Plaintiffs Challenge $1.88B Bond in Paramount-WBD Merger Fight

Is the bond demand a cynical ploy to escape accountability or a legitimate legal safeguard?

Published SEP 2

Plaintiffs Challenge $1.88B Bond in Paramount-WBD Merger Fight

story

Above: The Paramount Skydance logo on a water tower in Los Angeles, California, on Aug. 6. Image credit: Michael Yanow/NurPhoto/Getty Images

The Spin

Narrative A

Of its own volition, Paramount proposed, negotiated and submitted the no-close stipulation to the court, calling it a "significant win" in public. Now, after seeing the fees racking up from its similarly self-designed ticker offer, the company has U-turned and asked for a bond to cover rising costs. This is a shameless about-face with no legal credibility, and should therefore be denied.

Court Listener

Narrative B

The no-close order is a real injunction, enforceable by contempt, directed at a party and designed to preserve the exact relief plaintiffs seek, for which the Clayton Act makes a proper bond a mandatory condition. Facing unrecoverable losses from ticking fees due to wrongful delay, it is only right that the plaintiffs stump up the cash as compensation for the damages they cause.

Court Listener