In a move that turned a corporate chess match into an all‑in bet, Oracle co‑founder Larry Ellison has personally guaranteed $40.4 billion in equity to back Paramount Skydance’s hostile $30‑a‑share offer for Warner Bros. Discovery.
Paramount’s revision, announced in a securities filing, is designed to answer the central objection Warner Bros. Discovery’s board has raised for weeks: where is the money coming from, and how certain is it? The board has favored Netflix’s competing plan — a smaller per‑share price but focused on studios and streaming — arguing Paramount’s financing looked fragile and “illusory.” Ellison’s guarantee and the publication of trust records that show about 1.16 billion Oracle shares held by the Ellison family trust are meant to remove that ambiguity.
Why this changes the dynamic
The headline figure is blunt: Ellison is putting his name and balance sheet on the line. The personal guarantee covers roughly the equity portion Paramount says it needs to close a roughly $78 billion transaction for all of WBD. For context, the Ellison family trust disclosure and the pledge not to revoke or transfer trust assets while negotiations are open were included to calm concerns about an opaque backstop.
Paramount also sweetened the deal in other ways: it raised its breakup fee to $5.8 billion (matching the compensation Netflix promised to WBD shareholders if its deal fell through). But the total price per share remains $30, while Netflix’s agreement — for Warner Bros. studios and HBO Max — values those assets at $27.75 plus stock and other considerations.
Shareholders, regulators and politics
This isn’t just a calculation about dollars and cents. Shareholders now face a choice: tender to Paramount’s all‑cash $30 offer or keep faith with the WBD board’s recommendation to accept Netflix’s plan and the prospective spin‑off of Discovery Global (the slate of cable channels including CNN, TNT and HGTV).
There are sensible arguments on both sides. Tendering could deliver immediate, higher cash value and might be seen as less likely to face antitrust scrutiny than the bigger global streaming consolidation Netflix would create. Paramount has argued that a Netflix‑HBO Max combination — bringing together the largest global streamer and HBO’s premium catalog — raises competitive concerns. Conversely, sticking with the board’s path preserves the chance for shareholders to capture value from a spun‑out Discovery Global or to benefit from Netflix’s equity upside in its deal structure.
WBD directors have repeatedly flagged the financing puzzle: a large portion of Paramount’s proposal relies on capital from Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds (including entities tied to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi). The board has questioned why the Ellison family — despite its wealth and the public trust disclosures — is not increasing its direct cash commitment beyond roughly $12 billion already on the table.
Game theory in public markets
There’s also a bidding‑war logic at play. Some investors see tendering to Paramount as a way to force Netflix back to the table with a higher bid. Others believe holding out could trigger a higher Paramount offer or prompt another bidder to surface for Discovery Global once it’s spun out. Corporate theater, it turns out, can be an effective way to extract more dollars from rival suitors.
Market reaction and the practical hurdles ahead
Stocks moved on the news: Paramount shares jumped and Warner Bros. Discovery rose, as investors priced the tug‑of‑war into probabilities. But a successful hostile acquisition faces more than money and market votes. Regulators in multiple jurisdictions will scrutinize content consolidation and media ownership — and political sentiment matters when state‑backed investors are involved and when national news outlets like CNN are part of the package.
Even with Ellison’s guarantee, the operation has logistical and legal friction points: the binding mechanics of tender offers, potential litigation from the WBD board, and the long arc of regulatory review. Paramount’s insistence that its all‑cash proposal is the clearer, cleaner path for shareholders is a persuasive narrative — if investors accept the financing is truly secure.
Extra context for how this sits in a changing media and tech landscape
This battle is another example of how tech money, streaming strategy and content factory economics collide. As tech firms push deeper into media and streaming platforms raise the stakes on content and distribution, the technical quality of what consumers watch — from formats to device features — keeps evolving too. That trend is part of why content owners matter: premium libraries and distribution scale power new video standards and platform bets, from HDR initiatives to device integration HDR10+ advanced. Big tech’s playbook also now routinely includes advanced AI capabilities and bespoke content tooling; the industry’s winners will be those who pair content with the right technology, not just scale of libraries MAI‑Image‑1.
What to expect next
Warner Bros. Discovery’s board will respond, legally and strategically, in the coming days. Shareholders have a limited window to decide whether to tender their stock to Paramount; tender deadlines can be extended, and the calendar itself — including WBD’s annual meeting — will shape the tempo of any escalation.
More offers could arrive, or corporate lawyers might find ways to slow the fight into a protracted contest. Either way, the field has shifted: with Larry Ellison’s name on the line, the question is no longer whether Paramount can point to financing on paper — it’s whether that financing can survive the political, regulatory and market scrutiny that inevitably follows any megadeal involving global streaming and national media brands.