Paramount Pictures filed a motion on Monday asking U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez‑Olguín to require the 12‑state attorneys general coalition that sued to stop the Warner Bros. Discovery merger to post a $1.9 billion bond. The request, described by Paramount as a “textbook case for requiring bond,” has been met with outright skepticism from the states.
Why Paramount wants a bond
The motion centers on “ticking fees” built into the merger agreement. Starting October, each day the merger remains unclosed obligates Paramount to pay roughly $7 million to Warner Bros. shareholders, plus additional fees to its financing sources. By the time a judge rules, Paramount estimates it could incur $1.3 billion in unrecoverable losses.
Paramount argues that the states and the Writers Guild of America, the other plaintiff, should be responsible for those costs. If the company prevails, the bond would be paid to offset the ticking fees and other expenses.
States’ response
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who leads the coalition, rejected the bond request. In a statement, Bonta’s office noted that Paramount entered the merger agreement knowing it would face regulatory review and that the company voluntarily set the timeline now being contested. “Paramount went into this process with eyes wide open,” the spokesperson said, adding that the company is trying to “blackmail” the states into a settlement.
Bonta also reminded that taxpayers would not be on the hook for costs Paramount agreed to pay under the merger terms.
Judicial background
Earlier in the case, Judge Martinez‑Olguín declined to require a bond, citing the states’ demonstrated intent to “enforce important public interests.” The judge also issued a temporary restraining order that temporarily blocked the merger, an early win for the coalition.
Both parties later agreed to skip a preliminary injunction hearing and move directly toward trial, scheduled for March. Antitrust experts suggest Paramount’s bond request may be a pressure tactic aimed at securing a pre‑trial settlement or expediting an appeals process.
Potential impact
If the bond is granted, the states would need to secure $1.9 billion—an amount that could strain state resources and potentially affect other litigation priorities. Conversely, a denial would leave Paramount to absorb the ticking‑fee liability while the antitrust case proceeds.
The dispute highlights the broader tension between major media conglomerates seeking consolidation and state officials defending what they view as public‑interest safeguards against reduced competition.
Original reporting: KEYT (Ventura/Santa Barbara) — read the source article.
