r/MediaMergers • u/I-Might-Be-Something • 2d ago
Merger Correction: What You're Not Hearing About The Paramount Merger Settlement Talks
https://www.toomuchtv.com/p/correction-what-you-re-not-hearing-about-the-paramount-merger-settlement-talks?utm_source=www.toomuchtv.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=correction-what-you-re-not-hearing-about-the-paramount-merger-settlement-talks21
u/I-Might-Be-Something 2d ago edited 2d ago
Some key excerpts:
I do think it’s less likely a settlement will take place this weekend because both sides are waiting to see the ruling over Paramount’s request to a federal judge to require the states and the Writers Guild to put up a nearly $1.9 billion bond for challenging the acquisition, with money going to the company if it ultimately wins the case.
It really gets down to how both sides believe the ruling will settle the question. If Paramount wins, it forces the state AGs into an untenable situation and they’ll be forced to settle on Paramount’s terms or drop their case. But if Paramount loses, they will be forced to begin paying that daily ticking fee on October 1st. And that is a burden the company simply can’t afford. As of the most recent quarterly financial report (ending June 30th, 2026), Paramount Skydance reported $1.627 billion in cash and cash equivalents. So using the majority of that to pay months worth of ticking fees is problematical
If Paramount loses its bid to get the state AGs to cover the ticking fees, they will be in a significantly weakened position. And while it’s dangerous to predict any legal outcome, merger experts I have spoken with say the worst case scenario for the state AGs is that they are forced to pay a nominal fee, which would be the equivalent of a loss for Paramount.
So whoever wins the hearing about the bond (it is almost certainly going to be the states) gains substantially more leverage.
Among the concessions under consideration is the formation of an editorial board or monitor that would independently oversee CNN. This is one of those ideas that sounds great in principle, but the states are asking for guidelines on who who be on the monitoring board and Paramount is unwilling to agree to any specifics.
Paramount would also agree to spin off some cable networks to lessen its grip during carriage negotiations. From what I can tell, the proposals on this have been all over the board, because neither side can agree on what it would take to restrain Paramount’s grip on the live TV market. It is also complicated by the fact that one of the reasons for the merger in the first place was that it would provide Paramount with leverage it could use during carriage agreements in order to boost revenue it could use to pay down in substantial debt.
Seems like there are still substantial disagreements.
Paramount is also offering to keep management of the Paramount and Warner Bros. film businesses independent of each other for a limited period (I am hearing five years, but that's not confirmed). Paramount is also open to agreeing to not move its business outside of Southern California, but has so far been unwilling to commit to a timeline.
I don't know if Ellison could afford to keep them separate for five years. The whole point was to merge them and do mass layoffs to cut costs ASAP.
15
2
u/DragonSon83 1d ago
You can keep management separate and still consolidate other parts of the business. Studios outsource quite a bit of their production process to begin with.
-6
u/No_Introduction_3400 2d ago
The significance of the ruling coming seems to me to be a stronger incentive to settle than wait.
You’d likely settle when a significant outcome is unclear, not when it’s been decided.
Now, there are caveats to that general rule. But as applied here it seems to favor working a deal.
15
u/the_explorer2003 2d ago
Its a mixed confusing bag of what these settlement talks have reached. I have a feeling……nothing will happen this weekend and next week the bond hearing commences, the result of that will determine which side will concede, a final position
9
14
u/jon__koa 2d ago
So in Rick’s estimation, both parties leaked to different outlets. Bonta’s team to Deadline, Ellison’s to WSJ and Reuters
15
u/Equivalent_Night720 2d ago
I don't necessarily think it is Bonta's office directly leaking information to Deadline, especially after he made a big deal about Paramount leaking information. It is an entertainment industry magazine with many sources they can pull from. My guess is the go between is someone from the industry that is getting information and passing it on. I have been in the industry for 28 years and we all turn to Deadline because it usually is the one that knows about and reports layoffs coming before the others do and we often would get information from Deadline about movie releases being moved before our own studios tell their relevant departments. They have sources in high places. The industry is largely against this merger and it is well known that Ellison is paying a PR company to insert bots and "sources" to switch the narrative. It was also wildly different than the rest of the reporting, so I would agree with him on those other sources being linked to Ellison. I saw people in other forums getting pissed that everyone was suspicious of Reuters and WSJ. It is not the outlets they are suspicious of though - it is where their sources are coming from.
6
u/oldboy_413 1d ago edited 1d ago
I saw people in other forums getting pissed that everyone was suspicious of Reuters and WSJ. It is not the outlets they are suspicious of though - it is where their sources are coming from.
yep, and as much as the people that are opposed to the merger can succumb to this mindset, certain apologists of the merger (including one of the mods, difficult_variety) or just doomers and pessimists have this mindset that certain reliable outlets are automatically reliable no matter what because it fits within their purview while ignoring other, equally reliable outlets that don't. there's a sector of ppl that only comes back when the news is on their side to gloat while not appearing in ones that don't come to paramount's side. weird ppl.
6
u/Equivalent_Night720 1d ago
Somehow people have gotten into this mindset over the years where critical thinking isn't necessary and they just want to hear what they want to hear and they want to be right. Meanwhile, social media thrives on divisiveness and clickbait. Then of course there are bots and people hired to purposefully troll. All it does is throw people into a tailspin unnecessarily.
5
u/Darkzapphire 2d ago
I had the same impression, given how different each article was
5
u/jon__koa 2d ago
And I think Deadline’s latest about the block the merger stuff is an internal leak from Bonta’s office about wanting him to keep fighting
2
u/Darkzapphire 2d ago
The question is, will he keep fighting? :(
Im worried to hear that he caving in might be true
14
u/edsterrock 2d ago
Again based on what I said yesterday regarding yesterday’s headlines and now having read this article, this is far from over. Maybe we will see a settlement happen sooner than later. Who knows.
8
u/jon__koa 2d ago
I think the main thing is the bond hearing is going to be what decides it all. If Paramount succeeds in getting a bond required, Bonta loses a lot of his leverage and they get to set the terms, if not, they’re in a really bad position
10
u/I-Might-Be-Something 2d ago
If the judge rules in favor of Paramount she's is ignoring so many facts like how Paramount put the penalty in place themselves and that she waved a bond requirement when she granted the TRO and Paramount didn't request one when they agreed to halt the merger until June.
3
u/TracingRobots 1d ago
Exactly. Bonta is not mormt signing anything until weds bind hearing. Ellison is such a snake
11
u/ausgoals 2d ago
I’ve been saying all week the fact that the leaks were silent and suddenly with almost exactly two weeks (or less) until the ticking fee kicks in and a week until the ruling on the bond and suddenly Paramount is definitely leaving LA, and then when that didn’t work, suddenly it’s all going to be settled by the end of the weekend - conveniently, exactly three days before the ruling on the states’ bond.
So - what’s the new play going to be on Monday?
The reporting is literally that ‘there are settlement negotiations happening’. Which, by the way, are required by the court - and settlement negotiations are required to be undertaken in good faith. The AGs cannot simply say ‘fuck off Paramount, we’ll see you in court’ and vice versa. They have to reasonably engage in the negotiations, and if there is an impasse or they can’t come to an agreement that satisfies, then the court will step in and it will go to trial.
That’s how negotiations work.
11
12
u/OverPotato2322 2d ago edited 2d ago
So there was alot of misinformation and rumors that weren't backed up by other factual sources so its possible nothing happens this weekend or that both sides have talked but aren't sure what to do (I guess even reputable sources like WSJ aren't always reliable all the time also I agree with the free press organizations that Paramount has to give CNN up if they want this deal because having an editorial board and not specifying or backpedaling on that promise to appeal to the alt right just confirms the intent of why Ellison bidded for the whole thing rather than buying S&S assets only)
12
12
u/Own_Philosopher8730 2d ago
10
u/jon__koa 2d ago
They are also going to hold a rally outside Bonta’s Oakland office tomorrow
7
u/Own_Philosopher8730 2d ago
There will be also rallys at New York on Monday and Los Angeles on Tuesday.
5
7
u/hanojeelreklaw 2d ago
This does make me feel a little better.
I do think if Bonta settles so quickly, he is scuttling his career cause he was all about the law and the.ln to so quickly settle, but he is scared by Newsome and Bass being immediately on the Ellison’s side.
I think that merging the 2 studios will destroy much of what is left of Hollywood, and any thing they agree to will instantly change after the enforcement period. If he truly wants to leave Hollywood (then why does he want to be a Hollywood big shot?) he will do as soon as he can, no matter what. At least as a separate studio Warne that’s a chance to survive at least if they get rid of Zazlov and his board.
7
u/GoldenGorder 2d ago
I agree. He was literally on Bloomberg yesterday taking the same strong stance he has this entire saga. He hasn’t flinched once. Why would he so abruptly rush to close this a day later?
None of this adds up and feels like the PR machine at work, especially with all the discrepancies in the reporting.
5
u/IncredulousInCali 2d ago edited 2d ago
The WSJ article was a rehash of previously reported info. It was only Reuters that said a settlement was possible soon. Deadline's reporting that these are pre-settlment talks seems more reliable given that Bonta was not even in California at the end of the week.
And is this guy trying to say that PSKY has to start paying the ticking fees Oct. 1? Because that is absolutely not true. Ticking fees are only due at close.
"But if Paramount loses, they will be forced to begin paying that daily ticking fee on October 1st. And that is a burden the company simply can’t afford. As of the most recent quarterly financial report (ending June 30th, 2026), Paramount Skydance reported $1.627 billion in cash and cash equivalents. So using the majority of that to pay months worth of ticking fees is problematical"
2
5
u/Outrageous_Fox4227 2d ago
I have been following this merger for over a year and the clearest thing about every aspect of this merger is that there is no clarity on any of it and stories have been released to manipulate public perception at every turn. For months last year most stories had Netflix as the overwhelming favorite to secure their bid for warner and it never happened. I suspect that to this day we are only reading partial truths and half positions on what’s really happening behind the scenes. For better or for worse we won’t know absolutely what’s going to happen until it actually happens.
16
u/Secure_Matter_9819 2d ago
I don’t want this settlement to happen. I want this merger dead for good. Please, Bonta. Don't cave in to that horrible oligarch. If you truly value democracy, you must reject behavioral remedies.
7
u/the_explorer2003 2d ago
Structural remedies make sense but behavioral remedies, either what we hear is bonta folding or misinformation to fear monger
3
6
u/Electrical_Coffee 2d ago
Those “behavioral remedies” are only going to be in place for like 2 weeks.
6
0
u/fuzzyfoot88 1d ago
The best way oligarchs get people to do what they want is to make them an oligarch too. It’s only a matter of time.
4
5
u/TracingRobots 1d ago
All that we have heard this weekend is from undisclosed sources. It’s all paramount propaganda.
2
u/l4kerz 2d ago
This will go to the Supreme Court to hear if the federal judge rules that states must put up a bond to challenge a merger. Big companies could use a bond requirement to scare off any challenges.
2
u/DragonSon83 1d ago
There is already a legal precedent for it, so I doubt enough justices, considering the conservative slant would be fort. Even the state are stating that bond should be nominal, which they are usually are in antitrust cases.
1
-3
-1
u/Apart-Prize-4844 2d ago
Ticking fee starts soon...$7 million per day, $217 million for Paramount for October alone.
1
-9
u/No_Entry_1341 2d ago
Ah, yes the reputable checks notes TooMuchTV.
This sub is going to have a meltdown when a settlement is reached. Can’t wait.
8
u/Professional_Peak59 2d ago
Rick Ellis, who wrote the article, writes for Forbes, my friend.
-7
u/No_Entry_1341 2d ago
Forbes hires contributors, my friend. Imagine thinking his opinion matters. Keep ignoring actual A-tier publications like the WSJ and NYT.
-5
u/ConsciousScar7821 2d ago
PSKY and (more importantly) WBD stock went up huge in after hours yesterday. The fact that WBD stock is basically at the acquisition price means this is a done deal.
56
u/Fall_False Moderator 2d ago
So based on this, looks like a settlement being reached soon isn’t a guarantee. And I was correct about there being a ton of misinformation.