0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 8/25/26 at 10:53 am to RLDSC FAN
quote:
Everyone Wants a Paramount Settlement.
The dang title of the article includes a false statement. It's pretty clear the Cali AG doesn't want a settlement.
quote:
Twelve state attorneys general, the directors’ and crew unions, the theater owners, and much of the industry disagree on almost everything in the Paramount–Warner Bros. Discovery case. They agree on one thing: they would all prefer a settlement. The Directors Guild and IATSE have jointly urged Attorney General Rob Bonta and David Ellison to pursue a negotiated resolution. The theater owners group, Cinema United, which opposed the merger, now seeks a settlement with enforceable protections. The three largest exhibitors have endorsed the deal after receiving commitments on theatrical output and release windows. Political leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, likely successor Xavier Becerra and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, have joined in.
These people would all prefer it be blocked completely, but have finally come to understand the reality that there is no legal reason for courts to rule in favor of blocking the sale. Every other country approving the sale makes that obvious.
quote:
The states cannot responsibly accept promises that evaporate when conditions turn hard. The WGA cannot abandon its employment concerns because Paramount promises more production. Paramount cannot make unlimited guarantees without undermining the financial assumptions underlying the acquisition. And behind it all stands enforcement: if the company later says deteriorating conditions make compliance impossible, what happens then? A meaningful settlement needs measurable obligations, real duration, independent verification, and consequences severe enough that compliance beats breach.
The problem this author runs into is that he assumes these entities have leverage here. They don't. There simply isn't a legal reason for the merger to be blocked. The Cali AG knows this, which is why he isn't coming to the table.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 9:47 am to imjustafatkid
Iowa and Montana have filed motions with SCOTUS against California asking the Court to smack down the effort by other states to supersede federal authority and make decisions for the rest of the country. LINK
They make a good argument. We'll see if SCOTUS decides to get involved at this stage.
All I know for sure is that this pie in the sky nonsense from Bonta will never be part of the deal:
Him saying this publicly makes it seem more likely to me that SCOTUS will act. He's seeking something that no regulatory body in any country has requested or sought.
quote:
Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird and Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen have filed a motion with the Supreme Court to block California Attorney General Rob Bonta and 11 other states’ “politicized” antitrust lawsuit against the pending $110 billion Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger.
In the 56-page filing, the pair argued that the 12 states have “effectively vetoed” a transaction that has been approved by regulators and government bodies representing 68 jurisdictions around the globe, which “burdens the national economy, harms Plaintiff States’ quasi-sovereign interests, and conflicts with the federal antitrust enforcement regime.”
They make a good argument. We'll see if SCOTUS decides to get involved at this stage.
All I know for sure is that this pie in the sky nonsense from Bonta will never be part of the deal:
quote:
Bonta said someone else would have to own a “significant” portion of the 50 basic cable channels that would be included under the combined company, but stopped short of saying CNN would be one of them.
Him saying this publicly makes it seem more likely to me that SCOTUS will act. He's seeking something that no regulatory body in any country has requested or sought.
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 9:48 am
Posted on 9/2/26 at 10:01 am to imjustafatkid
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News