Paramount, California Attorney General, and Writers Guild Initiate Two-Day Settlement Mediation

Paramount has agreed to meet with California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the Writers Guild of America for two consecutive days beginning October 14, to discuss a settlement of lawsuits contesting its $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, according to a court filing released Tuesday.

These discussions follow Bonta’s cancellation of a previously scheduled meeting with Paramount last month, during which he accused the studio’s representatives of leaking and misrepresenting negotiation details.

Before the conference, both parties will submit concise statements outlining their positions, including the bases for the claims, an honest assessment of each side’s likelihood of prevailing, a summary of the principal disputes, and any specific issues that, if resolved, could facilitate an agreement, as stated in the filing.

Chief negotiators from Paramount, the states, and the Writers Guild of America will attend the settlement conference, as required by the order, which mandates that Paramount’s representatives possess full authority to negotiate and settle the case. They must be prepared to address their settlement objectives, any obstacles to agreement, and the prospect of a creative resolution.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson will preside over the discussions.

Progress on the deal has been limited. Bonta has stated he will only accept structural remedies, typically involving the divestiture of portions of the combined entity. To date, Paramount has offered only behavioral concessions, such as a commitment to release at least 30 films with a 45‑day theatrical window.

The conference scheduling follows the government’s Tuesday request that the court compel the states and the Writers Guild of America to bear the costs of the delay caused by their lawsuits challenging the $111 billion merger. If Paramount prevails, a $1.88 billion bond covering potential losses must be posted.

The filing described the states’ lawsuit as a secondary enforcement mechanism subject to specific restrictions that are not applicable to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission.

Source link