In the Paramount/Warner bid, Larry Ellison's financial backstop used a revocable trust. This created a major risk for Warner, as the assets could be withdrawn at any time, potentially leaving them without recourse if the deal soured. This highlights a critical due diligence point in high-stakes M&A.
Related Insights
Warner Bros. Discovery highlighted a key flaw in Paramount's offer: the $40 billion equity commitment is backed by an opaque, revocable trust, not a direct, unconditional guarantee from the Ellison family. This lack of transparent financial certainty makes a competing deal far more secure and appealing to shareholders.
A board's duty to maximize shareholder value is an expected value calculation. A $100B offer with a 75% chance of closing is valued at $75B, making an $80B offer with 100% certainty more attractive. Boards weigh financing and regulatory risks heavily against the headline price.
Despite launching a tender offer—a typically fast acquisition method—Paramount's bid for Warner is not a true hostile takeover. It's contingent on lengthy antitrust approvals and requires Warner's board to eventually agree, making it a strategic move to force negotiations rather than a direct shareholder buyout.
Warner Bros. CEO David Zaslav employed a powerful negotiation tactic by not immediately responding to Paramount's offers. This silence compelled Paramount to repeatedly sweeten its own deal—increasing both the price per share and the percentage of cash—in an effort to secure a response, effectively negotiating against itself.
An acquisition target with a valuation that seems 'too good to be true' is a major red flag. The low price often conceals deep-seated issues, such as warring co-founders or founders secretly planning to compete post-acquisition. Diligence on people and their motivations is more critical than just analyzing the financials in these cases.
Kevin Bartlett's story shows how relying on a handshake deal with a trusted, older partner led to a complete loss of his expected multi-million dollar exit. Good intentions and personal relationships are not a substitute for formal contracts when business stakes are high.
Paramount's tender offer for Warner isn't designed for a quick hostile takeover, as it's conditional on regulatory approval and Warner's board signing a friendly deal. This makes the offer a strategic move to pressure the board by demonstrating shareholder support for a better price, rather than a direct acquisition mechanism.
The executive you're talking to may not be the sole decision-maker in an acquisition. Requesting the capitalization table early in the process is a key diligence step. It uncovers the full ownership structure, helping you identify and influence all the key stakeholders needed to approve the deal.
A personal guarantee exposes you to unlimited liability and is a common path to financial ruin, even for sophisticated individuals. As demonstrated by Larry Ellison's refusal in the Warner Bros. Discovery bid, avoiding this commitment is a critical principle for preserving wealth, regardless of the deal's perceived security.
In its hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros., Paramount's key pitch for regulatory approval stems from its financing. The deal is funded by Trump-allied figures like Larry Ellison, Jared Kushner, and Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds, creating a belief that a potential Trump administration would favor their acquisition over Netflix's.
