Judge Pauses Paramount-Warner Bros Merger (variety.com) 23
A federal judge has temporarily paused the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger after a 12-state coalition led by California argued the deal would violate antitrust law. The 14-day restraining order (PDF) preserves the status quo while the court considers a preliminary injunction, which could effectively determine whether the merger survives. Variety reports: "Plaintiff States' showing at least demonstrates that serious questions going to the merits remain, weighing in favor of preliminary injunctive relief," the judge wrote, adding that Paramount has acknowledged it will not be harmed by the delay until the end of September. "Paramount and Warner Bros. will continue to operate as separate, viable companies competing in the marketplace while they wait for the Court to adjudicate this case. The balance of equities, combined with the public's vital interest in antitrust enforcement, therefore tips sharply in favor of the requested injunctive relief."
The 12-state coalition, led by California, brought a motion for the temporary restraining order. The states are also seeking a preliminary injunction, which would block the merger until the judge rules on the merits of the states' lawsuit. The 14-day restraining order could be extended to as long as 28 days. Martinez-Olguin, of the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California in Oakland, also set a hearing on the preliminary injunction for Aug. 3, though that date, too, could be delayed if the parties agree. Rob Bonta, the attorney general of California, hailed the judge's ruling as a "critical first win in our case to ensure this megamerger never sees the light of day." "History tells the tale of what happens when a few people have great power over markets that are central to Americans' lives: fewer opportunities for more people, worse products and services for all people," Bonta said. "With our lawsuit, we're fighting for a free and fair market and a thriving film and television industry that serves creatives and audiences alike. We have a full tank of gas, the law on our side, and look forward to continuing to make our case."
The 12-state coalition, led by California, brought a motion for the temporary restraining order. The states are also seeking a preliminary injunction, which would block the merger until the judge rules on the merits of the states' lawsuit. The 14-day restraining order could be extended to as long as 28 days. Martinez-Olguin, of the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California in Oakland, also set a hearing on the preliminary injunction for Aug. 3, though that date, too, could be delayed if the parties agree. Rob Bonta, the attorney general of California, hailed the judge's ruling as a "critical first win in our case to ensure this megamerger never sees the light of day." "History tells the tale of what happens when a few people have great power over markets that are central to Americans' lives: fewer opportunities for more people, worse products and services for all people," Bonta said. "With our lawsuit, we're fighting for a free and fair market and a thriving film and television industry that serves creatives and audiences alike. We have a full tank of gas, the law on our side, and look forward to continuing to make our case."
Checks to SCOTUS and POTUS didn't clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile EA games is about to get hit with 20 billion dollars in debt from the Saudis buying it. Which I'm sure is just fine.
It sure would be nice if we had someone regulating the economy...
Re:Checks to SCOTUS and POTUS didn't clear (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey Dingus, the SCOTUS isn't going to contact a lower judge and tell them in advance how to rule, it doesn't work that way.
They would risk their life appointment by doing that, as they only serve in periods of "good behavior."
Historically in the US almost all bribes given to judges are related to criminal cases involving organized crime, where it isn't the money given that is persuasive, but rather the implied threat to their life if they don't accept the bribe.
Nothing like that is going to happen here.
The
Re: (Score:2)
Eh... not at this level. Corruption usually only works in darkness and theres far too many eyeballs on this case and the biggest eyeballs are state governments with serious power. The supreme court is a whole different matter because washington is the goddamn twilight zone right now where corruption is happening in the open because theres no one to provide consequences. But outside the supreme court, yeah corruption is a thing, but its always secretive.
My concern about this is more to do with the more old f
Re: (Score:2)
Corruption in the light is known as "working as intended"
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even need Google to read how and why the six judges are corrupt.
I read over half their actual rulings so I don't need to check if maybe they're corrupt, or if the Court is just filled with insane ideologues. The hallmark of corruption in courts is that they rule differently in otherwise similar cases, and there's no clear reason for it. Then you might reasonably ask if there is something in the shadows affecting some cases differently than others.
With this Court that's not the case at all; they rule differently on different cases entirely consistent with their personal
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Dingus, the SCOTUS isn't going to contact a lower judge and tell them in advance how to rule, it doesn't work that way.
Except that's precisely how ruling on a shadow docket works, and the biggest complaint about them is that there's usually no written justification so lower courts can't even figure out why SCOTUS would rule the way it will when the case gets there.
From the regulatory point of view... (Score:3, Insightful)
... The WBD merger with Netflix had more chances of passing, because there was less overlap between both companies. Yes, there was overlap in streaming, but that was it.
Paramount not only has (again) overlap in streaming, but has also overlap in movie studios, TV production, Linear TV stations (both OtA and Cable), and a long myriad of other things big and small.
While is true that "The Ellinsons" had the go-ahead/simpathy of the executive branch (i.e. "Trump"), other powers in the USoA, as well as other important jusrisdictions (UK, EU)* were not soo keen on THAT merger. And let's face it, neither company wants to combine if that means not being able to operate in the EU, or UK (or other important jurisdictions abroad).
Silver Lining for WBD, if the merger fails due to regulatory hurdles, Paramount has to pay WBD a 7 milliard break-up fee, which WBD can use to sustain themselves while they ponder their next move. Maybe try again with Netflix, or sell themselves to AppleTV, where regulatory hurdles would be less.
Re: (Score:2)
"Milliard" est francais. Vous voulez dire "billion" en anglais.
J'ai aucune objection a propos des autres choses que vos aves dit.
Re: (Score:1)
Non, milliard is a British English word meaning one thousand million--what the Americans confusing call a billion. And now, confusingly, the English also use billion in the American way, when in my lifetime a billion was a million million (thus the bi-).
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, thanks for that. Google Gemini does say though that "milliard" is no longer used by the British, officially as of 1974. However, the French still do.
And sorry for the typo in "vous avez dit."
Re: (Score:2)
"Milliard" est francais. Vous voulez dire "billion" en anglais.
J'ai aucune objection a propos des autres choses que vos aves dit.
Milliard c'est aussi a mot en Anglais:
https://dictionary.cambridge.o... [cambridge.org]
C'est ancien, mais encore valide.
C'est a "Galicism". Nosotros en español tambien la tenemos: Millardo. La introdujo a la RAE un compatriota mio, Rafael Caldera.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
PS: Jái etudie Francais il-y-a 29 annes, mais jái pres que tout oublie.
Re:From the regulatory point of view... (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no next move. Netfilx was buying them for their back catalog. The part of WB that people care about is the part that makes new movies and television, and that part is dead no matter who purchases WB.
If you haven't seen the tour of the Warner Brother's lot, you should do that now. They are still even filming some shows there. My guess is that, no matter who owns it they will probably keep something open there as a museum, but the days of it functioning as a working studio are quickly coming to an end. Heck, they are already living in the past. Most of what they talk about when you visit the studio is shows that they stopped filming over 20 years ago.
Still, it is very interesting to see how shows like "Friends" and "Gilmore Girls" was filmed before computers could be used to create whatever shot you needed.
Re: (Score:2)
WB is more than just studios, and Netflix might even benefit from a pared down set of studios to rent out to production companies anyway.
Whoever buys WB ends up with quite a large infrastructure of franchise rights, connections, and cable/internet/streaming stuff. It's not just a company that makes Bugs Bunny cartoons.
Re: (Score:3)
Agree on that, the WB studio lot tour was excellent. Once you see the big outdoor "city street" set you kinda can't unsee it, you'll notice it on so many shows and films.
Also just seeing the massive amount of set design materials, wardrobe areas, lighting departments is really cool if you're into movies as an art and a business. Even just the paint department was impressive.
More than one (Score:5, Interesting)
There is another lawsuit filed in Delaware. This one is concerning possible "side" deals that were made that would enrich the current POTUS at the expense of shareholders. Has to do with corporate governance more than anything.
It was filed by The Public Integrity Project. More info here [freedom.press]. Also an interview with one of the lawyers who filed the suit [youtube.com]
Larry Ellison's kid. (Score:1)
Who actually wants this fucktard's son to own this many media companies? The fucktard is already crazy as it is, and has already said he wants to use AI to spy on people.
Don't let this go though! (Score:2)