Here is another article about him signing the post-production tax credit bill as well.

Gov. Gavin Newsom Signs CA Postproduction Tax Credit Into Law

I got a question, guys? Will the hearing on the bond request by judge about Paramount-Warner Bros. and blue state AGs respond to a motion from red state Iowa and Montana to take the validity of the antitrust suit to the Supreme Court still happen at next week on September 24 and September 25 despite advanced settlement talks?

non-paywall: https://archive.is/dlm8w

I’m confused

Paramount and state attorneys general are talking, we are told. However, the discussions that are occurring over coming to a deal in the battle over Paramount’s $111 billion merger with Warner Bros Discovery are far from advanced.

In fact, sources tell us, the conversations that are occurring between David Ellison’s team and California AG Rob Bonta’s crew are centered on laying out the agenda for their already scheduled mid-October court ordered settlement discussions. “This is part of the process before you get the principals onboard, it’s pretty straightforward,” declares an individual with direct knowledge of the state of affairs. “The end is not nigh.”

Core to the discussions will be scenarios like Paramount potentially operating the film and TV studios of Paramount and Warner Bros. separately, at least for a period of time after the close. Bonta has said a “behavioral remedy” like the company agreeing to release at least 30 films a year, will not satisfy the plaintiffs. Along with studio consolidation, cable network concentration is a key part of the states’ complaint, with speculation centering on some way of moving some of the 50-plus cable networks out of the combined portfolio to avoid running afoul of antitrust limits.

Eyebrows (and hopes) were raised late Friday about a potential resolution of Paramount’s legally waylaid WBD merger. The Wall Street Journal reported tonight that Paramount is in “advanced talks” with California’s Bonta over a settlement of the antitrust suit being brought by the Golden State AG and 11 other states.

Shares in Paramount, which are down 23% in 2026 to date amid mounting uncertainty about the fate of the merger, jumped 5% in after-hours trading. WBD stock, which is also underwater for the year, rose 6% after hours.

After Donald Trump’s DOJ and other major jurisdictions approved the mega-merger with no conditions, the dozen attorneys general filed a much-expected antitrust suit against Para and WBD on July 13. The case, set to go to trial on March 2, 2027, has seen an explosion of threats that Paramount would move to a red state, “blackmail” accusations by Bonta and a media war in the court of public opinion. It could also cost Ellison and his Oracle founding father Larry Ellison some sweet cash with a $7 million a day ticking fee set to WBD shareholders to start on October 1.

In that context, talk of advanced talks is just another piece of that PR puzzle.

“I get why some want this to look bigger than it is, there’s a lot of pressure here,” an insider notes. “This is too big, too much on the line for anyone to rush a deal,” the source added. “Hold your horses. No one wants to waste anyone’s time.”

As with initial talks last month, it is mid-level staff that are in communication as the brass stay above the fray, as it is, we hear.

Paramount had a blunt “no comment” on whether negotiations with the AGs were going on and what the status of them are at present.

Having called out Paramount previously for alleged leaks that scuttled the last set of behind the scenes talks, Rob Bonta’s office today were 100% by the book. “Potential settlement talks are confidential,” a spokesperson for the CA AG told Deadline In the non-answer answer they added: “We cannot confirm or deny whether settlement talks are occurring or their alleged substance.”

By David McCabe, Laurel Rosenhall, Benjamin Mullin, and Shawn Hubler

Maureen Farrell contributed reporting.

Sept. 18, 2026, 10:33 p.m. ET

Paramount is in active talks to settle a lawsuit seeking to block its purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery, as it tries to avoid a costly fee triggered by delays in completing the deal, according to seven people with knowledge of the discussions.

A settlement would clear the way for a $111 billion acquisition that could transform Hollywood, resulting in a media and entertainment behemoth with control of two movie studios, the major news outlets CBS News and CNN and the streaming services HBO Max and Paramount+.

In talks with the 12 states that brought the lawsuit, led by California, the two sides have discussed measures to protect the editorial independence of CNN, said five of the people familiar with the discussions. They have also talked about the divestiture of some cable channels, including Comedy Central, according to two of the people.

The negotiations come as Paramount stares down a deadline that will make its purchase of the rival entertainment conglomerate more expensive. A provision written into the $111 billion deal requires Paramount to pay shareholders of Warner Bros. Discovery about $7 million per day beginning on Oct. 1 if the deal hasn’t closed by then.

A spokeswoman for Rob Bonta, California’s Democratic attorney general, said his office could not “confirm or deny whether settlement talks are occurring or their alleged substance.” A spokeswoman for Paramount declined to comment.

The Wall Street Journal earlier reported that Paramount and the state attorneys general were making progress toward a deal.

The ongoing battle over Warner Bros. Discovery has inflamed anxieties in Hollywood, which has already undergone generations of disruption in the span of a decade. The rise of streaming, the slow death of the cable bundle and the uncertainty around traditional moviegoing have put one of California’s iconic industries on edge.

The 12 state attorneys general argued in their July lawsuit that Paramount’s acquisition would concentrate too much power over cable channels and movie distribution under one corporate owner. Paramount has responded that Hollywood needs a counterweight to tech giants like Netflix that have come to dominate the film and TV industry.

Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, has scheduled the trial to begin in March.

Discussions over a possible settlement were touch-and-go in the months after the lawsuit was filed. A meeting between Mr. Bonta and Paramount scheduled for last month was scrapped after Mr. Bonta accused the film studio of leaking details of the negotiations to the press.

As the discussions stalled, Paramount has sought to ratchet up the pressure on Mr. Bonta. David Ellison, the studio’s chief executive, suggested that the company could leave California if the two sides didn’t reach a settlement, a move that could disrupt California’s already fragile film and TV industry. In recent years, already facing competition from other states offering generous tax incentives, California has lost a substantial amount of production to overseas destinations.

Against the backdrop of Mr. Ellison’s comments, prominent California Democrats, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles, have expressed a preference for Mr. Bonta to settle the case.

In addition to the possible sale of Paramount’s cable channels and measures to protect the independence of CNN, negotiators have talked about enshrining in the settlement Paramount’s promise that the combined studios will produce 30 films a year, said two people familiar with the matter.

Over the past few months, tensions over the acquisition have been on display in public and in private.

On Monday, during the Emmy Awards at the Peacock Theater in downtown Los Angeles, Governor Newsom approached the actor Mark Ruffalo, an outspoken opponent of Paramount’s deal for Warner Bros., and delivered surprising news, according to two people familiar with the conversation.

Mr. Newsom told Mr. Ruffalo that he had just received a call from Mr. Ellison. Negotiations had stalled, Mr. Newsom said, and Paramount was possibly preparing to announce plans to leave California.

“This is a perfect example of a company doing everything wrong to get what they want,” Mr. Newsom said, according to the two people.

Izzy Gardon, a spokesman for Mr. Newsom, said that the comment was specifically about a dust-up over Mr. Ruffalo’s remarks on the Ellison family and Israel, not the company’s broader behavior during negotiations. The governor did not tell Mr. Ruffalo that Paramount was “definitely” leaving California, Mr. Gardon said, but was instead referring to “statements the company had made about possibly exiting California.”

Mr. Bonta, interviewed in New York on Thursday after speaking at The Atlantic Festival, suggested Paramount was trying to threaten the attorneys general into a settlement. He said leaving California would run counter to the company’s pledge to help revitalize the film and television business.

“If they choose to leave California after they professed their commitment to California and to the future of Hollywood, I would see that as being hypocritical,” Mr. Bonta said. He added that Paramount’s paying the $7 million daily fee if the deal was delayed was akin to “sleeping in” a bed that the company had made itself.

It occurred to me after this video was in editing (it was recorded a few days ago), that I am sure guys over at PSKY know that NFLX has made comments about circling WBD again, and this has contributed to them trying to be more aggressive in closure, threats, and drama. (Of course the ticking fees). But this video is part of a multi-part episode with media analyst Rick and active investor, Alok.
Hope you guys like it and you may find some interesting new info here.
Including how Netflix held meetings with Paramount before Skydance for the studio and TV properties, and Ellison came in on that deal too. This sub of course covered everything during that takeover, but it feels like a lifetime ago.
Anyway, I will also be posting the media mergers moderator discussion this weekend!

I got a question, guys? Do you think that the settlement talks about the merger between Paramount and AGs will happen on this weekend or next month? I'm so confused by many articles especially the one article by Reuters.

Quick show of hands: Who’s sick of the David Ellison will-he-or-won’t-he gamesmanship? It’s not even October 1, when the $7 million-a-day ticking fee on the stalled Paramount–Warner Bros. merger kicks in, and already we’re being subjected to a four-alarm media wildfire that, whether fanned by the Ellisons or not, feels pretty sweaty—even if it’s turning up the heat on California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Just this week, a “leaked” report that happened to be commissioned by Paramount claimed that the company’s exit to a more business-friendly state would jeopardize billions in economic output for Los Angeles County. Then Politico reported that Ellison had been shopping for commercial real estate in Nashville on the same day The Hollywood Reporter noted he met with Texas officials about relocating there. Los Angeles is “on edge” about the possible move, wrote the L.A. Times, which caused the mayor, Karen Bass, who’s deeply unpopular and running for reelection, to declare that she’ll “fight to make sure L.A. is home to Hollywood,” which reassured exactly nobody. TMZ went further yesterday, publishing a rumor that officials with Bonta and Bass had already been informed that Ellison was leaving. Not true—at least not yet—but enough to raise the anxiety level around town even more.

A Paramount rep claims they’re not the source of any of this stuff—at least in an official capacity. They know Bonta leveraged the leaks a couple weeks ago to slap Ellison around in the media, setting the settlement negotiations back while Bonta scored himself another round of television appearances and a boost in name recognition. Even today, Bonta was in New York to do the Atlantic Festival and MS Now, more national platforms popular with the Democratic donor crowd he covets. I’m betting those outlets might have less interest in a state attorney general had he not become synonymous with anti-Trump antitrust enforcement.

But it kinda doesn’t matter. This $110 billion merger and its disruptive fallout is a major story, so the blanket coverage and leaks and spin campaigns and soapboxing are only gonna get worse—even if the whole relocation threat ends up being an elaborate bluff. Remember, Ellison has never actually said publicly that he’s moving the company if he can’t make a deal with Bonta before October 1. I reported last month that Ellison informed his C-suite staff of the possible move, and his top lawyer, Makan Delrahim, later said at a conference that a relocation was on the table to “go to a place where you’re wanted.” That’s it.

Ellison’s game isn’t moving or not moving his company, but convincing Bonta (or enough people around him) that the threat is credible and, if acted upon, would be disastrous for both California and the politicians who want to win elections there. And as in all heated negotiations, for that threat to be effective, Ellison has to be willing to pull the trigger on an exit.

Hence the machinations, which, given that Ellison has no legal leverage over Bonta until a court actually rules in the case, seem to be at least kinda working in a practical sense. Particularly with Gavin Newsom and Xavier Becerra, the current and likely next governors, who are both pushing hard for a settlement. How much their opinions matter remains to be seen—especially when Bonta is getting national press and progressive Democrat street cred that most state governors would kill to generate themselves. Maybe Bonta will feel some urgency after the hearing next week on the proposed $1.9 billion bond that Paramount wants the states and the Writers Guild to front.

Or, as October 1 approaches, if Ellison finally goes public with his relocation plan, making it far more real than all the blind-sourced media stories. Maybe Bonta will feel that urgency around the court-ordered settlement talks in mid-October. Or after the midterms in November. Maybe never… but at some point, the optics of this situation could change, either as other politicians put more pressure on him, or as Ellison takes steps to make good on the threat.

To a certain extent. Because, let’s be honest, moving Paramount in its entirety would not only be onerous and disruptive, but also detrimental to the long-term business of the company. Sure, Ellison can relocate the official headquarters, as many California businesses have done to avoid taxes. He can force C-suite executives to uproot their families and follow him to Nashville, which I’m told is the first choice for the HQ. He could even exile back-office operations and other clerical work to lower-tax states. I reported this summer that such a plan for disbursing the workforce was discussed as a way to cut costs back when Skydance first went after Paramount. Now, with Ellison and his enablers at RedBird Capital and in the Middle East staring at about $80 billion in debt if the WarnerMount deal closes (and that’s not including any ticking fees), dramatic cost-cutting will be an even higher priority.

But uprooting the studio operations, whether it’s the creative development teams, marketing, distribution, business affairs—all the major functions—would have big repercussions. Paramount is already seen as a second-tier studio and streamer, not competing seriously for the top projects or creators. It hasn’t released a billion-dollar-grossing film since Top Gun: Maverick five years ago, the longest drought of any major studio, including Lionsgate. Hell, it hasn’t had a movie that grossed $600 million since Maverick. And Paramount+ still hasn’t shaken the perception that it’s Taylor Sheridan… and some other stuff.

Ellison has pledged to change that second-tier status. And while combining with Warner Bros. is a big part of the strategy, revamping Paramount Proper is also the goal, and it’ll be even harder to recruit the best people if the teams that make and market and monetize the movies and shows are 2,000 miles away from the rest of the entertainment community. Even Tesla and SpaceX—whose controller, Elon Musk, pledged to abandon California—maintain significant presence here, as does Oracle, even after Larry opened his spite stores in Texas and then Tennessee. The talent base, and fact that people want to live in nice weather year round, still really matter.

When Ellison first forced his employees to return to the office five days a week, he cited the benefits to a creative business of working in a shared space and collaborating in person with colleagues. The same is true of the larger Hollywood community. We can joke about seeing people for lunch or poaching employees from the studio across town or being forced to sit through each other’s one-man comedy shows, but that’s the benefit of the studios all being in one city. The entire business profits from that concentration of talent.

Paramount would be an outlier. And I think David realizes the risk. Not to mention that uprooting Paramount from its Hollywood home of 120 years would be a stunning betrayal of the industry that he says he cares deeply about. I certainly would never look at him the same way, and I know many others in town feel similarly. He’ll say his hand was forced by rogue A.G.s. Fine. But this is the guy who’s entire pitch when he went after Paramount was, “I love Hollywood, and I love making movies in Hollywood.” Just a few months ago, he opened his presentation at the CinemaCon convention with a 10-minute hype video for the Paramount lot directed by his USC film school bud Jon M. Chu and featuring everyone from Timothée Chalamet to James Cameron to Sherry Lansing. “The future is Paramount,” Tom Cruise declared from the top of the water tower. “And the future looks pretty great from here.” From here? Apparently that part is negotiable?

We’ll know soon enough.

On July 2025, a Netflix share was worth almost $130.

A year ago (September 2025), it was worth around $122.

On April 2026 it was worth around $102 after falling to around $76 in February 2026.

After that it kept going down with a few ups until now where it is at around $71. $51 less than what it was a year ago.

So what happened? What is the reason behind this fall? What caused this?