Paramount Demands That States Post $1.88 Billion Bond Amid Warner Bros. Antitrust Suit
Paramount Skydance is demanding that the states suing to block its $111 billion deal for Warner Bros. Discovery post a nearly $1.9 billion bond ($1,884,726,092 to be precise about it), pending the outcome of the litigation.
In a statement Monday, the company, led by CEO David Ellison, says that the bond demand is based on settled federal law.
“Both the Clayton Act, the federal antitrust law upon which these suits are based, and other federal law expressly 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,” the company said in a statement. “Here, every month of delay carries substantial and quantifiable financial consequences.”
Paramount counts Makan Delrahim, was previously the chief antitrust enforcer in the U.S. during the first Trump Administration, as its head of legal affairs.
“Paramount is seeking a bond based on the straightforward calculation of the maximum potential ticking consideration and financing costs from this litigation,” the company states. “But 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.”
Paramount has been playing a hardball public pressure campaign since the lawsuit was filed, with threats to leave the state of California (realistic or not), as well as accusations that partisan politics are at play. Hollywood is divided on whether the states and company should try and settle or follow through with the trial, further complicating the effort.
But the bond is a tangible ask, one that would put taxpayers on the hook in a high-profile case.
5News aggregated this summary from the outlet’s public feed. The full article, with all the context, is on www.hollywoodreporter.com — the content belongs to The Hollywood Reporter.