{"id":1007112,"date":"2026-08-17T19:41:16","date_gmt":"2026-08-17T19:41:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/1007112\/"},"modified":"2026-08-17T19:41:16","modified_gmt":"2026-08-17T19:41:16","slug":"paramount-requests-states-wga-post-1-88b-bond-to-cover-financial-losses-while-warner-bros-merger-remains-on-hold","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/1007112\/","title":{"rendered":"Paramount Requests States, WGA Post $1.88B Bond to Cover Financial Losses While Warner Bros. Merger Remains on Hold"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\tDavid Ellison\u2019s Paramount Skydance<\/a> asked the judge overseeing the antitrust lawsuits filed by 12 states and the WGA<\/a> to force the plaintiffs to pony up a whopping $1.88 billion bond to cover the company\u2019s losses related to the delay in its merger with Warner Bros. Discovery<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n\tParamount filed the motion Monday with Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin, who has scheduled a trial start date<\/a> of March 2, 2027. The $1.88 billion would be payable to Paramount in the event Paramount prevails in the antitrust litigation. <\/p>\n

\n\tParamount \u201chereby moves this Court for an order modifying the Stipulation and Order Not to Close, Dkt.170, to require dissolution of that order unless Plaintiffs post a $1,884,726,092.73 bond by September 30, 2026,\u201d the company said in the motion. The company said the court-approved order not to close the Paramount-Warner Bros.<\/a> deal \u2014 which Paramount agreed to \u2014 \u201cinflicts substantial costs on Paramount, which is otherwise poised to consummate the merger.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIn a statement to Variety, a representative for Paramount said, \u201cToday, Paramount requested that the court enforce the statutory requirement that the plaintiffs post a bond in connection with their pending litigation, which blocks us from closing our merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tVariety has reached out to the California Department of Justice and the WGA for comment on Paramount\u2019s motion.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe 12 states, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, sued in federal court in July to block Paramount\u2019s $111 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery. The states allege the proposed merger will illegally reduce competition in the markets for theatrical and blockbuster films, as well as basic cable TV. The Writers Guild of America filed its own suit, arguing that the deal also will illegally reduce the number of buyers for writers\u2019 work. <\/p>\n

\n\tParamount agreed to put the merger on hold until the trial concludes<\/a>, after Martinez-Olguin granted a temporary restraining order to pause the deal for 28 days. In granting the TRO, Martinez-Olguin waived a bond requirement because \u201cPlaintiffs have demonstrated that Plaintiff States bring suit to enforce important public interests.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe antitrust lawsuit by the states and WGA are the only barriers remaining to the closing of the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger, which has received regulatory clearances from 68 jurisdictions<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n\tParamount execs were confident its deal for Warner Bros. would easily clear regulatory hurdles by the third quarter of 2026. Indeed, as a sweetener in its bid for WBD, Paramount added a provision that requires it to pay Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders a \u201cticking fee\u201d amounting to roughly $7 million per day, starting Oct. 1, until the merger closes. That would total $1.3 billion by the time the trial is scheduled to conclude in March 2027.<\/p>\n

\n\tParamount is seeking a bond \u201cbased on the straightforward calculation of the maximum potential ticking consideration and financing costs from this litigation,\u201d the company spokesperson said. \u201cBut these are not the only costs of delay. By virtue of what will be at least an eight-month delay in closing, there will be no integration and no ramped-up investment in content, production and creative talent by the combined company. Of course, in addition, employees of both Paramount and WBD are also harmed by the uncertainties caused by the delay.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tBased on the number of Warner Bros. shares outstanding, the ticking fee Paramount is obligated to pay will be approximately $6.97 million per day, or $1.69 billion for the period from Oct. 1, 2026, to June 1, 2027, per Paramount\u2019s motion. In addition, Paramount would incur $190 million in \u201cincremental financing costs that arise from delaying consummation of the merger until June 2027,\u201d the company said in the filing.<\/p>\n

\n\tAccording to Paramount, the Clayton Act \u2014 the federal antitrust law on which the lawsuits by the states and WGA are based \u2014 and other federal laws \u201cexpressly provide that plaintiffs are required to post a bond covering the potential harm from halting a transaction to litigate, so that if they lose, the injured party has a source of recovery for the damage caused.\u201d In the case of the Paramount-WBD merger, \u201cevery month of delay carries substantial and quantifiable financial consequences,\u201d the company rep said.<\/p>\n

\n\tCalifornia\u2019s Bonta has said repeatedly that the states are focused on winning at trial rather than reaching a settlement, and that Paramount\u2019s proposed conditions do not go nearly far enough to address the anticompetitive concerns raised in the lawsuit. Bonta has argued that \u201cbehavioral\u201d remedies \u2014 such as promises to release a certain number of films \u2014 have proven ineffectual in the past, and has said that he is focused on structural changes that Paramount has been unwilling to make.<\/p>\n

\n\tBonta, asked about a potential settlement Monday on MS Now\u2019s \u201cState of Play With Peter Alexander,\u201d<\/a> said that \u201cwe prefer to resolve disputes in the boardroom, not the courtroom, if possible.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cAnd so coming to the table in this case in good faith to sincerely discuss how to resolve this case has always been on the table and remains on the table,\u201d Bonta said. \u201cBut Paramount, Warner Bros. breaking the law and expecting us to let them get away with it, that is not on the table and never will be on the table. And that\u2019s essentially what they\u2019re asking for right now.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIn Paramount\u2019s statement Monday, the company spokesperson said, \u201cWe remain confident that plaintiffs\u2019 case is without merit and will defend our pro-competitive transaction in court. We look forward to closing this transaction and delivering its benefits to consumers and entertainment industry workers in California, the United States and around the world.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tSeparately, eight state attorneys general, including California\u2019s Bonta, in March sued to block Nexstar\u2019s acquisition of TV station group rival Tegna<\/a> on antitrust grounds. In April,\u00a0they won a court preliminary injunction halting the companies from continuing with their merger<\/a>\u00a0integration. U.S. District Court Judge Troy Nunley of California\u2019s Eastern District, in his ruling granting the preliminary injunction, noted that courts have \u201cissued bonds in nominal amounts where a state is advocating for the public interest.\u201d He wrote that \u201cthe Court finds it appropriate to require Plaintiffs to post a nominal bond in the amount of $10,000.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"David Ellison\u2019s Paramount Skydance asked the judge overseeing the antitrust lawsuits filed by 12 states and the WGA…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":604158,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[9],"tags":[171,77684,374276,67,132,68,27281,75576],"class_list":["post-1007112","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-entertainment","tag-entertainment","tag-paramount-skydance","tag-paramount-warner-bros","tag-united-states","tag-unitedstates","tag-us","tag-warner-bros-discovery","tag-wga"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/117112555815973470","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1007112","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1007112"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1007112\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/604158"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1007112"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1007112"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1007112"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}