Paramount, Warner Bros. birleşme antitröst davasında 1,88 milyar $ tahvil arıyor

Paramount seeks $1.88 billion bond in Warner Bros. merger antitrust case

Tue, August 18, 2026 at 2:45 PM GMT+3 3 min read

• PSKY +1.38%
• WBD -0.21%

Paramount Skydance filed a motion Monday asking a federal judge to require the state attorneys general suing to block its merger with Warner Bros. Discovery to post a $1.88 billion bond, according to CNBC, arguing the litigation-driven delay is imposing substantial and unrecoverable costs on the company.

In the motion, filed with U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin, Paramount asked the court to dissolve its existing hold on the deal if plaintiffs have not posted a $1,884,726,092.73 bond by September 30, 2026, according to Variety. The bond would be payable to Paramount if the company prevails at trial.

Paramount said the figure reflects the maximum potential ticking fees and financing costs that would accumulate through the end of litigation. Under the merger agreement, Paramount is required to pay Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders approximately $6.97 million per day beginning October 1 for every day the deal remains unconsummated. "By the time trial concludes and the parties submit their final briefs, Paramount will have paid Warner Bros. shareholders an unrecoverable $1.3 billion in ticking fees alone," the company said in the filing. Paramount would also incur roughly $190 million in incremental financing costs from a delay through June 2027, the company said.

Paramount invoked the Clayton Antitrust Act and other federal statutes, contending that the law obligates plaintiffs to secure a bond against any financial harm caused by holding up a transaction during the pendency of litigation. "Absent security, even a complete victory on the merits would not restore a dollar of those extraordinary losses," the company said in the filing.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office rejected the argument. "Paramount went into this process with eyes wide open," a representative for the office said. "They are lying in a bed of their own making, and once again, trying to blackmail us to get us to back down." The office also pointed out that Paramount had voluntarily accepted the agreed-upon timeline without seeking a bond as a precondition. "What's more, Paramount itself stipulated to the timing it is now protesting," California's statement said.

A coalition of 12 state attorneys general led by California's Rob Bonta, along with the Writers Guild of America, sued in mid-July to block the proposed merger, alleging it would substantially reduce competition in wide-release film distribution and basic cable television. The deal has already received regulatory clearances from 68 jurisdictions, including the U.S. Department of Justice.

Judge Martinez-Olguin set a trial start date of March 2, 2027, after rejecting Paramount's push for a November 2026 start. After the judge issued a temporary restraining order pausing the deal, Paramount agreed to hold the merger in place through a post-trial ruling or a June 2027 outside date. In issuing the temporary restraining order, Martinez-Olguin chose not to impose a bond requirement, concluding that the plaintiff states had shown they were acting in the public interest, according to Variety.

Appearing Monday on MS Now's "State of Play With Peter Alexander," Bonta signaled that a settlement is not off the table. "Coming to the table in this case in good faith to sincerely discuss how to resolve this case has always been on the table and remains on the table," Bonta said.