Mergers and acquisitions activity may be predicted to increase over the next year but in the short-term it may provide another reason for deals to be postponed. Just ask General Motors.

Other deals news in the media on Thursday:

* An investment company controlled by the Shanghai city government will own a majority stake in a planned Disney theme park that won key government approval this week, the People’s Daily reported on Thursday.

* Scripps Networks (SNI.N) is close to an agreement to acquire a majority stake in the Travel Channel from Cox Communications, the nation’s third-largest cable company, the DealBook blog reported on Wednesday.

* British real estate developer Quintain Estates and Development (QED.L) is set to launch a 180 million pound ($296.5 million) rights issue on Thursday, the Daily Telegraph reported.

* In the latest twist in a takeover battle running since January, Canadian fertilizer maker Agrium Inc (AGU.TO) is planning to make a final offer for CF Industries Holdings Inc (CF.N) on Thursday, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people familiar with the matter.

 The idea that financial firms whose collapse could create trigger broad economic problems should come up with their own living wills has been gaining traction lately.

After the confused attempt to bailout or save Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and AIG in 2008, some regulators have been suggesting that banks and important financial institutions plan for their own demise.

A senior Canadian finance official said on Wednesday that the Group of Twenty (G20) are thinking about the idea as a way to avoid financial meltdowns.

 Even one of the top financial advisors unwinding Lehman Brothers’ has said a living will would have helped.

But is it the banks or the regulators that oversee them who should come up with these living wills? Should they come up with them together? Who would have better incentives to prevent systemic issues?

The issue was discussed on Wednesday at a Practising Law Institute conference in New York by  H. Rodgin Cohen, a mergers & acquisitions lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell in New York, who personally worked on deals like JPMorgan-Bear Stearns, Barclays-Lehman, and Wells Fargo-Wachovia last year.  Here is what Cohen told the conference:    

“I do think we have it somewhat backwards on all this emphasis on the living wills for these institutions. Actually the living will isn’t the institution’s responsibility. It is truly surprising to me that sitting in a locked desk somewhere there isn’t a living will which the relevant supervisor has for each institution. Clearly that did not exist last year, and hopefully we have it today. “

So who should come up with these “living wills”? Banks or Regulators or both?

Deloitte’s Energy and Resources group says M&A in these sectors could return to “pre-recession levels” by 2011. In particular, it says the rise of big state-backed rivals is putting pressure on large mining groups, in much the same way Big Oil came under pressure a decade ago. From the group’s 2010 predictions report:

“During 2009, mining M&A has been led by the junior or mid-level players, which have to consolidate if they want to stay alive and not be swallowed up by the bigger firms. Indeed, many anticipate that the mining sector will continue to consolidate until there are a handful of supermajor firms like there are in oil & gas.

“Large mining companies will increasingly need to buy rivals and subsequently sell off assets to gain synergies if they are to compete with state-owned companies, particularly those from China.

“These conditions mirror those encountered by large oil companies a decade ago, when massive consolidation swept the industry in response to the rise of national oil companies (NOCs) such as Saudi Aramco, Gazprom,Petrobras, and others.”

But what are the deals? Anglo-Xstrata is off (for now), as is BHP-Rio. Maybe it’s just a matter of time. Anyhow, in oil and power the team say:

“Apart from the oil supermajors, consolidation will be likely across sectors. Oil & gas independents will be possible targets for reserve-hungry majors but also potential beneficiaries of portfolio rationalization among larger players.

“Power and utility companies will likely look at M&A activity to bolster their strategic positions, provide access to markets, and to raise cash for capital improvements.”

Get the full report here.

“You wonder if your chance will ever come or if you’re stuck in square one.”

When I heard about GM keeping its Opel unit, that line from a song by British band Coldplay came to my mind. After all those long nights of paltering on job cuts and money, GM was having a change of heart.

The sale of Opel to a group led by Canadian car parts maker Magna — announced in September — was widely considered a done deal. Turns out, it was less done than more. Citing improving business conditions and the strategic importance of Opel, GM decided it would be better to alienate the German government that provided it with a loan to sweeten the sale of the unit to Magna than to lose the business. GM said it would repay the rest of the 1.5 billion euro ($2.2 billion) bridge loan if Berlin requested. The loan helped save Opel from being sucked into GM’s dip into bankruptcy this year.

“This is a black day for Opel,” an employee, who declined to be named, said in front of the company’s headquarters in Ruesselsheim, near Frankfurt. German government officials were said to be seething, as were the Russians, who’s Sperbank had tied up with Magna to do the deal. But not all of Europe was angry. British unions welcomed the news. “It is fantastic news for the UK and right that General Motors does not break up its family and instead retains ownership of (Opel sister brand) Vauxhall,” said Tony Woodley, joint general secretary of the Unite union.

Analysts say big questions remain about what GM will do with Opel when consumer-friendly car scrapping schemes expire. At that point, will it be back to square one?