←back to thread

Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

(www.cnbc.com)
366 points gniting | 3 comments | 08 Dec 25 14:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.013s | source

Previously: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46160315 (1333 comments)
Show context
indigodaddy ◴[08 Dec 25 15:17 UTC] No.46193176[source]▶
Does WB have to pay the breakup fee to Netflix if a Paramount hostile takeover succeeds?
replies(6): >>46193410 #>>46193460 #>>46193494 #>>46193833 #>>46194214 #>>46194238 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[08 Dec 25 15:38 UTC] No.46193494[source]▶
It looks like it. $2.8bn by Warner Brothers to Netflix [1].

If the vote looks close, Paramount would be expected to raise their bid to cover that cost.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065280/000119312525... 8.3(a)

replies(1): >>46198659 #
dabockster ◴[08 Dec 25 22:42 UTC] No.46198659[source]▶
The failed merger and similar clawback clause between Kroger and Albertsons is currently destroying a significant part of the supply chain for food in the Pacific Northwest. Grocery stores that have been open for 50-75 years - stores where whole neighborhoods and towns were built around - are closing forever, leaving those areas as food deserts.

Either way, this entertainment merger is going to get ugly. Consumers are absolutely going to get harmed either way with that clawback clause.

replies(8): >>46198767 #>>46198814 #>>46201847 #>>46201980 #>>46202080 #>>46202428 #>>46203666 #>>46205360 #
thayne ◴[09 Dec 25 07:59 UTC] No.46202428[source]▶
I don't understand how that kind of clause can be legal. Its existence puts anti-trust enforcement in a catch-22, either they allow the merger, which reduces competition, or they reject it, and the acquiree is decimated, also reducing competition.
replies(2): >>46205134 #>>46205736 #
1. toyg ◴[09 Dec 25 15:09 UTC] No.46205736[source]▶
> I don't understand how that kind of clause can be legal.

Arguably they promote a chilling effect around acquisitions, which does help competition: "don't try to buy something unless you're prepared to deal with a possible fallout" should result in fewer attempts at consolidating dominant positions.

I'd almost be tempted to posit that such a clause should become mandatory for deals over a certain threshold (e.g. $1bn), with amounts determined according to certain parameters.

replies(1): >>46207164 #
2. thayne ◴[09 Dec 25 16:47 UTC] No.46207164[source]▶
> don't try to buy something unless you're prepared to deal with a possible fallout

The kroger Albertsons deal was the other way around, the seller had to pay the buyer if the deal didn't go through.

replies(1): >>46207625 #
3. toyg ◴[09 Dec 25 17:19 UTC] No.46207625[source]▶
yeah, that sounds like a bit of blackmail...