Plaintiffs Challenge $1.88B Bond in Paramount-WBD Merger Fight
The Spin
Narrative A
Of its own volition, Paramount proposed, negotiated and submitted the no-close stipulation to the court, calling it a "significant win" in public. Now, after seeing the fees racking up from its similarly self-designed ticker offer, the company has U-turned and asked for a bond to cover rising costs. This is a shameless about-face with no legal credibility, and should therefore be denied.
Narrative B
The no-close order is a real injunction, enforceable by contempt, directed at a party and designed to preserve the exact relief plaintiffs seek, for which the Clayton Act makes a proper bond a mandatory condition. Facing unrecoverable losses from ticking fees due to wrongful delay, it is only right that the plaintiffs stump up the cash as compensation for the damages they cause.