Warner Bros Rejects Revised Paramount Bid, Sticks With Netflix (reuters.com) 31
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Warner Bros Discovery's board unanimously turned down Paramount Skydance's latest attempt to acquire the studio, saying its revised $108.4 billion hostile bid amounted to a risky leveraged buyout that investors should reject. In a letter to shareholders on Wednesday, Warner Bros' board said Paramount's offer hinges on "an extraordinary amount of debt financing" that heightens the risk of closing. It reaffirmed its commitment to streaming giant Netflix's $82.7 billion deal for the film and television studio and other assets.
Their assessment comes even after Paramount, which has a market value of around $14 billion, proposed to use $40 billion in equity personally guaranteed by Oracle billionaire co-founder Larry Ellison -- father of Paramount CEO David Ellison -- and $54 billion in debt to finance the deal. The decision keeps Warner Bros on track for its deal with Netflix, even after Paramount amended its bid on December 22 to address the earlier concerns about the lack of a personal guarantee from Larry Ellison. Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters welcomed Warner Bros' decision on Wednesday, saying it recognizes the streaming giant's deal "as the superior proposal that will deliver the greatest value to its stockholders, as well as consumers, creators and the broader entertainment industry."
Their assessment comes even after Paramount, which has a market value of around $14 billion, proposed to use $40 billion in equity personally guaranteed by Oracle billionaire co-founder Larry Ellison -- father of Paramount CEO David Ellison -- and $54 billion in debt to finance the deal. The decision keeps Warner Bros on track for its deal with Netflix, even after Paramount amended its bid on December 22 to address the earlier concerns about the lack of a personal guarantee from Larry Ellison. Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters welcomed Warner Bros' decision on Wednesday, saying it recognizes the streaming giant's deal "as the superior proposal that will deliver the greatest value to its stockholders, as well as consumers, creators and the broader entertainment industry."
Re: (Score:3)
You mean Geppetto, but I agree with the sentiment.
One thing to remember is, el Bunko thinks he will get a cut if Geppetto Ellison finally wins, and he'll also get to control CNN. That deal between Netflix and WB is as good as dead as long as he is la Presidenta.
They're all dying (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the sort of thing you see in a dying industry, pointless consolidation to delay the inevitable. It doesn't matter which of Netflix or Paramount bought Warner. They're both as creatively bankrupt as Warner and neither is capable of turning that ship around. This is certainly a better value for Warner shareholders though. Now Netflix can take their turn crapping all over the IPs that Warner already finished shitting on. Congratulations, I suppose.
Honestly, I give it less than ten years until Disney just outright owns all television, streaming, and film studios. Done and done. They seem to be the only true behemoth left outside of news networks, and even some of those have Disney hooks due to cross promotion already.
Re:They're all dying (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically all of your media that you consume is going to be filtered by a handful of billionaires. Before long they will be trillionaires.
Even if you can somehow see through the slop the majority of people around you will not and they will drag you down with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I agree. It's just that I find him tiresome because he posts the same every day of the year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They're all dying (Score:2, Informative)
It's not dying the industry is just consolidating further into the hands of fewer and fewer people.
Which is a common symptom of a dying industry. People don't go to movie theaters anymore, cable is a dying media, tv is a dying media, and home video is a dying media. Consumer taste has broadly moved on to streaming, and people are voting with their wallets to a smaller bunch of steamers.
You probably haven't noticed, but Hollywood isn't what it used to be. Part of that is due to the sheer cost and overall PITA of doing basically anything there. It priced itself out of a market that largely started with it,
No that's not true (Score:2)
Let the company's fail. The problem we are having is instead of letting failing companies fail we allow them to be bought out and we allow market consolidation so the competitors don't have any room to breathe. Then the industry gets choked out by anti-competitive tactics in the consumer, that's you, takes it into shor
Re: No that's not true (Score:2)
When large corporations want to merge illegally
It isn't illegal.
in order to eliminate competition they tell you the consumer that the only way that their industry can survive is by allowing them to merge.
You're obviously unaware of the recent history of Warner. They were bought by AT&T, and that didn't work well for them. They were then bought by Discovery, and that didn't work out. Now they're just floundering, and anybody who buys them only really needs their IP.
Let the company's fail. The problem we are having is instead of letting failing companies fail we allow them to be bought out and we allow market consolidation so the competitors don't have any room to breathe. Then the industry gets choked out by anti-competitive tactics in the consumer, that's you, takes it into shorts.
As any person with a functional brain will tell you, if they fall, you still end up with fewer competitors. Even after bankruptcy, their properties still remain, only now they're taken over by the shareholders, who are usually
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly (Score:3)
So yes you did have the three major networks but you did have a hell of a lot of other networks out there and they were owned by other people.
You also had just a little teeny tiny bit of antitrust law enforcement so that when cable television took off those three networks suddenly had a lot of competition. That did not last.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the debt is a problem (Score:5, Informative)
Leveraged Buyouts used to be famous for being scams.
Say there is a company with good assets worth 100 million. But the stock is trading at 80 million. Someone (scumbags A) would collect ten million, get a LBO loan for 75 million, and buy the company for 85 million.
Once they have control of the company, the COMPANY (not scumbag a) get a hard asset loan for 90 million, funded on the 100 million in hard assets. But Scumbag A personally take 15 million out of the 90, getting their money back and a 50% profit. Their LBO bank gets their 75 million back (plus a small profit), so the only debt now is the 90 million to the hard asset company.
Scumbag A then sells the company, making even more money. Maybe they take it public, maybe they 'sell' via bonds backed by ownership. But the new owners still has the 90 million in debt.
The thing is, nobody has been working on the business. They have just been moving money around. So upper management that is clueless. Maybe they get lucky and the VP's trying to do the real business are good and make a profit.
But if they are not good, those VPs can bankrupt the company. Often someone decides to try and save the company by taking a big risk. Again, maybe it works out, but otherwise it accelerates the bankruptcy.
Leveraged buyouts have a horrible reputation - a way for schemers to make money while destroying a company.
So smart money looks at people 'buying' companies using softer assets like debt or stock with a lot of suspicion.
The real problem (Score:4, Informative)
Why the debt is a problem
The real problem is the ORACLE (One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison).
Re: (Score:1)
THANK YOU!
This is the kind of BS that should be illegal and it can ruin people's lives when they gut the company just to steal value.
I think the real plan for both buyouts is to extract some value (Netflix more so,) but mostly it is so remove another player in the marketplace competing for people's TIME. There is not enough time in the day for a retired person to consume all the stuff being produced let alone the old content!
The ole south park choice (Score:2)
So what happens to CNN (Score:2)
I don't subscribe to Netflix
Re: (Score:3)
Those channels aren't part of the deal. Discovery Global, will house CNN and other cable channels. [cnn.com]
More chances to complete the merger with Netflix (Score:4, Interesting)
While Trump personally would prefer the Ellisons, and maybe USoA regulators will aquice, in the rest of the (relevant) Jurisdictions WBD + Netflix has more chances chances to pass than WBD + Paramount Skydance
I seriously doubt that Netflix or Paramount want to stop operating the combined company in the UK, Europe, Japan, Korea, China, or even Brazil. Which is what would happen if those foreign regulators said no, and a merger proceeded anyway with the blessing of uncle sam.
Think about it, the biggest overlap between WBD+Netflix is in streaming, with a smallish overlap in games (WBDs gamin g division is small, netflix's is ultra tiny), TV and movie production (WBD is big, netflix is mid), and catalogue (WBD is hugeand spans decades, netflixis small, and spans 3 lustres tops). Meanwhile, Netflix has no OtA or cable channels.
Meanwhile, paramunt has every-single-one of the things WBD has, and in comparable sizes... so, more overlap, bigger consolidation, less competition. The EU, UK, JP, BR and CR and CN, and more regulators around the planet will not like that one bit.
Re: (Score:2)
While Trump personally would prefer the Ellisons, and maybe USoA regulators will aquice, in the rest of the (relevant) Jurisdictions WBD + Netflix has more chances chances to pass than WBD + Paramount Skydance
Think about it, the biggest overlap between WBD+Netflix is in streaming, with a smallish overlap in games (WBDs gamin g division is small, netflix's is ultra tiny), TV and movie production (WBD is big, netflix is mid), and catalogue (WBD is hugeand spans decades, netflixis small, and spans 3 lustres tops). Meanwhile, Netflix has no OtA or cable channels.
Meanwhile, paramunt has every-single-one of the things WBD has, and in comparable sizes... so, more overlap, bigger consolidation, less competition. The EU, UK, JP, BR and CR and CN, and more regulators around the planet will not like that one bit.
Except that's not what's being sold. Discovery Global, will house CNN and other cable channels. So the argument that Paramount already has a bunch of TV channels doesn't really amount to anything as the TV channels aren't part of the deal.
Therefore, frankly, the overlap of Netflix and HBO Max is what we're discussing here and that Venn diagram is a lot closer to a perfect circle whereas Paramount and HBO Max is more of a circle within a larger circle.
Re:More chances to complete the merger with Netfli (Score:4, Informative)
Paramount wants CNN and the cable channels as part of their takeover deal whereas with Netflix they would be split off
https://www.bbc.com/news/artic... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Paramount wants CNN and the cable channels as part of their takeover deal whereas with Netflix they would be split off
https://www.bbc.com/news/artic... [bbc.com]
More to my point. more overlap in the case of paramount less overlap in the case of netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
While Trump personally would prefer the Ellisons, and maybe USoA regulators will aquice, in the rest of the (relevant) Jurisdictions WBD + Netflix has more chances chances to pass than WBD + Paramount Skydance
Think about it, the biggest overlap between WBD+Netflix is in streaming, with a smallish overlap in games (WBDs gamin g division is small, netflix's is ultra tiny), TV and movie production (WBD is big, netflix is mid), and catalogue (WBD is hugeand spans decades, netflixis small, and spans 3 lustres tops). Meanwhile, Netflix has no OtA or cable channels.
Meanwhile, paramunt has every-single-one of the things WBD has, and in comparable sizes... so, more overlap, bigger consolidation, less competition. The EU, UK, JP, BR and CR and CN, and more regulators around the planet will not like that one bit.
Except that's not what's being sold. Discovery Global, will house CNN and other cable channels. So the argument that Paramount already has a bunch of TV channels doesn't really amount to anything as the TV channels aren't part of the deal.
Therefore, frankly, the overlap of Netflix and HBO Max is what we're discussing here and that Venn diagram is a lot closer to a perfect circle whereas Paramount and HBO Max is more of a circle within a larger circle.
You are wrong: "In the days following the announcement of that deal, Paramount launched its hostile bid, taking directly to shareholders an offer of $30 per share, all cash for the entirety of Warner Bros. Discovery, including its TV networks. " emphasis mine
source? https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/0... [cnbc.com]
It's about the money (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't, it is about control. la Presidenta wants to knife CNN and the Ellisons realize they have useful idiot in the White House, they'll do what he wants because they can squeeze him for other goodies.
The Oligarchs Won't Allow It (Score:5, Interesting)