Paramount has requested that a federal judge hold a three-day evidentiary hearing for the impending Warner Bros. Discovery merger as the court mulls over a preliminary injunction to delay the takeover.
In a Wednesday filing, Paramount submitted a request for an evidentiary hearing that would require just three days in response to the lawsuit brought forward by 12 state attorneys general to issue a temporary restraining order against the pending $110 billion deal, which was granted on Monday, preventing the deal from closing for 14 days.
Should the request for the hearing be granted by U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin, who granted the request for the the restraining order, Paramount is seeking for the trial to be scheduled during the week of Aug. 17 or 24.
The requested window for the hearing would be just weeks after Aug. 3, when the judge will hear arguments for a preliminary injunction.
The request for the hearing aims to speed up the legal battles facing the merger ahead of the Sept. 30 ticking fee deadline, which would see Paramount be on the hook for a fee of 25 cents per share for every quarter the deal isn’t closed beyond that date, which translates to roughly $650 million per quarter, or approximately $7 million per day.
The lawsuit from the state AGs argues the takeover would create an entertainment giant that would control 27% of the wide-release theatrical distribution market, 30% of the submarket comprising “anticipated blockbuster films” and 27% of the basic cable bundle.
Martínez-Olguín said in her order that the AGs provided “compelling evidence that the combined firm resulting from the transaction will possess substantial market share in the wide-release theatrical distribution market.”
“Because the Plaintiff States make a strong showing that the Transaction will substantially lessen competition in the wide-release theatrical distribution market, they demonstrate irreparable harm would result if a TRO does not issue,” she wrote. “The Transaction would also be difficult, if not impossible, to unwind if permitted to proceed given the anticipated consolidation of operations, sharing of business-sensitive information and potential termination or reassignment of employees. The Plaintiff States have sufficiently established that irreparable harm would result in the absence of a TRO.”
