Today, with most locations having more screens than there are studios, this is no longer the case.