AT&T cleared to buy Time Warner
Paves way for creation of media giant
WASHINGTON • AT&T Inc. was cleared by a judge to take over Time Warner Inc. in an US$85 billion deal that the mobile-phone giant says will fuel its evolution into a media powerhouse that can go head-to-head with Netflix Inc. and Amazon.com Inc.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon on Tuesday rejected the Justice Department’s request for an order blocking the Time Warner acquisition, saying the government failed to make its case that the combination would lead to higher prices for pay-TV subscribers. The judge put no conditions on the deal.
Time Warner gained as much as 5.8 per cent in afterhours trading, while AT&T fell as much as 3.9 per cent.
After nearly two years, AT&T is on the cusp of completing its acquisition of Time Warner, a deal it struck in a bid to become an entertainment giant that can feed Time Warner programming like HBO and CNN to its 119 million mobile, internet and video customers.
“We think the evidence throughout the trial was quite clear and we’re very pleased that the court saw it the same way,” said Daniel Petrocelli, AT&T’s lawyer. The company said in a statement that it plans to complete the takeover on or before June 20.
The Justice Department has six days to ask the judge to stay his ruling, though Leon said he hoped the government would have the “good judgment, wisdom and the courage” not to do so.
The three adults brought a court proceeding asking to be recognized as the parents of A. after the Newfoundland Ministry of Service refused to designate them as parents, saying that the Vital Statistics Act allowed only two parents on the child’s birth certificate.
In his ruling, Fowler observed that “the child, A., has been born into what is believed to be a stable and loving family relationship which, although outside the traditional family model, provides a safe and nurturing environment . ... I can find nothing to disparage that relationship from the best interests of the child’s point of view . ... To deny this child the dual paternal parentage would not be in his best interests. It must be remembered that this is about the best interests of the child and not the best interest of the parents.”
Polyamorous relationships are varied, and may involve a cohabiting group of three or more consenting, informed adults. U.S. research suggests that one in 500 Americans are polyamorous, and that more than 500,000 polyamorists live openly in these relationships.
Unlike bigamy and polygamy — which involve marriage ceremonies between the participating parties — polyamorous relationships are not prohibited by the Criminal Code.
Both Canada and the U.S. have innumerable organizations supporting or connecting people in polyamorous relationships: there are 36 in Quebec and Ontario, and 22 in British Columbia alone.
John-Paul E. Boyd, who has written about the polyamorous community in Canada for the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family, has defined polyamory as “multiple romantic relationships carried out with certain assumptions and ideals: of honesty and clear agreements among partners, mutual good will and respect among all involved, intense interpersonal communication, and high ethical standards.”
Boyd’s research found that people who identify as polyamorous, typically “reject the view that sexual and relationship exclusivity is necessary for deep, committed, longterm relationships with more than one person on mutually agreeable grounds, with sex as only one aspect of their relationships.”
The legal issues arising from polyamorous relationships are new, as Justice Fowler observed. “There is little doubt that the legislation in this Province has not addressed the circumstance of a polyamorous family relationship as is before this Court, and that what is contemplated by the Children’s Law Act is that there be one male and one female person acting in the role of parents to a child.”
In the Act, there is no reference “which would lead one to believe that the legislation in this province considered a polyamorous relationship where more than one man is seeking to be recognized in law as the father (parent) of the child born of that relationship.”
Justice Fowler relied heavily on the 2007 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, A.(A.) v B.(B)., in which a lesbian couple sought to have both women legally recognized as the mothers of a child.
In A.(A.), Justice Mark Rosenberg found that there was a legislative gap that precluded allowing a child to have two mothers, and found that “there is nothing in the legislative history of the Children’s Law Reform Act to suggest that the Legislature made a deliberate policy choice to exclude the children of lesbian mothers from the advantages of equality of status accorded to other children under the Act.”
Canadian law has changed in recent decades, adapting to new societal norms. In 1995, Ontario was the first province to recognize samesex adoptions. In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized same-sex marriage. All of these legal changes, however, have maintained the traditional notion of coupledom; to accommodate same-sex couples, the legislative changes largely needed only to tinker with the definition of “spouse.”
There is little doubt the recognition of three parents will be the least legally complex aspect of polyamorous relationships. Family law legislation across Canada now recognizes only one spouse’s obligation to the other. Current legislation will be difficult to apply in polyamorous relationships, especially if new partners become involved in the relationship and the relationship later breaks down.
For example, the length of time spousal support is paid is usually related to the length of the relationship. In many provinces, the increase in the value of all property, (including assets such as pensions) is shared between the date of a couple’s marriage and the date of separation.
How those concepts will be imported where three, four people or more people are involved and have entered the relationship at different times, will be a complicated business indeed.