（Singapore, 09.12.2025）Paramount Skydance has launched a dramatic US$108 billion hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, a move that has pulled together some of the world’s richest investors, provoked fresh political questions in Washington, and set the stage for one of the biggest media battles in years. The bid, revealed on Monday, is designed to outmaneuver Netflix, which only days earlier announced its own plan to acquire Warner Bros.’ Hollywood studios and streaming assets.
What makes the Paramount proposal stand out is not only its size, but also the constellation of financiers behind it. The offer is powered by a massive financing package arranged by Bank of America, Citigroup and Apollo Global Management. Supporting the equity portion is a deep bench of high-profile investors, including RedBird Capital and Oracle founder Larry Ellison, whose net worth briefly surpassed Elon Musk’s earlier this year. Joining them are several Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds — Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, the Qatar Investment Authority and Abu Dhabi’s L’imad Holding — as well as Affinity Partners, the investment firm led by Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law.
The inclusion of Kushner and these government-backed funds has raised immediate questions about political influence, especially after Trump commented over the weekend that he expected to be involved in overseeing Netflix’s proposed acquisition. By Monday, he attempted to downplay those remarks, saying that neither Netflix nor Paramount were “friends” of his and insisting he had not spoken to Kushner about the matter. But ethics experts say the situation is troubling. They argue that a president weighing in on a merger while a close family member participates financially in a competing bid is precisely the type of scenario that previous administrations tried to avoid.
As controversy swirls around the political implications, Paramount is trying to keep the spotlight on its financing strength. In a letter to the Warner Bros. board, Paramount CEO David Ellison assured directors that the deal is fully backed by investors who have agreed to waive governance rights and board seats, an arrangement designed to ease regulatory concerns and streamline approval. Ellison emphasized that the Ellison family trust, supported by billions of dollars in Oracle shares, provides the financial muscle to deliver the equity commitment without delay or uncertainty.
The takeover push is the culmination of three months of negotiations and repeated proposals. Filings show that Paramount made six overtures to Warner Bros. in twelve weeks, ranging from formal offers to high-level personal outreach, including Ellison’s visit to the Beverly Hills home of Warner Bros. CEO David Zaslav. The bid currently on the table includes a US$54 billion bridge loan split among Paramount’s main banking partners, while the equity portion has been simplified after Warner Bros. raised concerns about an earlier financing structure that included additional foreign investors. Notably, Chinese tech company Tencent, previously listed as a contributor, was dropped after directors questioned the involvement of another non-US partner.
Paramount’s cash offer of US$30 per share is meant to top Netflix’s US$27.75-per-share deal, which combines cash and stock and relies on about US$59 billion in unsecured financing arranged by Wells Fargo, BNP Paribas and HSBC. Netflix is interested only in Warner Bros.’ studios and streaming business, while Paramount is seeking to acquire the entire company. Warner Bros. has already announced plans to split itself into two publicly listed businesses by mid-2026, meaning both bids would reshape its future in different ways.
Corporate debt ratings are a key factor in the competing proposals. Paramount has structured its financing to target an investment-grade rating for the combined company. Its interim chief financial officer, Andrew Warren, said the company expects ratings agencies to assign investment-grade status based on plans to reduce debt in the two years following the acquisition. Paramount’s chief operating officer, Andy Gordon, added that about US$17 billion of the committed debt would be used to refinance an existing Warner Bros. bridge loan.
While the corporate strategy takes shape, the political dimension continues to grow. Ethics specialists say that Kushner’s participation creates a conflict-of-interest scenario rarely seen at this scale. Although U.S. presidents are exempt from federal conflict-of-interest laws, they traditionally distance themselves from decisions connected to family businesses. Critics argue that Trump’s public comments about the deal, combined with Kushner’s financial role, risk undermining public confidence in the fairness of the government’s antitrust review.
The Justice Department’s antitrust division will ultimately determine whether any acquisition can move forward. Regulators are expected to scrutinize both bids closely, given the immense influence Warner Bros. holds in the entertainment market. They will examine whether consumers, advertisers or rival studios could be harmed by consolidation, and whether foreign investment — even without governance rights — introduces national security considerations.
The debate is also fueled by Kushner’s broader business activity. Earlier this year, his firm partnered with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund on a US$55 billion takeover of video game maker Electronic Arts, a deal in which Kushner played a central role. His close relationships with Middle Eastern investors, developed both before and during Trump’s presidency, have drawn recurring questions about whether he has benefitted from his political connections. Meanwhile, Trump’s own business empire, held in a trust managed by his children, could allow him to benefit financially from decisions made while in office once he leaves the White House.
With competing billionaires, global sovereign funds and political stakes intertwined, the battle for Warner Bros. has become far more than a typical corporate takeover fight. The coming months will determine not only the future of one of Hollywood’s most storied studios, but also how governments respond when private business, global wealth and presidential family ties collide in the same high-stakes arena.
