Paramount–Warner: the Ellison empire in Trump’s shadow

On March 13, 2026, Pete Hegseth grew impatient in front of the cameras. CNN had published an uncomfortable report about US preparations for an Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The Pentagon chief challenged the reporting, then said he wanted David Ellison to take over the network as soon as possible. A government official was openly anticipating an editorial benefit from a change of ownership. The Warner Bros. Discovery acquisition had acquired a remarkably revealing political endorsement. [S05]

Six and a half months later, the transaction is approaching completion. On September 30, a federal judge approved the settlement reached with twelve states that had sought to block it. Closing is scheduled for October 6, 2026, subject to customary conditions. As of October 4, this investigation’s reporting cutoff, it remains prospective. Paramount is set to acquire all of Warner Bros. Discovery, including CNN, HBO and Warner Bros., after CBS entered the Ellison orbit in 2025. [S01] [S03] [S13] [S43]

The importance of this deal extends well beyond its price. A family with access to the president, a regulator negotiating commitments about news coverage, foreign sovereign investors and a substantial debt burden converge around two major American newsrooms. The documents reveal how these elements connect. They also expose the shortcuts that would turn a defensible investigation into an unreliable indictment.

The central question is dependence: to whom will the owner answer when its journalists’ independence complicates its interests?

An empire assembled through two acquisitions

The transactions need to be kept separate. In 2025, Skydance gained control of Paramount, CBS’s parent. In February 2026, Paramount announced its agreement to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery. The first transaction opened the door to CBS. The second is intended to bring CNN, the Warner studios and HBO into the same ownership structure. Collapsing them into a single story would wrongly attach concessions made for the Paramount acquisition to the later Warner deal. [S13] [S01]

The February 27 agreement offers $31 in cash per WBD share, at an announced enterprise value of approximately $110 billion. The equity value announced in February is around $81 billion; the larger figure also reflects debt being assumed. The February 27 release gives a $110 billion enterprise value; this investigation uses that announced figure, distinct from the cash paid to shareholders alone. [S01] [S03]

The industrial argument rests on scale: combine libraries, spread technology costs, compete more effectively in streaming and exploit franchises across distribution channels. For a film, this means coordinating its journey through cinemas, television and digital subscriptions. For a creator seeking financing, it also means seeing two potential buyers brought under one roof. Economies of scale and fewer independent decision-makers are two aspects of the same transaction. [S01] [S28]

Netflix ultimately declined to raise its bid. Its February 26 statement says the necessary price made the transaction financially unattractive and maintains that its proposal had a credible regulatory path. That account places a limit on claims of a politically engineered withdrawal: price discipline is one of the documented explanations for Netflix’s exit. [S02]

On October 2, Paramount announced that the combined company would be called Skydance Corporation, with the change expected to take effect on October 6, while preserving the Paramount and Warner Bros. brands. That arrangement captures the economic pluralism problem: familiar names can survive beneath a common centre of decision-making. [S04] [S44]

Scroll through 4 panels, or choose a number. The complete infographic remains available.

1/4 · 2025: settlement and undertakings

2/4 · 2025: approval and editorial reporting

3/4 · 2026: agreement, DOJ and foreign equity

4/4 · 2026: settlement and expected closing

View the complete infographic

At CBS, a settlement before clearance

The 2025 precedent carries the heaviest suspicions. Donald Trump sued CBS over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. Paramount announced a $16 million settlement overnight on July 1–2. The amount includes the plaintiffs’ legal fees and costs, with the remainder allocated to the future presidential library. The company also agreed to publish transcripts of future interviews with eligible presidential candidates, subject to specified legal and national-security redactions. [S09]

The financial wording matters. Describing this as a personal $16 million payment to the president would be inaccurate. The arrangement benefits his library project and pays litigation costs. Paramount issued no apology. Settling avoided the expense and uncertainty of a trial, while leaving open the question of the bargaining conditions under which the company chose to settle. [S09] [S40]

Twenty-two days separate the settlement announcement from FCC approval on July 24. On July 22, Trump said the money had been received and referred to another $20 million expected from the incoming owners in advertising or related initiatives. That second amount was his assertion. Paramount disputed that public-service announcements formed part of the settlement. Automatically adding $16 million and $20 million would generate an eye-catching total by combining an established agreement with an alleged additional benefit. [S11] [S12] [S13]

The timing warrants scrutiny. The company was litigating against the president while awaiting a consequential decision from the federal administration. It settled before receiving clearance. The incentive problem is straightforward: executives must weigh the cost of confrontation against the cost of a transaction being delayed, weakened or lost. Editorial freedom can become a risk item in a corporate negotiation.

Paramount says the lawsuit and the merger were separate. The FCC also described the litigation as separate from its review. Both public positions belong in the record. The chronology and overlapping interests still warrant examination. Establishing an unlawful exchange would require further evidence about communications, intent and the agreed connection between the acts. The public record reviewed here documents pressure and grounds for suspicion; it supplies no judgment finding that regulatory approval was purchased. [S10] [S15] [S13]

Elizabeth Warren called for an examination of possible bribery. Before the decision, Ed Markey and Ben Ray Luján demanded a vote of the full Commission. These interventions establish that institutional objections were raised at the time. They remain allegations and requests for investigation by political officeholders. [S15] [S16]

The FCC enters the newsroom

The most concrete evidence concerns editorial commitments. The FCC approved the merger by two votes to one after promises addressing viewpoint diversity, objectivity and the elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Commissioner Anna Gomez dissented. The licences included those of 28 CBS-owned-and-operated television stations. Broadcast ownership gave the regulator its leverage over the wider group. [S13]

Letters submitted to the FCC on July 22 provided for an ombudsman to handle complaints concerning news coverage for at least two years. The role would report to Paramount’s president, within the company. Presented as a guarantee of impartiality, it also became a political result that could be claimed while the presidential lawsuit and pending merger approval remained central to the controversy. [S14]

This is where accusations of regulatory accommodation can be grounded in observable conduct. The administration secured undertakings aligned with its ideological priorities; the buyer obtained clearance. The review connected a change of corporate control to commitments about how a newsroom would operate. A regulator examining the future owner was also obtaining influence over the editorial behaviour that owner promised. [S13] [S14]

A complaints mechanism can be useful. Its independence depends on who appoints it, its mandate, its resources and the freedom left to reporters. Reducing the discussion to the word “impartiality” bypasses those questions of power. A newsroom can investigate an administration fairly while making that administration deeply uncomfortable. Treating official satisfaction as an implicit measure of journalistic quality would move the profession’s compass.

The announcement that The Late Show would end intensified the atmosphere. CBS made it public on July 17, 2025, scheduling the end for May 2026, shortly after Stephen Colbert criticised the settlement. The network cited the economics of late-night entertainment and described the decision as financial. The timing illustrates the distrust surrounding the company. The documents assembled here do not establish that Trump ordered the programme’s cancellation. [S17]

The Ellisons, presidential access and Kushner’s brief involvement

Larry Ellison’s political proximity can be documented without rumours. A Trump re-election fundraiser took place at his Rancho Mirage property on February 19, 2020. On January 21, 2025, he joined the executives presenting Stargate at the White House. These episodes document longstanding, public access to the president. The effect of that access on the acquisition’s approval needs separate examination. [S06] [S07]

Father and son play different roles in this story: Larry supplies financial backing; David leads the industrial and media project. In the February 2026 offer, the Ellison family and RedBird supported an announced $47 billion equity commitment. The announced equity commitment was part of the financing supporting the offer. [S01]

Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, also appeared during the bidding battle. Affinity Partners was listed among the proposed financial backers of the hostile offer, then announced its withdrawal on December 16, 2025. The material reviewed does not establish that the firm disbursed financing. Listing him as a final financier of the acquisition would therefore mislead. His initial involvement remains politically relevant: a member of the president’s family circle was, for a time, part of the financial structure behind a bidder for control of CNN. [S08]

These connections give substance to concerns about privileged access. Assessing their significance requires following subsequent conduct: publicly discussed commitments, regulatory decisions and newsroom organisation. A relationship map alone would turn every meeting into suspicion and every suspicion into a conclusion. Here, the most direct signal came from Hegseth himself, linking his dissatisfaction with CNN to his hopes for its prospective owner. [S05]

The expectation of editorial change was thus being voiced in public. The question becomes whether the enlarged company will withstand the expectations of those who have supported or welcomed its expansion.

A new reporting line, then a delayed investigation

On October 6, 2025, Paramount announced the acquisition of The Free Press and Bari Weiss’s appointment as CBS News editor-in-chief. The release specified that she would report directly to David Ellison. That organisational fact is more probative than a political label: it directly connects the company’s leadership with responsibility for its journalism. [S18]

The dispute over Inside CECOT then supplied an observable example. The 60 Minutes investigation into migrants sent to the Salvadoran prison was pulled from its December slot. Weiss sought further reporting, including more of the administration’s response. The decision generated an internal and public controversy, intensified when a version accidentally became available in Canada. [S19]

The segment was eventually rescheduled and aired on January 18, 2026, in an updated version. That outcome must accompany any account of the postponement. Describing the investigation as permanently buried would distort the record. Weiss also denied pressure from Ellison. [S20] [S21] [S22]

The analytical issue remains substantial. Giving the subjects of an investigation a right of reply is legitimate journalism. Making publication indefinitely dependent on officials’ participation would give those officials a delaying instrument. The distinction turns on the requests made, the time allowed, the evidence already obtained and the precise reasons for postponement. In this case, the chronology documents a contested editorial decision followed by broadcast. It allows a vulnerability to be examined without inventing an instruction that caused it.

CBS therefore offers CNN employees more than an abstract precedent. The group has already changed its editorial reporting structure and experienced a dispute over politically sensitive reporting. Concern about the acquisition draws on that concrete experience. [S18] [S19] [S21]

Gulf capital, concentrated voting control

Warner’s financing adds another layer. In the ownership projection considered by the FCC, three investors associated with Gulf states account for 38.5% of equity: Saudi Arabia’s PIF, 15.1%; Abu Dhabi’s L’imad, 12.8%; and Qatar Investment Authority, 10.6%. These percentages describe the structure presented to the regulator, ahead of closing and any final adjustments. [S24]

Projected aggregate foreign equity ownership is 49.5%. The September 17 authorisation permits up to 100% aggregate indirect foreign equity ownership, within its specified framework and conditions. Three different figures must therefore remain separate: 38.5% for those Gulf investors, 49.5% for projected total foreign equity, and 100% for the authorised regulatory ceiling. Confusing them could falsely imply either an already-established Gulf majority or a transfer of voting control. [S23] [S24] [S37]

Class A voting shares remain controlled by the Ellison family and RedBird. The foreign investors concerned contribute equity without those voting rights. They share the economic risk while formal decision-making power remains on the American side. This separation is the central defence of the structure. [S24] [S26]

Scroll through 2 panels, or choose a number. The complete infographic remains available.

1/2 · Projected economic ownership

2/2 · Voting control and authorised ceiling

View the complete infographic

The analysis of influence begins where an analysis of voting rights ends. An investor without a vote or board seat can still matter economically to a partner through future financing, commercial relationships or a willingness to invest again. That is a possible channel of dependence, distinct from a legal right to dictate CNN’s coverage. The possibility deserves monitoring; evidence of actual instructions from these funds would have to be established separately.

Six senators warned the FCC in May about sovereignty, data and editorial independence. Their letter also challenged the signal sent by Brendan Carr, who had publicly characterised the merger favourably and suggested it could be reviewed quickly. The objection concerns the appearance of a preferred outcome before scrutiny had been completed. [S25]

Safeguards applying to the foreign investors prohibit intervention in content, management and certain non-public information about US persons. Relevant changes in rights require further review. Those restrictions carry legal weight. Their practical credibility will depend on the ability to detect informal influence and enforce compliance. [S23] [S37]

Federal reassurance, state resistance

The September foreign-ownership ruling was issued by the FCC’s Media Bureau under delegated authority, rather than through another vote of the commissioners. The procedure is contested, particularly after the senators’ request for collective scrutiny. Its contrast with the public vote in 2025 supports criticism of regulatory accommodation. Delegated administrative action alone establishes no illegality. [S23] [S25]

Federal antitrust review is a separate process. On June 12, 2026, the Department of Justice closed its investigation, concluding that the merger should preserve or increase competition. It reported eight months of scrutiny and more than two million documents. An accusation that federal authorities simply failed to investigate would contradict the available record. The substantive challenge concerns their assessment and the safeguards they considered necessary. [S27]

The strongest federal argument concerns streaming: combining two less powerful services could create a more effective challenger to the leaders. For theatrical films, the DOJ emphasises independents and newer entrants. One detail rules out a common caricature: its statement expressly excludes YouTube and TikTok as substitutes for SVOD in the relevant analysis, while recognising their broader competition for attention. [S27]

The state attorneys general viewed the deal differently. Their July 13 action targeted, among other things, the loss of one of five major theatrical distribution decision centres and greater bargaining power in cable networks. They estimated that the merged company would account for approximately 27% in each of two markets they identified: wide-release theatrical film distribution and basic-cable-network licensing. Those are the plaintiffs’ calculations and market definitions. [S28]

Scroll through 2 panels, or choose a number. The complete infographic remains available.

1/2 · Five groups, then four control centres

2/2 · Two distinct markets and alleged shares

View the complete infographic

The difference in perspective matters. A larger catalogue may appeal to a subscriber. One fewer buyer may make negotiations harder for a producer trying to sell a film. A cinema or television distributor may become more dependent on an enlarged portfolio of essential content. No single percentage captures all these relationships.

News pluralism adds a distinct concern. Two newsrooms can retain their names, studios and journalists while sharing the same ultimate authority over appointments, investment and savings. Counting the brands visible on screen can therefore suggest more dispersed power than counting independent ownership centres. Bringing CBS and CNN together makes that distinction concrete. [S01] [S18]

The states obtained a temporary block in July before moving to negotiations. Their intervention demonstrates that institutional resistance existed. Abroad, Paramount also announced European Commission approval in July and UK CMA clearance in August. These company announcements provide a useful counterpoint: acceptance of the deal cannot automatically be reduced to a personal favour from Trump. [S29] [S32] [S33]

Safeguards secured, concentration preserved

The settlement announced on September 21 and approved on September 30 converts an attempted prohibition into monitored commitments. The deal can proceed while the company accepts obligations concerning films, commercial relationships, employment and news. The compromise addresses identified risks while allowing the combined ownership structure to form. [S30] [S03]

Over five commitment years, the minimum is 30 theatrical releases annually for two years, then 32 for three years, including at least 20 and 21 wide releases respectively. With a 2026 closing, the full calendar years run from 2027 through 2031. The calculated floor is therefore 156 releases, including 103 wide releases. These are promised releases, not 156 additional productions on top of normal output. [S30] [S31]

The document provides a six-month cure period after a missed annual quota. If the shortfall persists, the company must divest its Miramax interest within the following twelve months. That is a more specific mechanism than an immediate forced sale after the first miss. Additional US production spending and separate negotiations for the two cable-network portfolios add further protections. [S31] [S30]

Scroll through 2 panels, or choose a number. The complete infographic remains available.

1/2 · Annual minima and wide releases

2/2 · Cure, divestiture and separate remedies

View the complete infographic

The buyer is undertaking to deliver a volume of films and particular commercial behaviour. The fundamental question is equivalence: can guaranteed output compensate for the disappearance of an independent buyer? Two studios could choose different projects, make conflicting bets and compete for the same writers. A quota can preserve activity while allowing portfolio decisions to converge.

The text also contains an important tax qualification. Some commitments concerning the proportion of production days in the United States depend on the enactment of specifically defined tax credits. They are conditional obligations, separate from the commitment to additional spending. Treating every promise of domestic production as an immediate, unconditional benefit would overstate the settlement. [S31]

Several labour organisations support the safeguards obtained, including IATSE, the DGA and the Teamsters in the states’ announcement. Their interests are distinct from the owner’s: they are seeking work and protections in a pressured industry. That support helps explain the compromise; it does not independently measure the pluralism left after the merger. [S30]

An independent board appointed by the owner

The protection offered to CBS and CNN deserves close reading. The agreement provides for a board of five experienced journalists, established within 180 days of closing. Its members are appointed by the combined company’s board of directors. It reports to that board through the chief compliance officer. Its remit covers content produced principally for US distribution. [S31, §III.D]

Scroll through 3 panels, or choose a number. The complete infographic remains available.

1/3 · The corporate board appoints the editorial board

2/3 · The board, CBS and CNN, then the reporting chain

3/3 · Timing, scope and settlement safeguards

View the complete infographic

There are genuine protections: exclusions for government representatives and people holding specified relationships with the group, limits on shared party affiliation, terms of service and restrictions on removal. The editorial board is meant to resolve disputes between journalists and management and defend independence, including from shareholders. Common ownership nevertheless retains the appointment of the watchdog and the destination of its reports. [S31, §III.D]

That accountability loop is the sensitive point. The body charged with protecting editorial autonomy remains embedded within the organisation that holds the economic power. It may provide recourse, formalise disputes, create a record and raise the cost of interference. It does not recreate separate ownership of the two newsrooms. The American scope also deserves attention when the protected business includes a global brand such as CNN.

Effectiveness will depend on observable features: the independence and quality of the appointees, their resources, their handling of a dispute involving the owner’s interests and reporters’ ability to raise concerns without retaliation. Putting “independence” into an agreement begins an institution. Its behaviour under pressure will test it.

Debt will enter the newsroom too

Financing adds a constraint that operates without a political statement. On September 30, Paramount announced pricing for $41.4 billion and €885 million of notes, alongside $8.5 billion and €850 million of Term Loan B financing, loans syndicated to investors. The notes sale is expected to close on October 5, subject to customary conditions; the loans also remain subject to closing conditions. As of October 4, pricing has been announced and settlement is still prospective. Dollar and euro amounts remain separate here to avoid an implicit currency conversion. These financings support the acquisition and repayment of certain debts; adding them to February’s $54 billion in initial commitments would double count stages of the funding structure. [S41] [S01]

Credit analysis is useful here because it reveals the pressure on future decisions. According to lender materials described by Octus, $18.7 billion of combined adjusted EBITDA, presented for the twelve months ended June 2026, includes $6 billion of estimated synergies. Subtraction gives a $12.7 billion base before that addition; expected gains account for approximately 32% of the presented total. EBITDA means earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation; this adjusted version adds future gains. It does not measure available cash. [S34] [S42]

Scroll through 2 panels, or choose a number. The complete infographic remains available.

1/2 · Presented EBITDA and estimated synergies

2/2 · Future gains and stages of execution

View the complete infographic

The calculation reveals how much execution matters to the story presented to lenders. A substantial part of the displayed ability to carry debt depends on gains to be delivered after the merger. Technology consolidation and property savings can be genuine. Paramount also said its synergy calculations did not include labour reductions. Converting the entire $6 billion directly into job cuts would be unsupported. [S34]

The economic tension remains. When a company must deliver promised gains, each category of spending becomes a candidate for comparison: property, technology, marketing, corporate functions and production budgets. An investigative newsroom consumes time, staff, travel and sometimes legal defence. Its civic value does not readily convert into integration savings.

This is a management risk, rather than an announcement of specific cuts at CBS or CNN. Debt heightens the importance of budgetary authority; concentration combines that authority; political proximity may make certain editorial choices more costly for the owner. The interaction of these mechanisms warrants scrutiny, rather than any single scenario presented as a predetermined outcome.

The final say comes with the company

The harshest defensible reading rests on facts that can withstand challenge. Paramount settled litigation with Trump before obtaining its 2025 clearance. The FCC accepted undertakings concerning news. CBS’s organisation linked its editorial leader directly to David Ellison. Hegseth publicly welcomed the prospect of his arrival at CNN. The new acquisition would combine the two newsrooms, with non-voting foreign capital and negotiated safeguards subject to oversight. [S09] [S13] [S18] [S05] [S24] [S30]

As of October 4, closing and the proposed appointments remain prospective. Any informal influence from financiers, and the editorial committee’s effective autonomy, will require scrutiny after the companies combine.

The democratic problem lies in how these dependencies interact. An owner selects leadership, allocates budgets and determines how much conflict a business can withstand. Government controls decisions the business needs. Investors supply the means to expand. As these dependencies strengthen together, newsroom freedom rests increasingly on individuals and safeguards whose resilience remains to be tested.

The brands may retain their voices. The acquisition concentrates the power to decide how much those voices are allowed to cost.

Method, documents and limitations

This documentary investigation is current to October 4, 2026. It compares company statements, parliamentary positions, accessible judicial and regulatory material, and identified reporting. It claims no original interviews, confidential access or bespoke requests for comment. The parties’ public responses are included.

The proposed consent decree filed on September 21 was read directly; AP and Reuters separately corroborate the September 30 judicial approval. Some original FCC files returned access errors, so their provisions are reported through identified sources, with that access limitation stated here. The private lender presentation has been described by Octus and was not directly available to this investigation. Ownership percentages are projections from the regulatory filing, market shares are those alleged by the states, and synergies are the buyer’s estimates. Closing status must be updated after October 6. [S03] [S38] [S23] [S24] [S28] [S34]

Further reading

Our investigation into the economics of Trump’s pardons examines another channel through which access to political decisions has financial consequences. The world rediscovers the price of money explains how funding conditions reach future budgets. These articles address separate mechanisms and establish no connection between the cases.

Sources and documents

S01 · Paramount · 2026-02-27

Paramount to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.

S02 · Netflix · 2026-02-26

Netflix declines to raise offer for Warner Bros..

S03 · Associated Press · 2026-09-30

Judge approves settlement allowing Paramount–Warner deal.

S04 · Paramount, Form 8-K · 2026-10-02

Form 8-K: proposed Skydance Corporation name change.

S05 · Reuters · 2026-03-13

Pentagon chief says he is eager for Trump ally to buy CNN.

S06 · KESQ · 2020-02-19

Inside account of Trump fundraiser in Rancho Mirage.

S07 · Associated Press · 2025-01-21

Trump highlights partnership investing in AI.

S08 · Reuters, via Investing.com · 2025-12-17

Warner Bros. Discovery board rejects rival bid from Paramount; Affinity withdrawal.

S09 · NPR / Georgia Public Broadcasting · 2025-07-02

Paramount agrees to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s CBS lawsuit.

S10 · MediaPost · 2025-07-02

Paramount reaches $16M settlement with Trump.

S11 · Reuters · 2025-07-22

Trump says he received $16 million payment after settlement.

S12 · TheWrap · 2025-07-02

Paramount says Trump settlement does not include PSAs.

S13 · Reuters · 2025-07-24

FCC clears way for Paramount–Skydance merger.

S14 · Ars Technica · 2025-07-28

How the Trump FCC justified requiring a bias monitor at CBS.

S15 · Elizabeth Warren / US Senate · 2025-07-24

Warren on approval of Paramount megamerger.

S16 · Ed Markey / US Senate · 2025-07-10

Markey and Luján urge full FCC vote following settlement.

S17 · UPI · 2025-07-17

CBS to end The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

S18 · Paramount · 2025-10-06

Paramount announces deal to acquire The Free Press.

S19 · TheWrap · 2025-12-22

Pulled 60 Minutes segment streamed in Canada by mistake.

S20 · Reuters / Investing.com · 2026-01-18

CBS to air previously pulled 60 Minutes report on El Salvador prison.

S21 · CBS News, 60 Minutes · 2026-01-18

Inside CECOT: broadcast transcript.

S22 · The Guardian · 2026-01-27

Bari Weiss addresses CBS staff.

S23 · Ars Technica · 2026-09-18

FCC permits foreign equity in Paramount.

S24 · The Desk · 2026-09-17

FCC Media Bureau approves foreign bankrolling of Paramount–WBD.

S25 · US Senate Committee on Commerce · 2026-05-20

Letter to FCC on Paramount foreign ownership.

S26 · Reuters · 2026-04-27

Paramount seeks FCC approval for foreign investors.

S27 · US Department of Justice · 2026-06-12

Antitrust Division closes investigation of Paramount–Warner merger.

S28 · California Attorney General · 2026-07-13

States sue to block Warner–Paramount merger.

S29 · California Attorney General · 2026-07-20

Bonta secures early court win blocking closing.

S30 · California Attorney General · 2026-09-21

Bonta announces settlement in Warner–Paramount litigation.

S31 · US District Court / California AG · 2026-09-21

Proposed consent decree, case 4:26-cv-07116-AMO, document 244.

S32 · Paramount · 2026-07-22

European Commission approves transaction.

S33 · Paramount · 2026-08-06

UK CMA approves transaction.

S34 · Octus · 2026-09-24

Paramount’s blockbuster debt sale for WBD takeover.

S37 · Associated Press · 2026-09-18

FCC allows foreign ownership supporting Paramount–Warner deal.

S38 · Reuters · 2026-09-30

US judge allows Paramount to close Warner acquisition.

S40 · CNN / KESQ · 2025-07-02

Paramount settles Trump’s 60 Minutes lawsuit.

S41 · Paramount, Investor Relations · 2026-09-30

Senior secured notes offerings and Term Loan B pricing.

S42 · SEC, Division of Corporation Finance · 2022-12-13

Non-GAAP Financial Measures, §103, questions 103.01–103.02.

S43 · Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery · 2026-09-30

Acquisition expected to close on October 6, subject to customary conditions.

S44 · Reuters · 2026-10-02

Combined Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery will be named Skydance.