Paramount Skydance said on Tuesday that televised remarks by California Attorney General Rob Bonta are at odds with his courtroom position opposing the company’s request for a $1.88 billion bond in litigation tied to its proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.
The company is seeking the bond to shield itself from financial exposure while the transaction is delayed as California and other states pursue claims that the deal is unlawful. Paramount has argued the bond is necessary so it can recoup losses if it ultimately prevails in suits brought by a California-led coalition of states and the Writers Guild of America.
Paramount noted that, by the time the case is scheduled to conclude in April, it will have paid $1.3 billion in fees to Warner Bros. shareholders. The bond, the company says, is intended to protect the bidder against those and other costs tied to postponing the closing of the deal.
Central to the dispute is one of Bonta’s legal contentions: that Paramount voluntarily agreed to pause completion of the merger, rather than being subjected to a court-ordered injunction. Bonta has used that framing in legal filings to argue against the requirement that the states post bond. However, Paramount points to television interviews in which Bonta described the pause as tantamount to an injunction, and says those public statements undermine his legal posture.
Paramount has urged the court to consider that antitrust law requires the states to post a bond when seeking to enjoin transactions - a point it says is reinforced by the AG’s televised characterization of the pause. Bonta’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the company’s statement.
Court schedule and litigation context
U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin in Oakland has set a hearing on Paramount’s bond request for September 24. The litigation arises from a July lawsuit brought by California and 11 other states seeking to block the proposed merger on the grounds that it would create a media giant with increased power to raise prices in film and television. The Writers Guild of America has separately sued, asserting the transaction would harm writers by worsening working conditions and compensation.
Paramount has maintained that the merger will strengthen the film and television sector and increase, rather than reduce, the amount of content produced. Both the company and the attorney general have expressed willingness to negotiate; nonetheless, Bonta has indicated that the states are prepared to go to trial if a settlement does not adequately address their concerns.
Stakes and practical considerations
- Paramount frames the bond as a financial safeguard to cover fees and other costs tied to the delayed closing of a transformational deal intended to position the company as a larger rival to Netflix and Disney.
- The states and the Writers Guild oppose the merger on competition and labor grounds, asserting potential price increases for consumers and worse conditions for writers.
- How the court resolves the bond dispute could affect the pace and cost of the litigation and, depending on the outcome, the economics of the proposed merger.
The coming hearing will test competing characterizations of the pause in closing and whether public comments by a leading state official bear on a legal requirement for the posting of bond in antitrust actions.