bid

Paramount Skydance has sweetened its bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, adding a $2.8 billion “break fee” for Netflix and a payment to shareholders set to increase for every quarter after January 1, 2027 that the transaction does not close.

However, it’s not clear the latest move will do much to sway Warner Bros. Discovery’s board, which has endorsed a rival bid from Netflix.

The David Ellison-led company sent notice Tuesday of its revised offer to the Warner Bros. Discovery board, adding that it was open to further negotiation.

“While we have tried to be as constructive as possible in formulating these solutions, several of these items would benefit from collaborative discussion to finalize,” the letter states. “If granted a short window of engagement, we will work with you to refine these solutions to ensure they address any and all of your concerns.”

Paramount’s all-cash offer still stands at $30 a share. In addition to the termination payment and so-called “ticking fee” for shareholders of 25 cents per share — which the company said would total about $650 million in cash value each quarter — Paramount also said it would “eliminate” Warner’s $1.5 billion financing cost associated with its debt exchange offer.

The company also said it would “provide flexibility” for Warner to refinance its existing $15 billion bridge loan.

Ellison said the new additions to Paramount’s bid “underscore our strong and unwavering commitment to delivering the full value [Warner Bros. Discovery] shareholders deserve for their investment.”

“We are making meaningful enhancements — backing this offer with billions of dollars, providing shareholders with certainty in value, a clear regulatory path, and protection against market volatility,” he said in a statement.

Warner confirmed it received Paramount’s new offer and said in a statement Tuesday that it would “carefully review and consider” the revised bid.

However, the Warner board is “not modifying its recommendation” on its agreement to sell its studios, HBO and HBO Max to Netflix, and advised shareholders not to take “any action at this time” on Paramount’s tender offer to shareholders.

Feb. 5 (Asia Today) — K Bank has lowered its proposed offering price as it makes a third attempt at an initial public offering, betting that a stronger stock market and a deeper discount will help it clear investor demand.

According to the financial investment industry, K Bank is offering 60 million shares with a target fundraising range of 498 billion to 570 billion won (about $373 million to $427 million). The proposed price band of 8,300 to 9,500 won represents a 20.83% cut from the 12,000-won upper limit floated during its failed 2024 IPO attempt.

Lee Jun-hyung, the company’s chief financial officer, said the price was set at about a 20% discount and is “20% to 30% lower than peers such as Kakao Bank and Japan’s Rakuten Bank.”

Market attention is focused on whether K Bank can secure sufficient institutional demand this time. The book-building process, which began Tuesday, runs through Monday. Industry officials noted that participation often concentrates on the final day, making it too early to judge the outcome.

If listed, K Bank plans to accelerate a non-interest income strategy centered on small businesses, platform services and digital assets. At an IPO press conference in Seoul, Chief Executive Officer Choi Woo-hyung said the bank aims to expand its retail base and open ecosystem while broadening its portfolio to include sole proprietors and small and medium-sized companies.

Choi also said the lender is preparing for future stablecoin-related business, citing its ongoing partnership with Upbit and internal development of blockchain technology, including patent filings.

Following a successful listing, K Bank plans to enhance shareholder returns. Choi said the bank is targeting a return on equity above 15% and will consider dividends or treasury share buybacks once it achieves a sustained double-digit ROE.

The IPO is being led by NH Investment & Securities and Samsung Securities, with Shinhan Investment Corporation participating in the underwriting syndicate. The listing is scheduled for March 5.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260205010002198

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has acknowledged he is eyeing a presidential bid, has incensed both Democrats and Republicans over immigrant healthcare, underscoring the delicate political path ahead.

For a second straight year, the Democrat has asked state lawmakers to roll back coverage for some immigrants in the face of federal Medicaid spending cuts and a roughly $3-billion budget deficit that analysts warn could worsen if the AI bubble bursts. Newsom has proposed that the state not step in when, starting in October, the federal government stops providing health coverage to an estimated 200,000 legal residents — comprising asylees, refugees and others.

Progressive legislators and activists said the cost-saving measures are a departure from Newsom’s “health for all” pledge, and Republicans continue to skewer Newsom for using public funds to cover any noncitizens.

Newsom’s latest move would save an estimated $786 million this fiscal year and $1.1 billion annually in future years in a proposed budget of $349 billion, according to the Department of Finance.

State Sen. Caroline Menjivar, one of two Senate Democrats who voted against Newsom’s immigrant health cuts last year, said she worried the governor’s political ambition could be getting in the way of doing what’s best for Californians.

“You’re clouded by what Arkansas is going to think, or Tennessee is going to think, when what California thinks is something completely different,” said Menjivar, who said previous criticism got her temporarily removed from a key budget subcommittee. “That’s my perspective on what’s happening here.”

Meanwhile, Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland criticized Newsom for glossing over the state’s structural deficit, which state officials say could balloon to $27 billion the following year. And he slammed Newsom for continuing to cover California residents in the U.S. without authorization. “He just wants to reinvent himself,” Strickland said.

It’s a political tightrope that will continue to grow thinner as federal support shrinks amid ever-rising healthcare expenses, said Guian McKee, a co-chair of the Health Care Policy Project at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs.

“It’s not just threading one needle but threading three or four of them right in a row,” McKee said. Should Newsom run for president, McKee added, the priorities of Democratic primary voters — who largely mirror blue states like California — look very different from those in a far more divided general electorate.

Americans are deeply divided on whether the government should provide health coverage to immigrants without legal status. In a KFF poll last year, a slim majority — 54% — were against a provision that would have penalized states that use their own funds to pay for immigrant healthcare, with wide variation by party. The provision was left out of the final version of the bill passed by Congress and signed by President Trump.

Even in California, support for the idea has waned amid ongoing budget problems. In a May survey by the Public Policy Institute of California, 41% of adults in the state said they supported providing health coverage to immigrants without authorization, a sharp drop from the 55% who supported it in 2023.

Trump, Vice President JD Vance, other administration officials, and congressional Republicans have repeatedly accused California and other Democrat-led states of using taxpayer funds on immigrant healthcare, a red-meat issue for their GOP base. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz has accused California of “gaming the system” to receive more federal funds, freeing up state coffers for its Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, which has enrolled roughly 1.6 million immigrants without legal status.

“If you are a taxpayer in Texas or Florida, your tax dollars could’ve been used to fund the care of illegal immigrants in California,” he said in October.

California state officials have denied the charges, noting that only state funds are used to pay for general health services to those without legal status because the law prohibits using federal funds. Instead, Newsom has made it a “point of pride” that California has opened up coverage to immigrants, which his administration has noted keeps people healthier and helps them avoid costly emergency room care often covered at taxpayer expense.

“No administration has done more to expand full coverage under Medicaid than this administration for our diverse communities, documented and undocumented,” Newsom told reporters in January. “People have built careers out of criticizing my advocacy.”

Newsom warns the federal government’s “carnival of chaos” passed Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which he said puts 1.8 million Californians at risk of losing their health coverage with the implementation of work requirements, other eligibility rules, and limits to federal funding to states.

Nationally, 10 million people could lose coverage by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Health economists have said higher numbers of uninsured patients — particularly those who are relatively healthy — could concentrate coverage among sicker patients, potentially increasing premium costs and hospital prices overall.

Immigrant advocates say it’s especially callous to leave residents who may have fled violence or survived trafficking or abuse without access to healthcare. Federal rules currently require state Medicaid programs to cover “qualified noncitizens” including asylees and refugees, according to Tanya Broder with the National Immigration Law Center. But the Republican tax-and-spending law ends the coverage, affecting an estimated 1.4 million legal immigrants nationwide.

With many state governors yet to release budget proposals, it’s unclear how they might handle the funding gaps, Broder said.

For instance, Colorado state officials estimate roughly 7,000 legal immigrants could lose coverage due to the law’s changes. And Washington state officials estimate 3,000 refugees, asylees, and other lawfully present immigrants will lose Medicaid.

Both states, like California, expanded full coverage to all income-eligible residents regardless of immigration status. Their elected officials are now in the awkward position of explaining why some legal immigrants may lose their healthcare coverage while those without legal status could keep theirs.

Last year, spiraling healthcare costs and state budget constraints prompted the Democratic governors of Illinois and Minnesota, potential presidential contenders JB Pritzker and Tim Walz, to pause or end coverage of immigrants without legal status.

California lawmakers last year voted to eliminate dental coverage and freeze new enrollment for immigrants without legal status and, starting next year, will charge monthly premiums to those who remain. Even so, the state is slated to spend $13.8 billion from its general fund on immigrants not covered by the federal government, according to Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer.

At a news conference in San Francisco in January, Newsom defended those moves, saying they were necessary for “fiscal prudence.” He sidestepped questions about coverage for asylees and refugees and downplayed the significance of his proposal, saying he could revise it when he gets a chance to update his budget in May.

Kiran Savage-Sangwan, executive director of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, pointed out that California passed a law in the 1990s requiring the state to cover Medi-Cal for legal immigrants when federal Medicaid dollars won’t. This includes green-card holders who haven’t yet met the five-year waiting period for enrolling in Medicaid.

Calling the governor’s proposal “arbitrary and cruel,” Savage-Sangwan criticized his choice to prioritize rainy-day fund deposits over maintaining coverage and said blaming the federal government was misleading.

It’s also a major departure from what she had hoped California could achieve on Newsom’s first day in office seven years ago, when he declared his support for single-payer healthcare and proposed extending health insurance subsidies to middle-class Californians.

“I absolutely did have hope, and we celebrated advances that the governor led,” Savage-Sangwan said. “Which makes me all the more disappointed.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.

EXCLUSIVE

Email exchange shows Epstein sought to arrange meeting between top Democrat and US Virgin Islands representative.

An associate of the United States Virgin Islands’ sole representative in the US Congress asked Jeffrey Epstein for help to arrange a meeting between the politician and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, according to documents released by the US Justice Department.

The outreach to Epstein was made on behalf of Stacey Plaskett, the islands’ delegate to the House of Representatives, as the politician sought to lobby Schumer for relief after two hurricanes ripped through the Caribbean in 2017, according to the documents.

“We have to help Stacey get a meeting with Schumer. Any thoughts?” Erika Kellerhals, a tax lawyer in the US Virgin Islands, wrote to Epstein in an email on January 24, 2018.

“[S]hould not be a problem need to know the reason and subject,” Epstein wrote back a few hours later.

“She has been unable to confirm a meeting with him. He is driving the disaster relief bill and has only been talking about Puerto Rico and not the [Virgin Islands]. She’s concerned we will be ignored,” Kellerhals told Epstein in response.

After his exchange with Kellerhals, Epstein sent an email to Kathy Ruemmler, a former chief counsel to US President Barack Obama, asking for help in setting up a meeting with Schumer.

“schumer is driving the puerto rico . virgin islands relief=bill. the VI congressional rep Stacey plaskett , h=s not been able to get a meeting. confirmed with him. ca= you help?” Epstein wrote to Ruemmler, who is now the chief lawyer to Goldman Sachs.

“I do not have any relations=ip with him, but let me see whether I can get to his COS,” Ruemmler said in response, referring to his chief of staff.

The emails are among some 3.5 million pages of files released last week that relate to US authorities’ investigations into Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

It is not clear if a meeting between Schumer and Plaskett went ahead, though Congress ultimately approved emergency funds for the US Virgin Islands as part of a two-year budget package passed in February 2018.

There is no public record of Schumer meeting or directly communicating with Epstein.

Schumer, Plaskett and Kellerhals did not respond to requests for comment. Ruemmler could not be reached for comment.

The email exchange with Epstein, which has not been previously reported, is the latest among numerous examples of how the disgraced financier continued to exert influence at the highest levels of politics and business long after his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution with a minor.

Plaskett’s ties to Epstein have been a source of controversy for years.

Plaskett narrowly escaped censure by the House of Representatives last year over revelations that Epstein had coached her over text during a Congressional hearing in February 2019.

Shortly after Epstein was arrested for a second time in July 2019, Plaskett announced that she would donate a sum to charity equivalent to several campaign donations she had received from Epstein and his associates.

While Plaskett is a non-voting member of Congress, the Democrat participates in floor debates and sits on several influential committees, including the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Plaskett has previously denied enabling Epstein, calling him a “demon” and saying she was “disgusted by his deviant behavior”.

Wolves have accepted a reduced offer worth £48m for striker Jorgen Strand Larsen from Crystal Palace.

Last week, the two clubs reached an agreement in principle over a £50m deal for the Norway international to move to Selhurst Park.

All that was left was for Palace to submit a written offer – and provided the bid was of the value discussed, Wolves would have accepted.

However, as BBC Sport revealed, the offer never arrived as Palace communicated their intention to walk away from the deal, which put the transfer in jeopardy.

Sources claim that Palace’s decision to pause final talks was down to reservations over the total cost of the deal, not concerns over the player.

The impasse in recent days has placed further doubt on the deal.

But with a little over 24 hours to go until the transfer window closes, Palace have now had a new offer accepted worth £43m plus an additional £5m in bonuses – a deal worth £2 less than their original verbal offer.

If the deal goes through, the door could open for Jean-Philippe Mateta to complete his protracted move to AC Milan.

Mateta wants to leave Selhurst Park with the Italian club leading the chase for his signature.

But Palace are unwilling to let the France international go without a replacement.

Cuba’s President Miguel Diaz-Canel has denounced what he called an attempt by his United States counterpart, Donald Trump, to “suffocate” the sanctions-hit country’s economy.

Trump signed an executive order on Thursday threatening additional tariffs on countries that sell oil to Cuba, the latest move in Washington’s campaign of pressure on Havana. The order alleged that the government of communist-run Cuba was an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security.

In a social media post on Friday, Diaz-Canel said that under “a false and baseless pretext”, Trump plans “to suffocate” Cuba’s economy by slapping tariffs “on countries that sovereignly trade oil” with it.

“This new measure reveals the fascist, criminal and genocidal nature of a clique that has hijacked the interests of the American people for purely personal ends,” he said, in an apparent allusion to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Cuban American and a known anti-Cuban government hawk.

Cuba, which is suffering rolling electricity blackouts blamed on fuel shortages, was cut off from critical supplies of Venezuelan oil after the US abducted Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in a bloody military night raid on the capital, Caracas, earlier this month. At least 32 members of Cuba’s armed forces and intelligence agencies were killed in the January 3 attack.

The US has since taken effective control of Venezuela’s oil sector, and Trump, a Republican, has issued threats against other left-wing governments in the region, promising to stop oil shipments previously sent to Cuba.

Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez on Friday declared an “international emergency” in response to Trump’s move, which he said constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat”.

Venezuela’s government also condemned the measure in a statement on Friday, saying it violates international law and the principles of global commerce.

Reporting from Cuba’s capital, Al Jazeera’s Ed Augustin said Trump’s announcement “is a massive psychological blow”, noting that analysts describe it as the “most powerful economic blow the United States has ever dealt the island”.

Days after Maduro’s abduction and transfer to the US, Trump urged Cuba to make a deal “before it is too late,” without specifying what kind of agreement he was referring to.

In a post on social media, Trump suggested Rubio could become the president of Cuba. “Sounds good to me!” he wrote on his Truth Social platform.

‘There’s no solution’

In Havana, residents expressed anger at Trump’s tariff threat, which will only make life harder for Cubans already struggling with an increase in US sanctions.

“My food is going bad. We haven’t had electricity since 6am,” Yenia Leon told Al Jazeera. “You can’t sleep. You have to buy food every day. There’s no solution to the power situation,” she said.

“This is a war,” Lazaro Alfonso, an 89-year-old retired graphic designer, told The Associated Press news agency, describing Trump as the “sheriff of the world” and saying he feels like he is living in the Wild West, where anything goes.

Alfonso, who lived through the severe economic depression in the 1990s known as the “Special Period” following cuts in Soviet aid, said the current situation in Cuba is worse, given the severe blackouts, a lack of basic goods and a scarcity of fuel.

“The only thing that’s missing here in Cuba … is for bombs to start falling,” he said.

Meanwhile, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she would seek alternatives to continue helping Cuba after Trump’s announcement following a decision this week to temporarily halt oil shipments to the island amid heightened rhetoric from Trump.

Mexico became a key supplier of fuel to Cuba, along with Russia, after the US sanctions on Venezuela paralysed the delivery of crude oil to the island.

Sheinbaum said cutting off oil shipments to Cuba could trigger a “far-reaching humanitarian crisis” on the island, affecting transportation, hospitals and access to food. She did not say whether Mexico would cut shipments of oil or refined products to Cuba, which ‌she said accounted for 1 percent of Mexico’s production.

“Our interest is that the Cuban people don’t suffer,” Sheinbaum said, adding that she had instructed her foreign minister to contact the US ‌State Department to better understand the scope of the executive order.

Mexico supplied 44 percent of Cuban oil imports and Venezuela exported 33 percent until last month, while some 10 percent of Cuban oil is sourced from Russia. Some oil is also sourced from Algeria, according to The Financial Times figures.

In November last year, a senior United Nations expert said the long-running US sanctions on Cuba must be lifted as they are “causing significant effects across all aspects of life”.

The US imposed a near-total trade embargo on Cuba in 1962, with the goal of toppling the government put in place by Fidel Castro after he took power in a 1959 revolution. Castro himself was the target of numerous assassination attempts by the US’s Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA.

Alena Douhan, special rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights, said the “extensive regime of economic, trade and financial restrictions” against Cuba marks the longest-running unilateral sanctions policy in US history.

She noted that there are shortages of food, medicine, electricity, water, essential machinery and spare parts in Cuba, while a growing emigration of skilled workers, including medical staff, engineers and teachers, is further straining the country.

The accumulative effect has “severe consequences for the enjoyment of human rights, including the rights to life, food, health and development”, Douhan said.

SAN FRANCISCO — Katie Porter’s still standing, which is saying something.

The last time a significant number of people tuned into California‘s low-frequency race for governor was in October, when Porter’s political obituary was being written in bold type.

Immediately after a snappish and off-putting TV interview, Porter showed up in a years-old video profanely reaming a staff member for — the humanity! — straying into the video frame during her meeting with a Biden Cabinet member.

Not a good look for a candidate already facing questions about her temperament and emotional regulation. (Hang on, gentle reader, we’ll get to that whole gendered double-standard thing in a moment.)

The former Orange County congresswoman had played to the worst stereotypes and that was that. Her campaign was supposedly kaput.

But, lo, these several months later, Porter remains positioned exactly where she’d been before, as one of the handful of top contenders in a race that remains stubbornly formless and utterly wide open.

Did she ever think of exiting the contest, as some urged, and others plainly hoped to see? (The surfacing of that surly 2021 video, with the timing and intentionality of a one-two punch, was clearly not a coincidence.)

No, she said, not for a moment.

“Anyone who thinks that you can just push over Katie Porter has never tried to do it,” she said.

Porter apologized and expressed remorse for her tetchy behavior. She promised to do better.

“You definitely learn from your mistakes,” the Democrat said this week over a cup of chai in San Francisco’s Financial District. “I really have and I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how do I show Californians who I am and that I really care about people who work for me. I need to earn back their trust and that’s what campaigns are literally about.”

She makes no excuse for acting churlish and wouldn’t bite when asked about that double standard — though she did allow as how Democratic leader John Burton, who died not long before people got busy digging Porter’s grave, was celebrated for his gruff manner and lavish detonation of f-bombs.

“It was a reminder,” she said, pivoting to the governor’s race, “that there have been other politicians who come on hot, come on strong and fight for what’s right and righteous and California has embraced them.”

Voters, she said, “want someone who will not back down.”

Porter warmed to the subject.

“If you are never gonna hurt anyone’s feelings, you are never gonna take [JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive] Jamie Dimon to task for not thinking about how his workers can’t afford to make ends meet. If you want everyone to love you, you are never gonna say to a big pharma CEO, ‘You didn’t make this cancer drug anymore. You just got richer, right?’ That is a feistiness that I’m proud of.”

At the same, Porter suggested, she wants to show there’s more to her persona than the whiteboard-wielding avenger that turned her into a viral sensation. The inquisitorial stance was, she said, her role as a congressional overseer charged with holding people accountable. Being governor is different. More collaborative. Less confrontational.

Her campaign approach has been to “call everyone, go everywhere” — even places Porter may not be welcomed — to listen and learn, build relationships and show “my ability to craft a compromise, my ability to learn and to change my mind.”

“All of that is really hard to convey,” she said, “in those whiteboard moments.”

The rap on this year’s pack of gubernatorial hopefuls is they’re a collective bore, as though the lack of A-list sizzle and failure to throw off sparks is some kind of mortal sin.

Porter doesn’t buy that.

“When we say boring, I think what we’re really saying is ‘I’m not 100% sure how all this is going to work out.’ People are waiting for some thing to happen, some coronation of our next governor. We’re not gonna have that.”

Gavin Newsom, she noted, was a high-profile former San Francisco mayor who spent eight years as lieutenant governor before winning the state’s top job. His predecessor was the dynastic Jerry Brown.

None of those running this time have that political pedigree, or the Sacramento backgrounds of Newsom or Brown, which, Porter suggested, is not a bad thing.

“I actually think this race has the potential to be really, really exciting for California,” she said. “… I think everyone in this race comes in with a little bit of a fresh energy, and I think that’s really good and healthy.”

Crowding into the conversation was, inevitably, Donald Trump, the sun around which today’s entire political universe turns.

Of course, Porter said, as governor she would stand up to the president. His administration’s actions in Minneapolis have been awful. His stalling on disaster relief for California is grotesque.

But, she said, Trump didn’t cause last year’s firestorm. He didn’t make housing in California obscenely expensive for the last many decades.

“When my children say ‘I don’t know if I want to go to college in California because we don’t have enough dorm housing,’ Trump has done plenty of horrible attacks on higher ed,” Porter said. “But that’s a homegrown problem that we need to tackle.”

Indeed, she’s “very leery of anyone who does not acknowledge that we had problems and policy challenges long before Donald Trump ever raised his orange head on the political horizon.”

Although California needs “someone who’s going to [buffer] us against Trump,” Porter said, “you can’t make that an excuse for why you are not tackling these policy changes that need to be.”

She hadn’t finished her tea, but it was time to go. Porter gathered her things.

She’d just spoken at an Urban League forum in San Francisco and was heading across the Bay Bridge to address union workers in Oakland.

The June 2 primary is some ways off. But Porter remains in the fight.

Many in Hollywood fear Warner Bros. Discovery’s sale will trigger steep job losses — at a time when the industry already has been ravaged by dramatic downsizing and the flight of productions from Los Angeles.

David Ellison‘s Paramount Skydance is seeking to allay some of those concerns by detailing its plans to save $6 billion, including job cuts, should Paramount succeed in its bid to buy the larger Warner Bros. Discovery.

Leaders of the combined company would search for savings by focusing on “duplicative operations across all aspects of the business — specifically back office, finance, corporate, legal, technology, infrastructure and real estate,” Paramount said in documents filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission.

Paramount is locked in an uphill battle to buy the storied studio behind Batman, Harry Potter, Scooby-Doo and “The Big Bang Theory.” The firm’s proposed $108.4-billion deal would include swallowing HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and other Warner cable channels.

Warner’s board prefers Netflix’s proposed $82.7-billion deal, and has repeatedly rebuffed the Ellison family’s proposals. That prompted Paramount to turn hostile last month and make its case directly to Warner investors on its website and in regulatory filings.

Shareholders may ultimately decide the winner.

Paramount previously disclosed that it would target $6 billion in synergies. And it has stressed the proposed merger would make Hollywood stronger — not weaker. The firm, however, recently acknowledged that it would shave about 10% from program spending should it succeed in combining Paramount and Warner Bros.

Paramount said the cuts would come from areas other than film and television studio operations.

A film enthusiast and longtime producer, David Ellison has long expressed a desire to grow the combined Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. slate to more than 30 movies a year. His goal is to keep Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. stand-alone studios.

This year, Warner Bros. plans to release 17 films. Paramount has said it wants to nearly double its output to 15 movies, which would bring the two-studio total to 32.

“We are very focused on maintaining the creative engines of the combined company,” Paramount said in its marketing materials for investors, which were submitted to the SEC on Monday.

“Our priority is to build a vibrant, healthy business and industry — one that supports Hollywood and creative, benefits consumers, encourages competition, and strengthens the overall job market,” Paramount said.

If the deal goes through, Paramount said that it would become Hollywood’s biggest spender — shelling out about $30 billion a year on programming.

In comparison, Walt Disney Co. has said it plans to spend $24 billion in the current fiscal year.

Paramount also added a dig at Warner management, saying: “We expect to make smarter decisions about licensing across linear networks and streaming.”

Some analysts have wondered whether Paramount would sell one of its most valuable assets — the historic Melrose Avenue movie lot — to raise money to pay down debt that a Warner acquisition would bring.

Paramount is the only major studio to be physically located in Hollywood and its studio lot is one of the company’s crown jewels. That’s where “Sunset Boulevard,” several “Star Trek” movies and parts of “Chinatown” were filmed.

A Paramount spokesperson declined to comment.

Sources close to the company said Paramount would scrutinize the numerous real estate leases in an effort to bring together far-flung teams into a more centralized space.

For example, CBS has much of its administrative offices on Gower in Hollywood, blocks away from the Paramount lot. And HBO maintains its operations in Culver City — miles from Warner’s Burbank lot.

Paramount pushed its deadline to Feb. 20 for Warner investors to tender their shares at $30 a piece.

The tender offer was set to expire last week, but Paramount extended the window after failing to solicit sufficient interest among Warner shareholders.

Some analysts believe Paramount may have to raise its bid to closer to $34 a share to turn heads. Paramount last raised its bid Dec. 4 — hours before the auction closed and Netflix was declared the winner.

Paramount also has filed proxy materials to ask Warner shareholders to reject the Netflix deal at an upcoming stockholder meeting.

Earlier this month, Netflix amended its bid, converting its $27.75-a-share offer to all-cash to defuse some of Paramount’s arguments that it had a stronger bid.

Should Paramount win Warner Bros., it would need to line up $94.65 billion in debt and equity.

Billionaire Larry Ellison has pledged to backstop $40.4 billion for the equity required. Paramount’s proposed financing relies on $24 billion from royal families in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi.

The deal would saddle Paramount with more than $60 billion of debt — which Warner board members have argued may be untenable.

“The extraordinary amount of debt financing as well as other terms of the PSKY offer heighten the risk of failure to close,” Warner board members said in a filing earlier this month.

Paramount would also have to absorb Warner’s debt load, which currently tops $30 billion.

Netflix is seeking to buy the Warner Bros. television and movie studios, HBO and HBO Max. It is not interested in Warner’s cable channels, including CNN. Warner wants to spin off its basic cable channels to facilitate the Netflix deal.

Analysts say both deals could face regulatory hurdles.

Jan. 27 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s Hanwha Group is mounting an unusually broad industrial and technology campaign to strengthen its bid for Canada’s multibillion-dollar next-generation submarine program, extending its proposal well beyond shipbuilding to include steel, artificial intelligence and space-based infrastructure.

Hanwha said Monday that its defense units are offering what it described as a comprehensive “K-defense package” tailored to Canada’s emphasis on local industrial participation and economic offsets under its Canadian Patrol Submarine Project.

At the Korea-Canada Industrial Cooperation Forum held in Toronto on Sunday, Hanwha Ocean and Hanwha Systems signed memorandums of understanding with Canadian partners across five sectors: steel, AI, satellite communications, space technology and electro-optics.

As part of the effort, Hanwha Ocean agreed to cooperate with Algoma Steel, Canada’s largest steel producer. The agreement includes plans to invest about 345 million Canadian dollars to help establish a stable steel supply chain in Canada for submarine construction and long-term maintenance, repair and overhaul work, contingent on winning the contract. Hanwha said the approach goes beyond material procurement by directly supporting local manufacturing capacity.

In AI, Hanwha Ocean and Hanwha Systems signed a three-party MOU with Canadian startup Cohere to jointly develop specialized AI tools for shipbuilding, including production planning, design and manufacturing, as well as submarine system integration and operations. Cohere, which has received backing from companies such as Nvidia and Oracle, is valued at more than $7 billion, according to industry estimates.

Hanwha Systems also reached agreements with Telesat on low-Earth orbit satellite communications and with MDA Space and PV Labs on defense-related satellite and electro-optical technologies. The companies plan to link satellite platforms with Hanwha’s defense electronics to provide secure communications, command and control and data resilience for submarine operations.

The submarine bid has drawn strong backing from the South Korean government. Senior officials, including Presidential Chief of Staff Kang Hoon-sik and Trade, Industry and Energy Minister Kim Jeong-kwan, accompanied the delegation to Canada in what Seoul described as full-scale “sales diplomacy.” The government has designated the submarine project a national strategic export and proposed expanding cooperation to other sectors such as automobiles and hydrogen energy.

Consulting firm KPMG estimated that Hanwha’s proposed industrial cooperation framework could generate more than 200,000 person-years of employment in Canada between 2026 and 2040, a projection seen as a powerful selling point in a country where job creation and regional economic development are key political priorities.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260127010012673