board

No sooner had the Toronto Blue Jays clinched a World Series spot against the Dodgers than the torrent of memes, posts and tweets flowed, all with some version of this one-liner: Finally, Shohei Ohtani is on the plane to Toronto.

On a December day two years ago, as Ohtani navigated free agency: three reports surfaced: there was a private plane flying from Orange County to Toronto (true); Ohtani had decided to sign with the Blue Jays (false); and Ohtani was on a flight to Toronto (false).

When the jet landed, surrounded by reporters and photographers and even a news helicopter, an entire country fell into despair. The gentleman on the plane was not Ohtani.

He was Robert Herjavec, a star on “Shark Tank” and a prominent Canadian businessman with homes in Toronto and Southern California.

“It is my only claim to fame in the sports world: to be mistaken for someone else,” Herjavec said Tuesday.

Herjavec said he hopes to attend at least one World Series game in Los Angeles and another in Toronto. He is not the Dodgers’ $700-million man, but he said he would enjoy meeting Ohtani.

“I’m very disappointed,” Herjavec said with a laugh, “he hasn’t reached out to me for financial advice.”

He is no different than the rest of us, Ohtani’s teammates included. Watching Ohtani play calls to mind the words Jack Buck used to call Kirk Gibson’s home run: I don’t believe what I just saw.

“To me, as a layman and a couch athlete, the ability to throw a ball at 100 mph and then go out and hit three home runs?” Herjavec said. “It’s mind boggling.”

To be a successful businessman takes talent too, no?

“That’s the beauty of business,” he said. “I always say to people, business is the only sport where you can play at an elite level with no God-given talent.”

On that fateful Friday, Herjavec and his 5-year-old twins were en route to Toronto, and normally he would have known what was happening on the ground before he landed. However, he had turned off all the phones and tablets on board so he could play board games with his children in an effort to calm them.

“I gave them too much sugar,” he said. “They were wired.”

Upon landing, Canadian customs agents boarded the plane, in a hopeful search for Ohtani. Herjavec and his kids got off the plane, descending into a storm of national news because the Blue Jays are Canada’s team.

I asked Herjavec if he ever had disappointed so many people at any point in his life. He burst out laughing.

“That is such a great question,” he said. “That is my crowning achievement: I let down an entire nation at one time.”

The Blue Jays have a rich history. In 1992-93, they won back-to-back World Series championships, the feat the Dodgers are trying to duplicate.

The Jays have not appeared in the World Series since 1993, but that is not even close to the longest or most painful championship drought in Toronto.

The Maple Leafs, playing Canada’s national sport, have not won the Stanley Cup since 1967. That would be like the Dodgers or Yankees not winning the World Series since 1967.

“Speaking of letting people down,” Herjavec said.

The difference between Americans and Canadians, he said, is that Americans expect to win and Canadians believe it would be nice to win.

He counts himself in the latter camp. He can call both the Dodgers and Blue Jays a home team, but he is rooting for Toronto in this World Series.

“I have to,” he said, “because I’ve already disappointed the entire country once.

“I’m hoping, with my moral support, this will redeem me to Canadians.”

Warner Bros. Discovery has officially acknowledged the company is up for sale, marking the third time in a decade that its storied assets have been on the auction block.

The company’s board announced Tuesday that it has initiated “a review of strategic alternatives … in light of unsolicited interest the Company has received from multiple parties for both the entire company and Warner Bros.”

The Ellison family, which owns Paramount, started the bidding late last month. With financial backing from his father, Larry Ellison, David Ellison is looking to build an entertainment juggernaut. The family and RedBird Capital Partners finalized their takeover of Paramount in August, and has since made at least one offer for its rival. Paramount wants to buy the entire company, including its basic cable channels that include CNN, TNT, Food Network and HGTV.

Warner Bros. Discovery stock soared 11% Tuesday to more than $20 a share, valuing the company at $50 billion. That’s the highest level since Discovery swallowed the larger WarnerMedia in April 2022.

The company did not disclose the other entities that have expressed interest in buying the company as a whole, or its stable of assets, including premium cable channel HBO, the HBO Max streaming service and the legendary Warner Bros. film and television studio and its campus in Burbank.

“It’s no surprise that the significant value of our portfolio is receiving increased recognition by others in the market,” Chief Executive David Zaslav said in a statement announcing the strategic review.

“After receiving interest from multiple parties, we have initiated a comprehensive review of strategic alternatives to identify the best path forward to unlock the full value of our assets,” he said.

The company last summer unveiled its intention to split into two separate publicly traded entities — an arrangement that most observers saw as the unofficial kickoff of the company’s sale.

That separation process will continue, Warner Bros. Discovery said Tuesday.

The company intended to create two stand-alone entities. One would include the Warner Bros. studio and its expansive library of shows and movies, as well as the HBO Max streaming service. Zaslav was planning to run that enterprise.

The second company, Discovery Global, would comprise the basic cable channels and international operations. Chief Financial Officer Gunnar Wiedenfels would lead that operation.

“We view this as a move to initiate the entire bidding process now, for all bidders, even though not every bidder may be interested in all of WBD,” Raymond James analysts Ric Prentiss and Brent Penter wrote in a Tuesday note to investors.

“WBD is telling other bidders they can bid now instead of waiting for the split, or perhaps they even need to bid now since waiting may prove to be too late,” the analysts said.

Warner Bros. Discovery board intends to “evaluate a broad range of strategic options,” including “an alternative separation structure that would enable a merger of Warner Bros. and spin-off of Discovery Global to our shareholders,” it said in a statement.

“Our decision to initiate this review underscores the Board’s commitment to considering all opportunities to determine the best value for our shareholders,” Warner Bros. Discovery Chair Samuel A. Di Piazza, Jr., said in the statement. “We continue to believe that our planned separation to create two distinct, leading media companies will create compelling value. That said, we determined taking these actions to broaden our scope is in the best interest of shareholders.”

The company did not set a deadline or timetable for the strategic alternatives review, although it had previously said the separation into two distinct companies — Warner Bros. and Discovery Global — would be complete by April.

TD Cowen media analyst Doug Creutz indicated Tuesday’s announcement was simply a formality because investors were well aware the company was in play.

“We continue to think a transaction with [Paramount] … is reasonably likely; we are more skeptical that other, more attractive bidders will emerge,” Creutz wrote.

The announcement hit as Warner Bros. Discovery employees already are nervous about the process and the proposed Ellison takeover, which observers believe would spark a massive consolidation and the elimination of hundreds more jobs.

Some already were suffering from deal fatigue as many are veterans of the company’s two previous sales.

In October 2016, the company, then known as Time Warner Inc., announced its sale to phone giant AT&T. President Trump, who was first elected the following month, strenuously objected to the merger. The government challenged the union, and it took nearly two years to win federal approval. The AT&T years were turbulent. The company restructured, then spent billions to build the HBO Max streaming service.

After three years, AT&T threw in the towel after lining up Zaslav, who had long managed the much smaller Discovery. The April 2022 sale to Discovery burdened the company with more than $50 billion in debt.

Since then, Zaslav and his team have tried to streamline the operations, leading to thousands of layoffs. The company’s debt now hovers around $35 billion.

Allen & Company, J.P. Morgan and Evercore have been retained as financial advisors to Warner Bros. Discovery. Wachtell Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP are serving as legal counsel.

©News Group Newspapers Limited in England No. 679215 Registered office: 1 London Bridge Street, London, SE1 9GF. “The Sun”, “Sun”, “Sun Online” are registered trademarks or trade names of News Group Newspapers Limited. This service is provided on News Group Newspapers’ Limited’s Standard Terms and Conditions in accordance with our Privacy & Cookie Policy. To inquire about a licence to reproduce material, visit our Syndication site. View our online Press Pack. For other inquiries, Contact Us. To see all content on The Sun, please use the Site Map. The Sun website is regulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO)

Our journalists strive for accuracy but on occasion we make mistakes. For further details of our complaints policy and to make a complaint please click this link: thesun.co.uk/editorial-complaints/

Los Angeles County is poised to pay out an additional $828 million to victims who say they were sexually abused in county facilities as children, months after agreeing to the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history.

The award, posted on the county claims board agenda Friday, would resolve an additional 414 cases that were not included in the $4-billion sex abuse settlement approved this spring. Both the supervisors and the county claims board will need to vote on the payout before it is finalized.

The record $4-billion settlement covered more than 11,000 people, who say they were abused inside county-run juvenile facilities and foster homes as children. The individual payouts will range from $100,000 to $3 million.

The newest payout would break down to an average of roughly $2 million per person. It involves cases from three prominent law firms: Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Team, and Panish Shea Ravipudi.

The firms declined to comment on the potential settlement until the vote by the Board of Supervisors.

The announcement follows reporting by The Times that found nine plaintiffs who say they were paid by recruiters to sue the county over sex abuse. Four of them have said they were explicitly told to make up claims. All had lawsuits filed by Downtown LA Law Group, or DTLA.

The firm has denied any involvement with recruiters who allegedly paid plaintiffs to sue. DTLA said previously it would never “encourage or tolerate anyone lying about being abused” and is conducting new screenings to remove “false or exaggerated claims” from its caseload.

The county said any claims brought by DTLA will undergo an additional level of review before payments are made, citing reporting by The Times. The extra screening “may require plaintiff interviews and additional proof of allegations,” the county said.

DTLA did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

The exterior of Downtown LA Law Group’s offices in Los Angeles.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who recently launched an investigation into the $4-billion settlement following The Times’ reporting, said the vetting will ensure “money goes only to the true victims of abuse.”

“Our settlements balance our obligation to compensate victims and treat their experiences with compassion with the need to put strong protections in place to protect taxpayers from fraud,” she said.

County Counsel Dawyn Harrison says she wants to see the law changed so “unscrupulous lawyers don’t get windfalls at the expense of survivors of abuse.”

“The conduct alleged to have occurred by the DTLA firm is absolutely outrageous and must be investigated by the appropriate authorities,” said Harrison. “Not only does it undermine our justice system, it also deprives legitimate claimants of just compensation.”

All cases will be reviewed by retired judges before the money is allocated, the county said.

If a judge believes a claim is fraudulent, the plaintiff will not get any money, the county said Friday. The county’s original plan stated that if the county found a fraudulent claim, the plaintiff could be offered $50,000 to resolve it or remove the case from the settlement so that it could be litigated separately.

The flood of claims was unleashed with the passage of Assembly Bill 218 in 2020, which changed the statute of limitations and gave survivors a new window to sue their abusers. Since then, school districts and governments have faced many decades-old claims, for which they say there are no longer records kept on file to allow for vetting.

Dominique Anderson, pictured above around age 11, is among the plaintiffs who sued the county for alleged sexual abuse and would stand to receive payouts as part of a new settlement announced Friday.

(Courtesy of Dominique Anderson)

County supervisors have been increasingly critical of the law, which they argue has left them defenseless against claims dating back to the 1950s. If the supervisors approve the new settlement, the county will have paid out nearly $5 billion in child sex abuse lawsuits this year — with more to come.

The county is still facing an additional 2,500 cases, which they say will further strain the region’s social safety net. The county recently required most departments trim their budgets to pay for the $4-billion settlement.

“L.A. County and other local governments must balance their obligations to past victims with the need to avoid ruinous financial impacts,” said acting Chief Executive Joe Nicchitta.

Paramount, backed by billionaire Larry Ellison and his family, has officially opened the bidding for rival Warner Bros. Discovery — a potential massive merger that would dramatically change Hollywood.

Warner Bros. Discovery’s board rejected Paramount’s initial bid of about $20 a share, but talks are continuing, according to two people close to the companies who were not authorized to speak publicly.

One of the knowledgeable sources said Paramount was preparing a second bid.

Warner Bros. Discovery owns HBO, CNN, TBS, Food Network, HGTV and the prolific Warner Bros. movie and television studio in Burbank.

Ellison, one of the world’s richest men, is committed to helping his 42-year-old son, David, pull off the industry-reshaping acquisition and has agreed to help finance the bid, two people close to the situation said.

The younger Ellison, who entered the movie business 15 years ago by launching his Skydance Media production company, was catapulted into the major leagues this summer with the Ellison family’s purchase of Paramount’s controlling stake.

Since then, David Ellison and his team have made bold moves to help Paramount shake more than a decade of doldrums. Buying Warner Bros. Discovery would be their most audacious move yet. The merger would lead to the elimination of one of the original Hollywood film studios, and could see the consolidation of CNN with Paramount-owned CBS News.

Representatives for Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery declined to comment.

CNBC reported Friday that two companies have been in discussions for weeks following last month’s news that Paramount was planning a bid. Bloomberg reported Saturday that Warner Bros. Discovery had rejected Paramount’s bid of about $20 a share.

Industry veterans were stunned by the speed of Paramount’s play for Warner Bros. Discovery, noting that top executives had begun working on the bid even as they were putting finishing touches on the Paramount takeover.

One of Paramount’s top executives is a former Goldman Sachs banker, Andy Gordon, who was a ranking member of RedBird Capital Partners, the private equity firm that has teamed up with the Ellisons and has a significant stake in Paramount.

Paramount’s interest prompted stocks of both companies to soar, driving up the market value for Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount’s offer of $20 a share for Warner Bros. Discovery was less than what some analysts and sources believe the company’s parts are worth, leading the Warner Bros. Discovery board to rebuff the offer, sources said.

But many believe that Paramount needs more content to better compete in a landscape that’s dominated by tech giants such as Netflix and Amazon.

Paramount has reason to move quickly.

Warner Bros. Discovery had previously announced that it was planning to divide its assets into two companies by next April. One company, Warner Bros., would be made up of HBO, the HBO Max streaming service and the Burbank-based movie and television studios. Current Chief Executive David Zaslav would run that enterprise.

The other arm would be called Discovery Global and consist of the linear cable television channels, which have seen their fortunes fall with consumers’ shift to streaming.

The Paramount bid was seen as an attempt to slip in under the wire because other large companies, including Amazon, Apple and Netflix, may have been interested in buying the studios, streaming service and leafy studio lot in Burbank.

However, Netflix’s co-chief executive Greg Peters appeared to downplay Netflix’s interest during an appearance last week at the Bloomberg Screentime media conference. “We come from a deep heritage of being builders rather than buyers,” Peters said.

Some analysts believe Paramount’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery could ultimately prevail because Zaslav and his team have made huge cuts during the past three years to get the various businesses profitable after buying the company from AT&T, which left the company burdened with a heavy debt load. The company has paid down billions of dollars of debt, but still carries nearly $35 billion of debt on its books.

Others point to Warner Bros.’ recent successes at the box office as evidence that Paramount is offering too little.

Despite the tumult at the corporate level, Warner Bros.’ film studio has had a successful year. Its fortunes turned around in April with the release of “A Minecraft Movie,” which grossed nearly $958 million worldwide, followed by a string of hits including Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners,” James Gunn’s “Superman” and horror flick “Weapons.”

Meanwhile, Paramount has been on a buying spree.

Just in the last two months, Paramount made a $7.7 billion deal for UFC media rights and closed two deals that will pay the creators of “South Park” more than $1.25 billion over five years to secure streaming rights to the popular cartoon.

Last week at Bloomberg’s Screentime media conference, Ellison declined to comment on Paramount’s pursuit of Warner Bros. or even whether his company had already made a bid. But he did touch briefly on consolidation in Hollywood, saying, “Ironically, it was David Zaslav last year who said that consolidation in the media business is important.”

“There are a lot of options out there,” he added, but declined to elaborate.

After news of Paramount’s interest surfaced, Warner Bros. Discovery‘s stock jumped more than 30%. It climbed as much as $20 a share, but closed Friday at $17.10, down 3.2%.

Paramount also has seen its stock surge by about 12%. Shares finished Friday at $17, down 5.4%

Warner Bros. Discovery is now valued at $42 billion. Paramount is considerably smaller, worth about $18.5 billion.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals appears poised to recognize President Trump’s authority to send soldiers to Portland, Ore., with members of the court signaling receptiveness to an expansive new read of the president’s power to put boots on the ground in American cities.

A three-judge panel from the appellate court — including two members appointed by Trump during his first term — heard oral arguments Thursday after Oregon challenged the legality of the president’s order to deploy hundreds of soldiers to Portland. The administration claims the city has become lawless; Oregon officials argue Trump is manufacturing a crisis to justify calling in the National Guard.

While the court has not issued a decision, a ruling in Trump’s favor would mark a sharp rightward turn for the once-liberal circuit — and probably set up a Supreme Court showdown over why and how the U.S. military can be used domestically.

“I’m sort of trying to figure out how a district court of any nature is supposed to get in and question whether the president’s assessment of ‘executing the laws’ is right or wrong,” said Judge Ryan D. Nelson of Idaho Falls, Idaho, one of the two Trump appointees hearing the arguments.

“That’s an internal decision making, and whether there’s a ton of protests or low protests, they can still have an impact on his ability to execute the laws,” he said.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut of Portland, another Trump appointee, previously called the president’s justification for federalizing Oregon troops “simply untethered to the facts” in her temporary restraining on Oct. 4.

The facts about the situation on the ground in Portland were not in dispute at the hearing on Thursday. The city has remained mostly calm in recent months, with protesters occasionally engaging in brief skirmishes with authorities stationed outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building.

Instead, Nelson and Judge Bridget S. Bade of Phoenix, whom Trump once floated as a possible Supreme Court nominee, questioned how much the facts mattered.

“The president gets to direct his resources as he deems fit, and it seems a little counterintuitive to me that the city of Portland can come and say, ‘No you need to do it differently,’” Nelson said.

He also appeared to endorse the Department of Justice’s claim that “penalizing” the president for waiting until protests had calmed to deploy soldiers to quell them created a perverse incentive to act first and ask questions later.

“It just seems like such a tortured reading of the statute,” the judge said. He then referenced the first battle of the U.S. Civil War in 1861, saying, “I’m not sure even President Lincoln would be able to bring in forces when he did, because if he didn’t do it immediately after Fort Sumter, [Oregon’s] argument would be, ‘Oh, things are OK now.’”

Trump’s efforts to use troops to quell protests and support federal immigration operations have led to a growing tangle of legal challenges. The Portland deployment was halted by Immergut, who blocked Trump from federalizing Oregon troops. (A ruling from the same case issued the next day prevents already federalized troops from being deployed.)

In June, a different 9th Circuit panel also made up of two Trump appointees ruled that the president had broad — though not “unreviewable” — discretion to determine whether facts on the ground met the threshold for military response in Los Angeles. Thousands of federalized National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines were deployed over the summer amid widespread protests over immigration enforcement.

The June decision set precedent for how any future deployment in the circuit’s vast territory can be reviewed. It also sparked outrage, both among those who oppose armed soldiers patrolling American streets and those who support them.

Opponents argue repeated domestic deployments shred America’s social fabric and trample protest rights protected by the 1st Amendment. With soldiers called into action so far in Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago, many charge the administration is using the military for political purposes.

“The military should not be acting as a domestic police force in this country except in the most extreme circumstances,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. “That set of circumstances is not present right now anywhere in the country, so this is an abuse of power — and a very dangerous one because of the precedent it sets.”

Supporters say the president has sole authority to determine the facts on the ground and if they warrant military intervention. They argue any check by the judicial branch is an illegal power grab, aimed at thwarting response to a legitimate and growing “invasion from within.”

“What they’ve done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles — they’re very unsafe places, and we’re going to straighten them out one by one,” Trump said in an address to military top brass last week. “That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.”

The 9th Circuit agreed to rehear the Los Angeles case with an 11-member “en banc” panel in Pasadena on Oct. 22, signaling a schism among Trump’s own judges over the boundaries of the president’s power.

Still, Trump’s authority to call soldiers into American cities is only the first piece in a larger legal puzzle spread before the 9th Circuit, experts said.

What federalized troops are allowed to do once deployed is the subject of another court decision now under review. That case could determine whether soldiers are barred from assisting immigration raids, controlling crowds of protesters or any other form of civilian law enforcement.

Trump officials have maintained the president can wield the military as he sees fit — and that cities such as Portland and L.A. would be in danger if soldiers can’t come to the rescue.

“These are violent people, and if at any point we let down our guard, there is a serious risk of ongoing violence,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said. “The president is entitled to say enough is enough and bring in the National Guard.”