States Seek Injunction to Prevent Paramount-Warner Bros. Deal From Closing
California and 11 other states have filed for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the Paramount-Warner Bros. In a motion...
Key points
- California and 11 other states have filed for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the Paramount-Warner Bros.
- In a motion filed on Monday evening, the states asked a federal judge to act by July 22.
- Paramount has previously informed the states that it will not close the transaction before that date.
- “Plaintiff States have an interest in enforcing antitrust laws and their citizens face the risk of profound and irreversible injury in the absence of an injunction.” Popular on Variety The states filed a lawsuit earlier in the day, alleging that the $111 billion transaction violates federal antitrust law in three markets: wide-release theatrical distribution, blockbuster film distribution, and basic cable TV distribution.
What happened
California and 11 other states have filed for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the Paramount-Warner Bros. In a motion filed on Monday evening, the states asked a federal judge to act by July 22. Paramount has previously informed the states that it will not close the transaction before that date. “Plaintiff States have an interest in enforcing antitrust laws and their citizens face the risk of profound and irreversible injury in the absence of an injunction.” Popular on Variety The states filed a lawsuit earlier in the day, alleging that the $111 billion transaction violates federal antitrust law in three markets: wide-release theatrical distribution, blockbuster film distribution, and basic cable TV distribution. The California attorney general’s office had said earlier on Monday that it would seek an injunction if Paramount did not agree to pause the merger while the case is pending. and Paramount merge without a fight.” The injunction ruling will be an early test of the strength of the states’ case.