Paramount’s Bond Gambit: A Desperate Attempt to Rewrite History

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has rejected Paramount’s request for a $1.88 billion bond, citing the company’s attempt to rewrite its agreement with Warner Bros. and shift the burden of its mistakes onto the states. This development marks more than just another salvo in the ongoing antitrust battle between Paramount, Warner Bros., and the 12-state coalition blocking the merger – it reveals the depth of desperation among the pro-merger camp.

At issue is a ticking fee, one of those contractual provisions designed to incentivize companies to close deals on time. In this case, Paramount agreed to pay Warner Bros. shareholders $7 million per day if the merger was delayed due to regulatory review. Now, with the trial date set for March 2, Paramount wants to rewrite the rules and post a bond to cover its potential losses – essentially giving it a get-out-of-jail-free card in case the deal is ultimately approved.

The states’ refusal to play along is well justified. Paramount knew what it was getting into when it agreed to pay this fee, and now it’s trying to pass the buck onto taxpayers. The A.G.’s office has aptly described this move as a “do-over,” but perhaps “do-again” would be more accurate.

The real issue at stake is not just about dollars and cents, but principle. Paramount wants to have it both ways: delay the merger until after the trial, without shouldering any costs associated with that delay. This is corporate hubris – the idea that companies can write their own rules and then blame everyone else when things don’t go according to plan.

The Paramount-Warner Bros. merger has been delayed multiple times already, each time with a new excuse or procedural wrinkle that allows it to stay on life support. Meanwhile, the Writers Guild of America’s antitrust suit against Paramount continues to gather steam, highlighting structural flaws in the entertainment industry’s business model. The guild has long argued that the merger would concentrate too much power in the hands of a few giant corporations, threatening the livelihoods of writers and other creatives.

The parallels between this case and others – such as Toei Animation and Shueisha’s use of regulatory loopholes to delay or block action on issues like copyright infringement and contract disputes – are striking. These cases raise important questions about corporate accountability and the role of regulators in protecting consumers.

As we watch this drama unfold, it’s worth keeping an eye on another development: Disney’s ongoing battle over its acquisition of 21st Century Fox. This deal has been delayed multiple times already, with some reports suggesting that Disney is trying to use a similar bond gambit to shift costs onto taxpayers.

In essence, Paramount’s bid for a $1.88 billion bond is just one symptom of a larger disease – the corporate culture of entitlement and impunity that has taken hold in America. Until we start holding these companies accountable for their actions, we can expect more of the same: desperate attempts to rewrite history, shift blame onto others, and escape accountability altogether.

The trial date is set for March 2, but the real question is whether the court will have the courage to stand up to Paramount’s bullying tactics. Will it side with the states and the Writers Guild of America, or will it cave in to the corporate lobby’s demands? One thing’s certain – this story is far from over, and we’ll be watching closely as the drama unfolds.