Paramount Goes to War: The $108.4 Billion Hostile Bid for Warner Bros. Discovery Reshapes the Entertainment Landscape

The arithmetic, on its surface, appears straightforward. Paramount is offering $30 in cash per share for the entire company, while Netflix is offering $27.75 per share consisting of $23.25 in cash and $4.50 in Netflix common stock, but only for WBD’s streaming and studios division[2][10][23]. The difference in cash alone—$18 billion more, by Paramount’s calculation—is substantial. Yet this comparison obscures a critical structural distinction that lies at the heart of the board’s decision and the subsequent shareholder battle. Netflix’s offer assumes that WBD will first separate its Global Networks division (which includes CNN, TNT Sports, Discovery-branded channels, and other linear television assets) into a standalone company trading publicly as Discovery Global[2][12][39]. Under Netflix’s proposal, WBD shareholders receive the Netflix consideration for the streaming and studios assets, while retaining ownership of Discovery Global as a separately traded entity. Paramount, conversely, is offering to acquire the entire consolidated WBD, including Global Networks, without requiring a spin-off.

This structural difference is not merely technical; it defines the entire negotiation. WBD’s board and management, represented by CEO David Zaslav, determined that Netflix’s offer, even at a lower per-share price, represents superior value because it separates the high-growth, profitable streaming and studios business from the declining-but-profitable linear television business. The logic mirrors the strategic rationale Zaslav articulated in June 2025 when he announced plans to split WBD into two independent companies. Under Netflix’s structure, shareholders benefit from the upside of a combined Netflix-HBO Max entity while maintaining exposure to Discovery Global’s potential—whether through improved management, a sale to a strategic buyer, or alternatively, a scaled-back but more focused media company[2][39]. Paramount’s argument, by contrast, rests on the premise that Global Networks is worth more as part of a consolidated whole than as a standalone shell company, and that shareholder value is maximized by receiving the certainty of $30 in cash rather than a mixed bundle of cash and Netflix stock whose value depends on Netflix’s future trading price and performance[5][22].

David Ellison articulated this position with force in his public statements on December 8. “WBD shareholders deserve an opportunity to consider our superior all-cash offer for their shares in the entire company,” Ellison declared[6][24]. “Our public offer, which is on the same terms we provided to the Warner Bros. Discovery Board of Directors in private, provides superior value, and a more certain and quicker path to completion.” Paramount’s filing further alleged that WBD’s board recommendation of the Netflix transaction was premised on “an illusory prospective valuation of Global Networks that is unsupported by the business fundamentals and encumbered by high levels of financial leverage assigned to the entity”[5][16]. In other words, Paramount is asserting that the board has overvalued a television business in structural decline—betting shareholders’ money on assets whose worth is speculative at best.

The Bidding War: From Stealth to Full-Scale Combat

The genesis of this takeover battle traces to October 2025, when WBD announced it had received “unsolicited interest” from multiple parties and would review strategic alternatives. At that moment, three major players emerged as potential bidders: Netflix, Paramount Skydance (through David Ellison’s private equity control), and Comcast (through its NBCUniversal subsidiary)[2][3]. The competitive tension had been building since September 11, when reports first surfaced that Paramount Skydance was “exploring” an acquisition of WBD[3]. What followed was a carefully orchestrated auction process managed by WBD’s board and advisors, with initial bids submitted November 20 and binding second-round offers due December 1[2][3]. According to multiple sources, Paramount submitted six distinct proposals over the twelve-week period, beginning at roughly $19 per share and climbing to $23.50 before jumping to the final $30 offer[2][3]. Netflix, meanwhile, progressively refined its bid for the streaming and studios assets only, eventually settling on approximately $28 per share in mostly cash, according to internal bidding discussions[2].

The auction process itself became a source of contention. Paramount, in a December 1 letter to WBD’s board, accused the company of running a “tainted” process biased toward Netflix, with management conflicts of interest embedded in employment contracts and compensation arrangements that incentivized a Netflix outcome[27][29]. Paramount’s legal team, led by Centerview Partners and RedBird Advisors, highlighted the regulatory risks of a Netflix transaction—particularly the likelihood that Netflix would control 43 percent of global SVOD (subscription video-on-demand) subscribers, a concentration that regulators in the United States and Europe might view as anticompetitive[2][5][33]. The letter also questioned whether WBD’s board had adequately weighted the certainty of a Paramount all-cash deal against the uncertainty of Netflix’s mixed equity-and-cash structure, which tied shareholder value to Netflix’s stock price trajectory and regulatory approval odds.

On December 4, after Netflix emerged as the board’s preferred bidder, Paramount doubled down. It submitted its final private bid to WBD—the same $30-per-share all-cash offer that would become public four days later. Zaslav rejected it. According to sources familiar with the conversation, Paramount representatives believed they had addressed every objection the board had raised in prior rounds: they had committed to full equity backing from the Ellison family and RedBird Capital, secured $54 billion in debt commitments from Bank of America, Citi, and Apollo (all with no financing conditions)[5][7][22], and offered a materially higher cash consideration than Netflix. Yet the board stood firm, preferring the regulatory clarity of Netflix’s deal—despite its acknowledged antitrust risks—over Paramount’s all-cash certainty[2][10][23].

That rejection precipitated the hostile bid. On December 5, Netflix and WBD announced their agreed transaction to a market that had already begun to anticipate the outcome. On December 8, with WBD’s board having definitively chosen Netflix, Paramount launched its tender offer, bypassing the board and appealing directly to shareholders through a 5:00 p.m. ET, January 8, 2026 expiration date[5][22][23]. The message was unmistakable: if WBD’s management would not seriously engage with Paramount’s proposal, then Paramount would allow shareholders themselves to decide whether $30 in cash was superior to $27.75 in mixed consideration.

The Financial Architecture: Paramount’s Fully Committed Bid

A critical distinction between the two competing offers lies in financing certainty and structure. Paramount’s $108.4 billion all-cash tender offer relies on a two-pronged capital structure: equity backstopped by the Ellison family and RedBird Capital Partners, coupled with $54 billion in committed debt financing from Bank of America, Citi, and Apollo[5][7][22]. The financing commitment contains no financing conditions—a crucial detail that signals confidence and reduces execution risk[5][22]. The Ellison family, through patriarch Larry Ellison (Oracle founder and the second-richest person globally by some estimates) and son David (Paramount’s chairman and CEO), is leveraging not only its vast wealth but also the resources of Skydance Media and the newly merged Paramount Global[1][6][24]. This family backing carries symbolic weight in the current political environment, as both Ellisons maintain close relationships with President Donald Trump, whose administration has explicitly signaled willingness to scrutinize the Netflix-WBD deal on antitrust grounds[10][26][29].

Netflix’s financing structure, by contrast, presents complexities that Paramount emphasizes repeatedly. Netflix’s $82.7 billion offer (including WBD’s assumed $11 billion debt) requires a $59 billion bridge loan—among the largest ever employed in a transaction, according to Bloomberg reporting[10][23]. While Netflix possesses substantial cash and borrowing capacity, the bridge financing introduces execution risk and potential volatility if market conditions shift before the deal’s anticipated late 2026 to early 2027 close[2]. Additionally, Netflix’s offer includes a stock component ($4.50 per WBD share in Netflix common stock), meaning WBD shareholders receive equity exposure to Netflix’s operational performance and regulatory outlook post-acquisition—a consideration that adds complexity and potential tax implications[2][10][23].

Paramount’s debt backing from Bank of America, Citi, and Apollo reflects confidence from premier financial institutions that the transaction economics justify the leverage. The projected cost synergies—$6 billion or more from combining Paramount and WBD operations, alongside more than $3 billion in standalone efficiencies already underway at Paramount—provide a clear pathway to debt repayment and EBITDA improvement[5][7][22][24]. Paramount has pledged to maintain WBD’s theatrical slate and expand theatrical releases, a commitment that appeals to constituencies otherwise skeptical of consolidation. Furthermore, the combined entity would control an unparalleled portfolio of intellectual property, from Harry Potter and DC Entertainment to the NFL, UFC, and Champions League sports rights, enabling cross-promotional synergies and pricing power that rival Disney and Amazon[5][7][24].

Yet Paramount’s financing structure also carries embedded leverage risk. The company is already carrying debt from the Skydance-Paramount merger completed in August 2024, a transaction that valued Paramount Global at $8.4 billion[35]. Layering an additional $54 billion in WBD-specific debt onto that existing leverage could push Paramount’s total debt into the $100 billion range, depending on refinancing and paydown rates. This concentration of leverage amplifies execution risk: any misstep in cost synergy realization, unexpected content-related write-downs, or macroeconomic downturn could strain the combined entity’s credit profile and dividend capacity. Paramount’s track record in the Skydance merger—successful cost cutting and DTC profitability improvements—suggests management competence, but the sheer scale of a WBD combination introduces integration complexity that even seasoned operators cannot fully predict.

Strategic Rationale: Why Each Buyer Wants WBD

The competitive bidding for WBD reveals starkly different strategic visions for the entertainment industry’s future. For Netflix, the acquisition represents an acceleration of its evolution from a pure-play streaming distributor to a vertically integrated studio-and-streamer controlling theatrical, television, and streaming output across a unified platform. Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has publicly stated that the combination would allow Netflix to “entertain the world” more effectively by combining Warner Bros.’ centuries-old library—encompassing Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Harry Potter, and Friends—with Netflix’s own hits like Stranger Things, Squid Game, and Kpop Demon Hunters[20][34]. From a technological standpoint, Netflix’s recommendation algorithms, international localization infrastructure, and content distribution networks are unmatched in scale and sophistication[17]. By acquiring WBD, Netflix gains immediate control over premium theatrical franchises (Harry Potter, DC Universe, Matrix, Dune, and others) while consolidating HBO Max, which ranks fourth globally in SVOD market share, into a single, data-driven platform[2][17]. The combined entity would serve an estimated 400+ million global subscribers, nearly double Amazon Prime Video’s approximate 220 million, and far exceeding Disney’s 196 million (combining Disney+ and Hulu)[44].

For Paramount, by contrast, the acquisition is existential. The company has spent years in strategic retrenchment, burdened by declining linear television revenues, the massive capital losses embedded in its cable networks, and a streaming business that only recently turned profitable on a quarterly basis[15][18][45]. Paramount+ reached 79 million subscribers by Q1 2025, but remains substantially smaller than Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, and even Hulu[45]. CEO David Ellison, son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison and a prominent figure in the Trump administration’s media circles, has moved aggressively since taking control via Skydance in August 2024 to reposition Paramount as a content powerhouse. The company has invested $7.7 billion in exclusive UFC rights, signed the Duffer Brothers (creators of Stranger Things) away from Netflix, and reinvigorated franchises like South Park[45]. Yet these investments alone cannot overcome Paramount’s fundamental strategic challenge: it lacks sufficient scale in content libraries and subscriber base to compete effectively against Netflix, Disney, and Amazon for premium talent, audience attention, and advertiser spending. A successful WBD acquisition would instantly transform Paramount into a rival of Netflix in studio output and intellectual property, while providing the scale necessary for the company’s direct-to-consumer ambitions[5][24].

Moreover, Paramount emphasizes that its acquisition would be pro-competitive and pro-theatrical, creating what the company frames as a “stronger Hollywood” with enhanced competition against Netflix and Disney[5][6][7][24]. Under Paramount’s vision, WBD’s theatrical slate would not only be maintained but expanded, with the combined company committing to more theatrical releases across the year and fuller theatrical windows before streaming release[5][7][24]. This directly addresses concerns from Cinema United, the theater owners’ association, which has warned that Netflix ownership of WBD could reduce annual domestic box office revenue by as much as 25 percent if theatrical releases migrate to streaming[20][38]. For Paramount, the theatrical commitment serves dual purposes: it differentiates the company from Netflix (addressing regulatory and public concerns about consolidation), while simultaneously preserving theatrical as a revenue window and marquee marketing tool, particularly for franchises like Harry Potter and DC properties.

Netflix, for its part, argues that its ownership would actually preserve theatrical releases for Warner Bros. films, with Sarandos explicitly stating that movies with existing theatrical commitments would continue to release in cinemas, and future non-committed films would also go theatrical[20][34]. However, Netflix’s historical track record on theatrical releases—releasing approximately 30 films theatrically in 2024, but for truncated windows and limited critical acclaim—suggests a fundamental misalignment between Netflix’s business model (maximizing subscriber engagement and retention) and the theatrical exhibition business model (maximizing theatrical revenue and audience experience)[17][20][34][38]. This tension lies at the heart of regulatory concerns and industry opposition to the Netflix deal.

The Regulatory Gauntlet: Antitrust, Political Leverage, and Uncertainty

Perhaps the most consequential difference between Paramount’s and Netflix’s bids lies in regulatory probability. Paramount has explicitly stated that it expects “expeditious regulatory clearance” for its transaction, framing the deal as pro-competitive and pro-consumer[5][7][16][22][23]. The logic is straightforward: combining Paramount (the third-largest U.S. SVOD provider by subscriber count, with approximately 79 million subscribers across Paramount+ and related services) with HBO Max (the fourth-largest, with approximately 128 million global subscribers and 58-128 million in the U.S. depending on measurement) would result in a combined SVOD market share of approximately 22 percent based on viewing hours[47][48]. This remains below the 30-35 percent threshold that typically triggers serious FTC/DOJ scrutiny in media mergers, particularly when competing options exist (Netflix, Disney+/Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, Peacock, Apple TV+, and others)[47].

Netflix’s transaction, by contrast, faces explicit antitrust headwinds. Paramount has calculated that combining Netflix (20 percent SVOD market share by viewing hours) with HBO Max (15 percent) would yield a combined 35 percent market share, potentially concentrating the SVOD market in a manner that invites regulatory action[5][16][47][48]. Paramount’s attorneys flagged this in a December 1 letter to WBD, noting that in many European Union markets, the combination would pair Netflix (the dominant SVOD provider globally) with either the number-two or number-three competitor, potentially triggering blocks under European competition law[2][5]. Furthermore, the letter warned that combining Netflix with HBO’s prestigious content library—including Game of Thrones, Harry Potter, DC Entertainment—could harm theatrical exhibition, reduce competition for creative talent, and entrench Netflix’s bargaining power over producers, writers, directors, and actors[2][5][33].

The Trump administration’s posture on the Netflix-WBD deal adds political complexity to the antitrust analysis. In early December 2025, as the bidding process neared conclusion, reporting emerged that White House officials had privately discussed antitrust concerns regarding Netflix’s acquisition of WBD[25][26][29]. On December 7, at the Kennedy Center Honors, President Trump himself weighed in, telling reporters that Netflix’s acquisition “could be a problem” due to market concentration, and that his administration would be “personally involved” in determining whether the deal should proceed[10][23][25][26][29]. Trump’s comments signaled openness to Justice Department action blocking the deal on antitrust grounds—a threat that, while not determinative, adds uncertainty to Netflix’s regulatory timeline and approval odds.

The political dimension reflects the close relationship between the Ellison family and the Trump administration. Larry Ellison, through Oracle and his substantial holdings in other technology and defense-related companies, maintains influence with Trump. David Ellison has cultivated relationships with Trump’s circle, and Paramount’s legal team includes Gene Kimmelman, a former chief counsel of the FTC under Obama, positioning the company to credibly articulate regulatory arguments[5][25][26][29]. By contrast, Netflix, led by co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters, maintains a more distant relationship with the Trump administration—one complicated by Netflix’s content moderation policies and its role in streaming content that some conservative constituencies view skeptically[26][29]. This political asymmetry is not merely symbolic; it could influence DOJ/FTC enforcement priorities, particularly if Trump’s administration views blocking Netflix’s deal as consistent with broader antitrust policy goals and political preferences[25][26][29].

However, this political advantage carries significant caveats. Courts have historically applied strict scrutiny to politically motivated antitrust enforcement, and a DOJ case against Netflix would require substantial legal merit to withstand judicial challenge[33]. Moreover, Netflix has substantial resources to litigate any antitrust challenge, and legal precedent from the AT&T-Time Warner merger—which the DOJ challenged in 2017 under Trump’s first administration and subsequently lost—suggests that vertical integration between content and distribution may not trigger automatic regulatory disapproval[26][33]. Lastly, international regulators (particularly in the European Union) make independent assessments of merger-law compliance and are not directly influenced by U.S. political considerations, though they may coordinate with U.S. authorities on review timelines[12][33].

Paramount has also committed to expedited Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) filing and stated its readiness to accept consent decrees or divestitures if necessary to clear regulatory hurdles[5][22]. This proactive posture, combined with the lower projected market concentration resulting from a Paramount-WBD combination, suggests Paramount would likely achieve regulatory approval faster than Netflix—a meaningful advantage given the January 8, 2026 tender offer expiration and the strategic imperative to minimize deal uncertainty for shareholders.

Industry Earthquake: Consolidation, Labor, and Theatrical Exhibition

Regardless of which buyer ultimately prevails, the WBD transaction will reshape the entertainment industry’s structural dynamics. The consolidation of five major studios into a potential three (Netflix-WBD, Disney-Marvel-Pixar-Lucasfilm, and either a Paramount-WBD combination or a diminished Paramount) represents a seismic concentration of creative control, content production, and distribution capability[35][44][47]. This has provoked fierce opposition from stakeholders spanning from organized labor to theater owners to independent producers.

The Writers Guild of America has framed the Netflix deal as “an antitrust nightmare,” warning that consolidation would “eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers”[12][40][41].

http://mediagazer.com/251208/p10, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_acquisition_of_Warner_Bros._by_Netflix, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Discovery, https://www.alltop.com, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/paramount-launches-all-cash-tender-offer-to-acquire-warner-bros-discovery-for-30-per-share-302635412.html, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX4ErlkVluU, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/paramount-launches-all-cash-tender-offer-to-acquire-warner-bros-discovery-for-30-per-share-302635412.html, https://www.aol.com/articles/paramount-makes-108-billion-cash-144453409.html, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j1XWZL7yDM, https://fortune.com/2025/12/08/paramount-hostile-bid-warner-brothers-discovery-30-per-share-netflix-antitrust/, https://puck.news/so-is-david-ellison-going-to-bid-on-wbd-or-not/, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/12/08/alvz-d08.html, https://www.statista.com/statistics/496011/usa-svod-to-tv-streaming-usage/, https://explodingtopics.com/blog/video-streaming-stats, https://dcfmodeling.com/blogs/health/paraa-financial-health, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/paramount-launches-all-cash-tender-offer-to-acquire-warner-bros-discovery-for-30-per-share-302635412.html, https://collider.com/netflix-better-than-paramount-streaming-wars-warner-bros-opinion/, http://www.nickalive.net/2024/08/paramount-global-writes-down-cable.html, https://www.imdb.com/news/ni65609280/, https://katv.com/news/nation-world/fewer-movies-in-theaters-higher-streaming-prices-what-netflix-warner-bros-deal-means-hbo-max-dc-studios-stranger-things-discovery-global-harry-potter-film-television-entertainment-business, https://economictimes.com/news/international/us/netflixwbd-deal-derailed-paramount-skydances-108-4b-bid-tops-netflixs-82-7b-offer-david-ellison-accuses-warner-bros-discovery-of-favoring-netflix/articleshow/125837626.cms, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/paramount-launches-all-cash-tender-offer-to-acquire-warner-bros-discovery-for-30-per-share-302635412.html, https://fortune.com/2025/12/08/paramount-hostile-bid-warner-brothers-discovery-30-per-share-netflix-antitrust/, https://pulse2.com/paramount-launches-108-billion-tender-offer-for-warner-bros-discovery/, https://www.mediaplaynews.com/paramount-makes-hostile-30-per-share-all-cash-offer-to-wbd-shareholders/, https://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-wbd-warner-paramount-larry-david-ellison-trump-doj-antitrust-2025-12?op=1, https://www.axios.com/2025/12/05/paramount-warner-brothers-netflix-hostile, https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-12-08/paramount-goes-hostile-in-bid-for-warner-bros-challenging-72-billion-bid-by-netflix, https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/03/trump-helps-ellison-fight-off-netflix-in-bid-for-warner-brothers-by-pretending-to-care-about-antitrust-reform/, https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/corporate/story/bid-war-paramount-ups-ante-with-108bn-counter-overtakes-netflix-for-warner-bros-discovery-505679-2025-12-08, https://abc7.com/post/paramount-goes-hostile-bid-warner-bros-challenging-72-billion-netflix/18263947/, https://www.clickorlando.com/business/2025/12/08/paramount-goes-hostile-in-bid-for-warner-bros-challenging-a-72-billion-bid-by-netflix/, https://reason.com/2025/12/05/warner-bros-accepts-netflixs-83-billion-bid-but-antitrust-threats-still-loom/, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/paramount-launches-all-cash-tender-offer-to-acquire-warner-bros-discovery-for-30-per-share-302635412.html, https://stanleynolan.substack.com/p/should-warner-bros-discovery-sell, https://fortune.com/2025/12/08/paramount-hostile-bid-warner-brothers-discovery-30-per-share-netflix-antitrust/, https://www.aol.com/articles/netflix-wbd-deal-create-6-061843855.html, https://cinemaunited.org/2025/12/05/cinema-united-opposes-proposed-acquisition-of-legendary-hollywood-studio-warner-bros/, https://www.thestreet.com/latest-news/netflix-quietly-drops-warner-bros-discovery-cable-channels-in-sale-discovery-disney-paramount-amazon-sports, https://www.ainvest.com/news/oracle-cloud-alliance-skydance-paramount-future-media-consolidation-2507/, https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2025-12-05/netflix-warner-deal-how-theaters-and-unions-are-reacting, https://www.gurufocus.com/news/3237620/warner-bros-discovery-inc-wbds-uncertain-future-understanding-the-barriers-to-outperformance, https://imaa-institute.org/blog/skydance-paramount-and-the-politics-of-media-power/, https://www.seattlepi.com/news/netflix-warner-deal-would-drive-streaming-market-a21230078, https://www.streamtvinsider.com/content/paramount-expects-full-year-2025-profitability-dtc-streaming, https://www.aol.com/articles/paramount-launches-hostile-takeover-bid-141420343.html, https://truthonthemarket.com/2025/12/08/evaluating-the-sale-of-warner-bros-discovery-to-netflix-from-an-antitrust-perspective/, https://www.get.pelcro.com/post/paramount-s-q1-2025-results-79-million-subscribers-despite-tv-challenges, https://www.thespecialsituationreport.com/p/netflixs-827-billion-bid-to-end-the

Get M&A headlines on X!