Warner Bros.’ Board Of Directors Rejects David Ellison’s Hostile Bid; Says Paramount Has “Misled” Shareholders

Warner Bros.’ Board Of Directors Rejects David Ellison’s Hostile Bid; Says Paramount Has “Misled” Shareholders

The Warner Bros. Discovery board of directors has officially rejected David Ellison’s $108 billion hostile offer for the company, claiming Paramount “misled” investors in its proposal.

By DanielKlissmman - Dec 17, 2025 01:12 PM EST
Filed Under: DC Studios
Source: The Hollywood Reporter

Netflix may have just received a clearer path to taking over Warner Bros. Discovery. Following the announcement that the streaming giant had reached a deal to purchase WBD for $82.7 billion, David Ellison's Paramount Skydance submitted a hostile bid for the company, offering $30 per share, for a reported approximate value of $108.4 billion. The company attempted to position itself as the healthiest choice for shareholders, citing a commitment to the theatrical distribution industry, and an easier regulatory process. 

Following the announcement, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos stated the hostile bid was expected, but expressed confidence in the streamer's deal with WBD moving forward. Warner Bros. had ten business days to respond to the offer, and now, it's been made official: The company's board of directors has rejected Paramount's bid, citing "numerous significant risks and costs on WBD," and has urged its investors to reject it as well.

In an apparent sign that things have gotten heated, in a letter sent to shareholders (via the Los Angeles Times), the WBD board claimed Paramount had attempted to mislead shareholders in its efforts to acquire WBD: "[Paramount] has consistently misled WBD shareholders that its proposed transaction has a 'full backstop' from the Ellison family." Ted Sarandos, on the other hand, said the following about the decision in a statement

"The Warner Bros. Discovery Board reinforced that Netflix's merger agreement is superior and that our acquisition is in the best interest of stockholders. This was a competitive process that delivered the best outcome for consumers, creators, stockholders and the broader entertainment industry. Netflix and Warner Bros. complement each other, and we're excited to combine our strengths with their theatrical film division, world-class television studio, and the iconic HBO brand, which will continue to focus on prestige television. We're also fully committed to releasing Warner Bros. films in theaters, with a traditional window, so audiences everywhere can enjoy them on the big screen."

Netflix's co-CEO Greg Peters also stated: "By acquiring Warner Bros., we'll be able to offer audiences and creators around the world even more choice, value and opportunity. This transaction is fundamentally pro-consumer, pro-innovation, pro-creator and pro-growth. Together we will deliver an even broader selection of great series and films that audiences can watch at home and in theaters, while driving long-term value for our stockholders. We're excited to begin this new chapter and continue to entertain and delight fans around the world."

Chair of the board of directors at Warner Bros. Discovery, Samuel A. Di Piazza, Jr., said in a statement that the board had rejected Paramount's offer due to finding its value "inadequate, with significant risks and costs" for shareholders (via The Hollywood Reporter): 

"Following a careful evaluation of Paramount's recently launched tender offer, the Board concluded that the offer's value is inadequate, with significant risks and costs imposed on our shareholders. This offer once again fails to address key concerns that we have consistently communicated to Paramount throughout our extensive engagement and review of their six previous proposals. We are confident that our merger with Netflix represents superior, more certain value for our shareholders and we look forward to delivering on the compelling benefits of our combination."

Things aren't over for Paramount, however. For starters, David Ellison is not backing down. In a statement, the Paramount Skydance CEO said (via Bloomberg): "Our proposal clearly offers Warner Bros. shareholders superior value and certainty, a clear path to close, and does not leave them with a heavily indebted sub-scale linear business. I have been encouraged by the feedback we have received from Warner Bros. shareholders who clearly understand the benefits of our offer."

It had been previously reported by Semafor that Warner Bros. Discovery had been motivated to reject the offer due to concerns regarding the source of the company's funding. Specifically, the company had concerns about the Middle Eastern sovereign funds involved, and Larry Ellison's (David Ellison's father) fluctuating Oracle stock. A filing submitted by the company (detailed by THR) listed the specific amounts contributed by the sovereign funds, which it considered risky. Per the trade, the Qatar Investment Authority contributed $7 billion, Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund putting in $10 billion, and Abu Dhabi $7 billion. 

According to Bloomberg, another concern raised was that Paramount could "terminate the deal at any time." Speaking to CNBC, the aforementioned WBD Board of Directors Chair Piazza, Jr., said about rejecting the offer: 

"Some of the proposals gave multiple ways for that equity stack to disappear. Now [Larry Ellison] guaranteed it through an irrevocable trust at the last minute. And frankly, that wasn't as good as an investment-grade company that purported strong value, great response to our concerns of what it took to operate. I have enormous respect—as does the board—for the Ellison family and for the Paramount company. They just didn't measure up on these bids."

The offer also included support from Jared Kushner's private equity firm, Affinity Partners. However, prior to the announcement of WBD rejecting the hostile offer, Bloomberg revealed Kushner had backed out of the hostile bid. Per the report, Kushner being the son-in-law of President Donald Trump—who had said he would review the deal—"drew a lot of unwelcome attention."

Perhaps most prominently, Warner Bros. Discovery also said it considers Netflix and Paramount as having the same odds of being approved by regulators in a merger. Per THR, the hostile bid was expected to be rejected, given that it involved the same amount Paramount submitted in the second round of bids. Now, as mentioned, Netflix appears to have a more straightforward path to securing WBD. Still, this is not the end of the plot, though, as, according to The Hollywood Reporter, David Ellison is likely to submit a higher bid for the studio. 

About The Author:
DanielKlissmman
Member Since 8/28/2021
Daniel Klissmman is an entertainment journalist who's written for Movie Pilot, CBR.com, Cinemark and AMC Theatres. He loves superheroes with a passion and really wishes he'll one day get to hang out with Moon Knight.
DC Studios Branded A CinemaCon Loser By Hollywood Trade Following Underwhelming Presentation
Related:

DC Studios Branded A CinemaCon "Loser" By Hollywood Trade Following Underwhelming Presentation

Sydney Chandler Is Joining Her Father In The DCU - But Not As The Character She Tested For!
Recommended For You:

Sydney Chandler Is Joining Her Father In The DCU - But Not As The Character She Tested For!

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

1 2
ModHaterSLADE
ModHaterSLADE - 12/17/2025, 1:16 PM
WOMP WOMP! Too bad for Paramount, but as trash as both are, I'd take Netlfix any day.
Ryguy88
Ryguy88 - 12/17/2025, 4:23 PM
@ModHaterSLADE - I'd take the studio that releases movies in movie theaters.

Either way this is bad for consumers though, no doubt.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 12/17/2025, 6:10 PM
@ModHaterSLADE - Nothing's actually happened btw. Zaslav and the Board have no authority to reject the hostile bid. They're just panicking and crying to the shareholders that DO have the authority.
Clintthahamster
Clintthahamster - 12/17/2025, 6:42 PM
@ObserverIO - Came here to say this. "Hostile takeover" implies that existing management are not onboard. It's a direct appeal to shareholders, and they have the final say. It is, how you say, a foundational flaw with the way corporations are allowed to comport themselves in the American economic milieu.
whoknows
whoknows - 12/18/2025, 12:48 AM
@Ryguy88 - no its not. Netflix is already opening things in theatres so they are obviously open towards cinema. Kpop released in theatres and stranger things finale will be in theatres. So cinema is on the forefront for whats next for them so to purchase WB really lines up with their future plans. So I wouldnt worry about that aspect.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 12/18/2025, 4:51 AM
@whoknows - Stranger Things is barely even a Fathom event level release and K-Pop Demon Hunters was released by Sony not Netflix.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 12/18/2025, 4:57 AM
Netflix has yet to have a wide release under what they call the "Traditional model".

They could have done this at any time with all their big movies full of big stars with serious hype. You think they're suddenly gonna start just because they've absorbed Warners? Nope. Having Warners doesn't change a thing. They're not gonna stat doing something they could've been doing all along.

They are lying to get what they want, unprecedented streaming dominion a stranglehold monopoly where they can charge whatever they want and the elimination of cinema.
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 12/18/2025, 5:11 AM
@whoknows - ANY streaming service in a crowded field (outside of Amazon which draws in subs for prime delivery anyway) needs new BOX OFFICE films to help draw in Subs.

Good shows or streaming only films in the long term would never be enough and with ALL major film studios now having or getting their own streaming platforms that was increasingly going to be an issue for Netflix so it IS a logical extension to fully embrace proper cinematic releases with an established film studio.

As you say they had already expanded into limited releases of their in house films having BO releases as well as with the finale of Stranger things, but likely lack the infrastructure for distribution and clout to get favourable cuts of the BO that someone like WB or Disney has.

No options were ideal but prior film studios buying out another tended to reduce combined output anyway even when a promise given not to so not like it was a given Paramount wouldn't make HUGE cuts to staff and planned movies at WB.
Ryguy88
Ryguy88 - 12/18/2025, 9:53 AM
@whoknows - youre naive if you think being owned by Netflix won't have a negative impact on movie theaters
whoknows
whoknows - 12/23/2025, 1:52 AM
@Ryguy88 - I’d have to care about it to be naive, and I don’t give two shits what happens, that’s why I am not worried about it. But you guys can go ahead and worry your little heads about small problems.
Ryguy88
Ryguy88 - 12/23/2025, 11:20 AM
@whoknows - you dont care, but you are defending it regardless
RedFury
RedFury - 12/17/2025, 1:32 PM
As much as I don't love the idea of Netflix taking over WB, I would honestly rather it happen over Paramount getting it. I think the combo of WB could lead to some cool things, albeit concerning for in theatre films. Paramount just seems like a troublesome company based on some of the shady things I've heard, and that Ellison dude sounds like a toddler so screw him lol.
Clintthahamster
Clintthahamster - 12/17/2025, 6:43 PM
@RedFury - Popeye vs Bugs Bunny? That's all I've got, and we'll have that in the public domain in like six years.
TheJok3r
TheJok3r - 12/17/2025, 1:36 PM
I've preferred Paramount over Netflix, but the way Ellison has been acting, combined with who he's associated with, has made me reconsider my position. I'm still not a fan of WB in general getting picked up, but it seems like Netflix, as bad as they are, might be the lesser of two evils.
HashTagSwagg
HashTagSwagg - 12/17/2025, 1:40 PM
User Comment Image
UltimaRex
UltimaRex - 12/17/2025, 2:00 PM
So, are we moving on then?

Excellent.
Wahhvacado
Wahhvacado - 12/17/2025, 2:01 PM
User Comment Image
HeavyMetal4Life
HeavyMetal4Life - 12/17/2025, 2:08 PM
Excellent. The lesser of two evils
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 12/17/2025, 6:22 PM
@HeavyMetal4Life - Paramount is the lesser of two evils by far. Netflix are lying through their teeth about theatrical windows.

Get them to write that into a contract. That they are committed to traditional theatrical windows. Get them to put a minimum number on that and promise to stick to it for a decade. Lol you think they will? No, they'll say okay you called our bluff we no longer want Warner Bros.

Netflix intends to destroy cinema.

Fact.


We know who Netflix is just as we know who Paramount is. Netflix are notoriously anti-cinema. Cinema is Netflix's biggest competition. It sure ain't the other streaming services lmao. And that's before acquiring HBO Max. That shit is literally the reason that anti-trust laws exist.

Paramount is and always has been theatrical first. They don't need to lie. We know they are. Just as we know Netflix isn't, which is why Netflix do need to lie.

But the shareholders aren't as stupid as Zaslav hopes. They'll make the right choice.
THEKENDOMAN
THEKENDOMAN - 12/17/2025, 2:32 PM
This is absolute bollocks, man.

Warner Bros.’ board basically [frick]ing said,
“Yeah, we’d rather take LESS money, MORE risk, and give Netflix a monopoly chokehold… because Paramount hurt our feelings.”

Make it make [frick]ing sense.

Ellison’s deal wasn’t some back-alley scam; the man came with $108B, actual theatrical commitment, and a plan that didn’t involve turning WB into a [frick]ing Netflix content farm. But no… WBD wants the “safe, stable” deal with a company that’s literally built on debt, subscriber churn, and cancelling shows before the [frick]ing paint dries.

And spare me the moral panic about “sovereign funds.” Hollywood has been taking Saudi, Qatari, and UAE money for YEARS, but suddenly, when [frick]ing Paramount shows up with a [frick]ing real offer, it’s unacceptable? Please. The hypocrisy is louder than the [frick]ing price tag.

The board's attempt to claim Paramount “misled” shareholders is rich, given that WBD is the same [frick]ing company that shelved [frick]ing finished movies for tax write-offs and buried HBO Max under [frick]ing terrible decisions.

This is not [frick]ing strategy.
This is not [frick]ing shareholder value.
This is [frick]ing ego-driven corporate [frick]ing theatre.

Ellison has flaws, yes, but he’s fighting tooth and nail, while WBD is acting like a deer in headlights, handing itself over to Netflix for pennies on the [frick]ing dollar.

This whole thing is [frick]ing bollocks.
And the worst [frick]ing part?
It’s the fans, creatives, and workers who’ll feel the fallout while billionaires play [frick]ing Monopoly.

For [frick]s Sake
dapug88
dapug88 - 12/17/2025, 4:13 PM
@THEKENDOMAN - are you done bitching yet? Whine just a little louder and maybe the Ellisons will hear you. Good for WB and Netflix.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 12/17/2025, 6:33 PM
@THEKENDOMAN - Acting like their credit isn't good, lol. Like Larry Ellison's credit isn't good. Dude was LITERALLY THE RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD this September. This is Oracle we're talking about. Despite the 10% drop last Wednesday they are big big news. Watch that stock go nuts next year when Stargate happens. AI is not Beanie Babies, AI is Railroads. And the Saudis are kinda big news globally too. You know like where ALL THE MONEY IS. What because it's Arab money it's suddenly bad? Um, you're Zionism is showing Zaslav. And The Bank of [frick]ing America? Come on. It's the Bank of [frick]ing America ffs!

Their credit is good. Their credit is the best in the world.
Clintthahamster
Clintthahamster - 12/17/2025, 6:45 PM
@THEKENDOMAN - The best time to stop taking money from the Saudis was yesterday. The second best time is now.
Clintthahamster
Clintthahamster - 12/17/2025, 6:46 PM
@THEKENDOMAN - But also, I'm certain that's not why they turned it down. Ellison is turning Skydance/Paramount into a cult of personality, putting Bari Weiss in charge of CBS news, for example. The writing's on the wall. That company will be up for sale as soon as our current piece of shit president dies peacefully of natural causes (McDonalds) or is out of office, whichever happens first.
THEKENDOMAN
THEKENDOMAN - 12/17/2025, 6:53 PM
@ObserverIO - Exactly [frick]ing this. Thank you. Someone in this thread is actually doing the math rather than indulging in a moral panic. (yes, that's a shot at you, little one, @dapug88 . Now, drown in excitement that ive mentioned your name in a response, sit back and learn as the grown-ups talk, which you called whining.)

Back to reality, my apologies @ObserverIO . Back to your comment:

The idea that Larry Ellison, the man whose company literally powers half the [frick]ing global enterprise sector, doesn’t have “good credit” is laughable. Oracle isn’t some startup praying for liquidity; it’s one of the most entrenched pillars in AI infrastructure, defence tech, financial cloud, and [frick]ing government systems. Their valuation moves [frick]ing markets.

And yes, the sovereign wealth funds involved aren’t pocket change — they’re some of the largest capital pools on the planet. Saudi PIF alone controls over $900B. QIA sits at $500B+.
ADQ and Mubadala together dwarf half the [frick]ing Western private equity world.

To pretend that this is “risky” money is either ignorance or convenient xenophobia dressed up as [frick]ing fiscal concern.

Meanwhile, [frick]ing WB is acting like Netflix, a company built on debt and subscriber volatility. is somehow the [frick]ing safer, more [frick]ing stable long-term play because it doesn’t come with “foreign funding.” Please. This is optics, not [frick]ing economics.

Paramount’s offer wasn’t fantasy; it was more [frick]ing cash, more [frick]ing certainty, more [frick]ing stability, and more [frick]ing alignment with [frick]ing theatrical distribution, which WBD desperately needs to survive the [frick]ing next decade.

But hey, if the [frick]ing board wants to pretend [frick]ing Bank of America debt is holier than [frick]ing sovereign capital, that’s their [frick]ing delusion to live in.

You nailed it:
AI is the [frick]ing new railroads. The money is [frick]ing shifting. The industry is [frick]ing shifting. WB chose comfort over [frick]ing logic.

And it’s going to age like [frick]ing milk.

For [frick]s Sake
THEKENDOMAN
THEKENDOMAN - 12/17/2025, 6:54 PM
@dapug88 - @dapug88 - Aww, bless.
As expected, it wouldn't be CBM without our toddler sections to respond.

I’m not “bitching,” little one, I’m explaining why a board turning down $17B more cash is objectively insane. If this level of conversation is too advanced for you(obviously), grab some crayons and come back when you're [frick]ing ready.

For [frick]s Sake.
THEKENDOMAN
THEKENDOMAN - 12/17/2025, 7:00 PM
@Clintthahamster - Come one matey. Could you spare me the [frick]ing performative morality?
If Hollywood wants to “stop taking [frick]ing Saudi money,” it needed to do that before half the industry, half of tech, half of sports, and a quarter of [frick]ing global private equity were already tied to Gulf capital.

Every major studio, streamer, sports league, and tech company already indirectly [frick]ing accepts Saudi, Qatari, or Emirati investment.

That’s just the [frick]ing global financial landscape, not a [frick]ing philosophical debate.

You don’t get to lecture or protest about “the best time to stop” when the entire system already [frick]ing banks on that [frick]ing money.

This isn’t ethics. It’s [frick]ing selective outrage.
THEKENDOMAN
THEKENDOMAN - 12/17/2025, 7:04 PM
@Clintthahamster - Brutha, you're throwing names around like it proves a point, but none of it addresses the actual mechanics of the [frick]ing deal.

WBD rejected a higher cash offer, backed by
1. [frick]ing A-tier enterprise tech giant.
2. [frick]ing three sovereign wealth funds with more liquidity than most nations.
3. A [frick]ing proposal that guaranteed theatrical stability.

Netflix won because it was [frick]ing familiar, not because it was [frick]ing inherently better.

You can dislike Ellison all you want, to each his own, and your prerogative, but let's not [frick]ing pretend personality politics outweigh billions in [frick]ing guaranteed liquidity.
And this "writing on the wall" [frick]ing conspiracy stuff?
Matey, that's not analysis. That's [frick]ing Reddit after dark.
If [frick]ing anything, Paramount not folding despite all these shows is the opposite of [frick]ing fragility.
spr0cks
spr0cks - 12/17/2025, 9:01 PM
@THEKENDOMAN -

Maybe if you cried more about it (....or LOUDER...), the WB Board and Zaslav will change their mind and come to their senses.

Try it out.
spr0cks
spr0cks - 12/17/2025, 9:03 PM
@THEKENDOMAN -

RE : "This isn’t ethics. It’s [frick]ing selective outrage."

Kinda like what you're doing here, then.

The gall to think you know better than the Board who've examined both deals intricately and have determined to their best judgment which deal serves their shareholders better is beyond laughable at this point and basically just running over the corpse of parody.
THEKENDOMAN
THEKENDOMAN - 12/17/2025, 9:43 PM
@spr0cks - You kids are still awake??

Okay, I'll bite:

When you've got no facts, no numbers, no industry understanding…Why not try to keep banging pots in the corner if it helps you feel involved?

For [frick]s Sake
THEKENDOMAN
THEKENDOMAN - 12/17/2025, 9:48 PM
@spr0cks - This is your last cookie. After this, go to bed.

Selective outrage? No, kiddo, it’s called understanding the actual mechanics of acquisition finance.

Pointing out that WBD’s reasoning is inconsistent isn’t “thinking I know better,” it’s acknowledging what every analyst from THR to Bloomberg has already highlighted:
- Paramount’s offer was [frick]ing larger.
– The liquidity was [frick]ing higher.
– The sovereign fund guarantees were [frick]ing structurally sound.
– And WBD’s “risk” argument contradicts their own [frick]ing prior evaluations.

You’re treating the board like they’re [frick]ing philosopher-kings instead of what they actually are,
a group making a [frick]ing defensive play to avoid a [frick]ing leadership shakeup.

That’s not [frick]ing sacred wisdom.
That’s [frick]ing corporate self-preservation 101.

But sure, tell me again how pointing out basic industry realities is “parody.”
Your projection is showing, kiddo.

Ok, cookie done. Get the [frick] to bed.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 12/18/2025, 5:03 AM
@spr0cks - "The gall to think you know better than the Board"

The actual experts all agree that the Paramount deal is far better than Netflix's. They do know better than Zaslav. Zaslav is a Zionist and refuses to take money from Arabs. He has a bias and is therefore being unprofessional with his predetermined decision and irresponsible with the shareholders potential money.
Clintthahamster
Clintthahamster - 12/18/2025, 7:42 AM
@THEKENDOMAN - As I said, I'm certain that Saudi Money is not why they turned it down (though it is okay to say that taking Saudi Money is bad, even if "everyone is doing it."

Ellison and Paramount/Skydance are irrevocably tied to a political movement that is the middle of flaming out spectacularly. The brand will be poison in five years, the stock will be in the toilet, and their assets will be stripped for parts.

To put it another way, occasionally I'll be hit up by a recruiter talking about a job that makes 50%-100% more than I make now. Then I research the company, and 100% of the time, they are startup backed by VC whose entire GOAL is to be sold to a competitor for lots of money, after which point the existing staff will be laid off, so I decline. Not saying that's analogous to the Paramount/WB situation, just that taking more money doesn't necessarily mean taking the better deal.

But yes, my grievances are admittedly petty. I dgaf if Ellison/Paramount is the better deal. I don't want to see Donald Trump dictating the terms of the DCU on Truth Social during his 4am shit. I hope that that mother[frick]er never gets anything he wants, and I hope his cronies and bootlickers are denied every joy until they're all gone from this earth. [frick]'em.
THEKENDOMAN
THEKENDOMAN - 12/18/2025, 7:52 AM
@Clintthahamster - Fair enough, matey. I feel your words. And I can't argue with that, my friend.

That's just the flip side of the discussion. Well said; I agree with you. [frick] 'em🖕

EarlChai
EarlChai - 12/17/2025, 2:32 PM
Isn’t that the definition of a hostile takeover? The new company ignores the board and goes straight to the shareholders, hoping they’ll sell despite the board’s recommendation. Nothing surprising here.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 12/17/2025, 6:36 PM
@EarlChai - Exactly! lol, this! This is just Zaslav and Netflix whining because they have no power over the situation anymore.
TheVisionary25
TheVisionary25 - 12/17/2025, 2:32 PM
Damn , Ellison is not gonna take this well and with Trump also pretty much dragging them through the mud now & Kushner backing out then I feel this is dead in the water regardless of if David submits a higher bid or not.

Also on another note , that banner image is funny but also reminds me how good the opening of MI 3 is!!.

?si=Ur2i9fSBKzjX75jD
THEDARKKNIGHT1939
THEDARKKNIGHT1939 - 12/17/2025, 2:36 PM
WB was already on their way to being Netflix 2.0 anyway.

User Comment Image
dapug88
dapug88 - 12/17/2025, 4:14 PM
@THEDARKKNIGHT1939 - so snape can’t be black?
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.

View Recorder