Some people have had issues accessing the Lightshed Partners piece on Live Nation I referenced in the prior e-mail. Brandon Ross of Lightshed has given me permission to post the piece.<\/p>\n
————————-<\/p>\n
“LYV Breakup Could Be Off the Table Following Summary Judgment Ruling”<\/p>\n
Southern District of New York Judge Arun Subramanian ruled today on Live Nation\u2019s motion for summary judgment in the DOJ case against the company. He granted LYV\u2019s motion in part, most notably dismissing the claim that Live Nation\u2019s promotion and booking business constitutes a monopoly. He also dismissed the allegation that Ticketmaster is a consumer-facing monopoly. However, portions of the case will proceed to trial, including DOJ claims that Ticketmaster is a venue-facing monopoly and a challenge to Live Nation\u2019s policy of keeping amphitheaters exclusive to Live Nation promotion. We believe the practical reality is that a breakup of Live Nation\/Ticketmaster is now off the table, without Live Nation promotion being tried. Dan Wall, LYV\u2019s Executive Vice President, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs, echoed this view on X.<\/p>\n
The first major surviving claim involves the alleged tying of Live Nation promotion to Live Nation-owned amphitheaters. This is not surprising given the back-and-forth during hearings. We also believe this claim is financially immaterial even in a downside scenario. Amphitheater per caps now approach $50 and carry very high margins. Incremental shows generate meaningful contribution profit, and the revenue opportunity from increased utilization likely exceeds any strategic benefit of limiting third-party promoters. In our view, opening amphitheaters more broadly could actually be positive to Live Nation\u2019s revenue and AOI.<\/p>\n
A more significant surviving claim concerns the DOJ\u2019s allegation that Ticketmaster monopolizes ticketing services for major concert venues, particularly through long-term exclusive agreements, Of note it has been as has been standard practice in U.S. primary ticketing since the 1980s for most venues to enter into exclusive contracts. Nonetheless, the government\u2019s market definition focuses on larger venues (8,000+ capacity, excluding stadiums) hosting national touring artists. Live Nation challenged this definition, but that issue now proceeds to trial. If Live Nation were to lose on this claim, the range of potential remedies would likely be behavioral rather than structural. Possible outcomes could include shorter contract durations, mandatory non-exclusive options, or carve-outs to exclusivity provisions.<\/p>\n
Tomorrow, Judge Subramanian will rule on the admissibility of expert testimony in the states\u2019 parallel case, including the damages expert. If the damages expert is excluded on summary judgment, the case would likely proceed as a bench trial rather than a jury trial, with the judge deciding both liability and remedy. Not having a jury trial would be a positive outcome for LYV. In any event, the judge will ultimately determine the remedy. A settlement remains possible.<\/p>\n
LYV Breakup Could Be Off the Table Following Summary Judgment Ruling<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n