Paramount Seeks $1.9 Billion Bond to Overcome Antitrust Block on Warner Bros. Deal

Paramount Skydance’s proposed $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery remains stalled after 12 states, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and the Writers Guild of America filed federal antitrust suits alleging the merger would lessen competition in theatrical, blockbuster and basic-cable markets. A temporary restraining order issued by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin paused the deal for 28 days and waived an initial bond requirement, noting the plaintiffs’ “important public interests.”

Variety Magazine

Paramount’s motion, filed Monday, asks the court to compel the plaintiffs to post a bond of $1,884,726,092.73 — payable to Paramount if it prevails. A merger-delay provision obligates Paramount to pay Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders a “ticking fee” of roughly $7 million per day starting in early October 2026, projected to reach $1.3 billion by the trial’s scheduled start on March 2, 2027. Paramount also cites $190 million in incremental financing costs if the closing slips to June 1, 2027.

Variety Magazine

• July 2026 – States and the WGA filed suits to block the merger.

Variety Magazine

• September 30, 2026 (scheduled) – Paramount seeks a court order requiring the bond by this deadline.

Variety Magazine

• March 2, 2027 (scheduled) – Trial commencement date set by Judge Martinez-Olguin.

Variety Magazine

• June 1, 2027 (occurred) – End point used in Paramount’s calculation of the ticking fee.

Variety Magazine

Paramount maintains the antitrust case is “without merit” and argues the bond is required by the Clayton Act and related statutes to protect the injured party if plaintiffs lose.

Variety Magazine

• “Today, Paramount requested that the court enforce the statutory requirement that the plaintiffs post a bond in connection with their pending litigation, which blocks us from closing our merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.” — David Ellison’s Paramount

Variety Magazine

• “And so 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,” — General Rob Bonta, california attorney

Variety Magazine

• “We remain confident that plaintiffs’ case is without merit and will defend our pro-competitive transaction in court. We look forward to closing this transaction and delivering its benefits to consumers and entertainment industry workers in California, the United States and around the world.” — Monday, the company spokesperson

Variety Magazine