deal

Netflix Inc. Co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos pledged to maintain a 45-day theatrical window for Warner Bros. films during a Senate subcommittee hearing Tuesday.

Sarandos also tried to dampen concerns about potential job losses and U.S. production declines related to the companies’ proposed multibillion-dollar deal.

During a two-hour hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Sarandos told lawmakers the proposed merger would not run afoul of antitrust concerns and would, instead, “strengthen the American entertainment industry.”

About 80% of HBO Max subscribers also have Netflix subscriptions, which he said showed the two services were “complementary.” Netflix also plans to increase its film and television production spending to $26 billion this year, with a majority of that happening in the U.S., he said.

“We are doubling down, even as much of the industry has pulled back,” Sarandos said, according to a written transcript of his opening remarks. “With this deal, we’re going to increase, not reduce, production investments going forward, supported by a stronger combined business and balance sheet.”

Sarandos was joined at the hearing by Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Revenue and Strategy Officer Bruce Campbell.

When asked by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) whether senators should expect a “round of layoffs” or consumer price increases as a result of the deal, Campbell said no. He pointed to Netflix’s lack of comparable film and TV studios, or the distribution infrastructure that Warner Bros. has.

“We believe, based on our discussions with them in the negotiation process, that they’re not only going to keep those operations intact, in fact, they’re going to invest in those operations and invest in continued production, including on our lots in Burbank and elsewhere,” Campbell said.

Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison was also invited to appear as a witness, but declined because he did not believe it would be useful or helpful since the company’s bid for Warner had been rejected, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said during the hearing. Ellison did, however, meet with him and other senators privately to answer questions, Booker said.

Sarandos also tried to assuage concerns about the deal’s potential effect on theatrical distribution.

“I know I’ve earned some skepticism over there over the years on this because I was talking a lot about Netflix’s business model, which was different from that,” he said. “We didn’t own a theatrical distributor before. We do now, and a great one.”

When asked if the 45-day window would be “self-enforced,” Sarandos agreed, saying that was an industry standard. He did, however, note the general caveat that “routinely, movies that underperform, the window moves a little bit” but is still referred to as a 45-day window.

And in a sign of the growing role politics has played in the perception of the deal, Sarandos tried to sidestep questions from Republican senators about perceived “woke” content on the streaming platform, as well as inquiries from Booker about President Trump’s involvement in the merger. Trump previously said he “would be involved” in his administration’s decision to approve any deal.

The hearing comes just two months after Netflix prevailed in a hotly contested bidding war for Warner Bros. The $72-billion deal would dramatically reshape the Hollywood landscape and give the streamer control over Warner Bros.’ storied Burbank film and TV studios, its lot, HBO and HBO Max.

Netflix also agreed to take on more than $10 billion in Warner Bros. debt, pushing the enterprise value of the transaction to $82.7 billion.

But Paramount has continued to pursue the company, fighting to acquire all of Warner Bros. Discovery, including its cable networks.

The company, led by Ellison, has made a direct appeal to Warner shareholders to tender their shares in support of a Paramount deal. A deadline for that offer was recently extended to Feb. 20.

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

It’s called Pakistan’s forgotten war. And it’s been running for decades in Balochistan, the country’s largest province by land area.

More than 100 people have been killed in another wave of violence this week.

The Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) has claimed responsibility for the attacks, described as the deadliest so far.

The BLA has escalated its attacks in recent years, saying it is fighting for an independent Balochistan.

In Islamabad, the government blames what it says are its enemies for the violence.

So, what will it take to end the cycle of violence in Balochistan?

Presenter: Maleen Saeed

Guests

Raashid Wali Janjua – director of research at Islamabad Policy Research Institute

Sanaullah Baloch – Balochistan National Party leader

Ayesha Siddiqa – senior research fellow at Defence Studies Department at King’s College London

WASHINGTON — President Trump moved quickly this week to negotiate with Democrats to avert a lengthy government shutdown over Department of Homeland Security funding, a sharp departure from last year’s record standoff, when he refused to budge for weeks.

Some Republicans are frustrated with the deal, raising the possibility of a prolonged shutdown fight when the House returns Monday to vote on the funding package. But Trump’s sway over the GOP remains considerable, and he has made his position clear at a moment of mounting political strain.

“The only thing that can slow our country down is another long and damaging government shutdown,” Trump wrote on social media late Thursday.

The urgency marked a clear shift from Trump’s posture during the 43-day shutdown late last year, when he publicly antagonized Democratic leaders and his team mocked them on social media. This time, with anger rising over shootings in Minneapolis and the GOP’s midterm messaging on tax cuts drowned out by controversy, Trump acted quickly to make a deal with Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

“Trump and the Republicans know that this is an issue where they’re on the wrong side of the American people and it really matters,” Schumer told reporters Friday after Senate passage of the government funding deal.

Crisis after Minneapolis killings

Senators returned to work this week dealing with the fallout from the fatal shooting of ICU nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis by federal immigration officers, as well as the killing of Renee Good in the city weeks earlier.

Republicans were far from unified in their response. A few called for the firing of top administration officials such as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller, the White House chief of staff for policy. Most GOP senators tried to strike a balance, calling for a thorough investigation into Pretti’s killing while backing the hard-line immigration approach that is central to Trump’s presidency.

But many agreed that the shootings threatened public support for Trump’s immigration agenda.

“I’ve never seen a political party take its best issue and turn it into its worst issue in the period of time that it has happened in the last few weeks,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said. “Some things have to change.”

Democrats quickly coalesced around their key demands.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said there “was unanimity” around core principles of enforcing a code of conduct for immigration officers and agents, ending “roving patrols” for immigration enforcement actions and coordinating with local law enforcement on immigration arrests.

It helped that Trump himself was looking for ways to de-escalate in Minneapolis.

“The world has seen the videos of those horrible abuses by DHS and rogue operations catching up innocent people, and there’s a revulsion about it,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said.

“The White House is asking for a ladder off the ledge,” he added.

The painful politics of shutdown

Republicans are also trying to promote their accomplishments in office as they ready for the November midterms and the difficult task of retaining control of both chambers of Congress.

But the prospect of a prolonged shutdown shifted attention away from their $4.5-trillion tax and spending cuts law, the centerpiece of their agenda. Republicans had hoped the beginning of this year’s tax season on Monday would provide a political boost as voters begin to see larger tax refunds.

Republicans are also mindful of the political damage from last year’s shutdown, when they took a slightly larger portion of the blame from Americans than Democrats, according to polling from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

“The shutdown was a big factor, negative for the Republicans,” Trump told Republican senators at the White House in November.

On a practical level, this funding standoff threatened to destroy months of bipartisan work, including long hours over the holiday break, to craft the 12 spending bills that fund the government and many priorities back home.

“We saw what happened in the last government shutdown in regards to how it hurt real, hardworking Americans,” said Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “I don’t want that to happen again.”

A two-week funding battle begins

The agreement reached this week, if passed by the House, would avoid a prolonged shutdown and fund nearly every federal department through the end of the budget year in September. But it would not resolve one of the most difficult issues for Congress and the White House: Homeland Security funding.

Instead of a full-year deal, funding for the department was extended for just two weeks, giving lawmakers little time to bridge the deep divides over immigration enforcement.

Democrats are pressing for changes they say are necessary to prevent future abuses, including requiring immigration agents to wear body cameras, carry clear identification, end roving patrols in cities and coordinate more closely with local law enforcement when making arrests. Many Democrats also want tighter rules around warrants and accountability mechanisms for officers in the field.

Those demands have met stiff resistance from Republicans. Some are opposed to negotiating with Democrats at all.

“Republicans control the White House, Senate and House. Why are we giving an inch to Democrats?” Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) wrote on social media.

Republican senators said they would take the fight to Democrats by introducing their own bills, including restrictions on “sanctuary cities,” to show their support for Trump’s policies. That term is generally applied to state and local governments that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

“We’ve let the issue get away. We’re not leading. We’re trying to avoid losing rather than winning,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who held up the spending bills until Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) agreed to give him a vote on his sanctuary cities bill at a later date.

Thune acknowledged the difficulty of the next two weeks, saying that there are “some pretty significant views and feelings.”

“We’ll stay hopeful,” Thune told reporters about the upcoming fight. “But there are some pretty significant differences of opinion.”

Cappelletti and Groves write for the Associated Press. AP writers Lisa Mascaro and Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A budget impasse in Congress is poised to halt large swaths of federal operations early Saturday as lawmakers in Capitol Hill turn to the next flashpoint in negotiations to reopen the government: whether to impose new limits on federal immigration authorities carrying out President Trump’s deportation campaign.

Over the next two weeks, Democrats and Republicans will weigh competing demands on how the Department of Homeland Security should carry out arrests, detention and deportations after the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal immigration agents this month in Minnesota.

Seeking to rein in the federal agency, Senate Democrats late on Thursday were able to strike a deal with the White House that would temporarily fund the Department of Homeland Security but fund the Pentagon, the State Department, as well as the health, education, labor and transportation agencies through Sept. 30.

The agreement is intended to give lawmakers more time to address Democratic demands to curb ICE tactics while averting a partial government shutdown.

The Senate finalized the deal Friday evening on a 71-29 vote, hours before a midnight deadline to avert a government shutdown. Passage of the deal was delayed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who objected to parts of the package.

The House expected to take up the legislation as early as Monday. The partial government shutdown will occur until the measure clears the House and Trump signs it into law.

The president supports the deal, which came after Senate Democrats said they would not vote to fund Homeland Security unless reforms for the agency were approved. Among the demands: banning federal agents from wearing masks, requiring use of body cameras and requiring use of judicial warrants prior to searching homes and making arrests.

Democrats have also demanded that local and state law enforcement officials be given the ability to conduct independent investigations in cases where federal agents are accused of wrongdoing.

The deal, however, does not include any of those reforms; it includes only the promise of more time to negotiate with no guarantee that the new restrictions will be agreed to.

Both of California’s Democratic senators, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, voted against the Senate deal. They both opposed giving more funding to Homeland Security without reforms in a vote Thursday.

Schiff voted no because he said he promised to not “give another dime for ICE until we saw real reforms — and not just promised reforms but statutory requirements.”

“I want to see those reforms before I am prepared to support any more funding for these agencies,” Schiff said in a video message posted on X, and added that he did not see the White House acting in “good faith. “I want it in writing and statute.”

After voting against the measure, Padilla said in a statement: “I’ve been clear from the beginning: No more money for ICE and CBP without real oversight and accountability.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters Friday morning that Democrats will find out whether two weeks is enough time to reach a compromise.

“We will evaluate whether that is sufficient time,” Jeffries said. “But there is urgency to dealing with this issue because ICE as we have seen is out of control.”

Meanwhile, the absence of reforms in the Senate deal has already drawn concerns from some progressives, who argue the deal falls short of what is needed to rein in federal immigration enforcement.

“First of all, I’m actually disappointed that Senate leadership is not right now demanding more,” Rep. Robert Garcia, a top-ranking House Democrat from Long Beach, told reporters Friday. “This idea that we’re somehow going to continue to fund this agency and somehow just extend the pain, I think is absolutely wrong.”

Garcia said it was “outrageous” that the Senate deal would extend funding for Homeland Security for two weeks without any new requirements.

“This idea that we’re somehow not demanding immediately the removal of masks and body cameras and all the other reforms while eliminating this agency that’s causing harm, I think, is outrageous,” Garcia said.

Democratic Rep. Judy Chu of Pasadena said in a statement that she had not yet decided whether to support the Senate deal once it reaches the House floor.

But, Chu added: “I cannot support legislation that increases funding to this agency while delivering no accountability measures.”

Rep. Kevin Calvert (R-Corona) said in a statement that it is “critical” for lawmakers to pass the bipartisan spending package, in part because it included funding for the U.S. military.

“As Chairman of the [House] Defense Appropriation Subcommittee, I’m especially concerned about the negative impacts of a shutdown at a time when we have a buildup of American military assets in the Middle East,” Calvert said.

Calvert added that Homeland Security operations will continue even in the shutdown because lawmakers provided an influx of funding for the agency in last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” But he said he worried that any lapse in funding would affect other operations by the agency, including disaster funding and security assistance for major events, such as the upcoming World Cup.

“We need to get these priorities funded,” he said.

Other Republican lawmakers have already signaled the possible hurdles Democrats will face as they try to rein in ICE.

Graham held up consideration of the Senate deal, in part because he wanted the Senate to vote to criminalize local and state officials in sanctuary cities — a term that has no strict definition but that generally describes local jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

“You can convince me that ICE can be better, but I don’t think I will ever convince you to abandon sanctuary cities because you’re wedded to it on the Democratic side,” Graham said.

Graham also delayed passage of the deal because it included a repeal of a law that would have allowed senators — including himself — to sue the government if federal investigators gained access to their phones without notifying them. The law required senators to be notified if that were to happen and sue for up to $50,000 in damages per incident.

“We’ll fix the $500,000 — count me in — but you took the notification out,” Graham said. “I am demanding a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Other Senate Republicans also expressed concern with Democrats’ demands, even as Trump seemed to try appease them.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said the demand for federal agents to remove their masks during operations was a “clear and obvious attempt to intimidate and put our federal agents in harm’s way.”

“When enforcement becomes dangerous for enforcers, enforcement does not survive,” Schmitt said in a Senate floor speech. “What emerges is not reform, it is amnesty by default.”

Despite the GOP opposition, most Senate Republicans were poised to join Democrats on Friday and vote for the deal. But there is no certainty that they will join the minority party when negotiations resume in the coming weeks.

Recent history suggests that bipartisan support at the outset does not guarantee a lasting deal, particularly when unresolved policy disputes remain. The last government shutdown tied to a debate over healthcare exposed how quickly negotiations can collapse when no agreement is reached.

In November, a small group of Democrats voted with Republicans to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history with the promise of negotiating an extension to healthcare tax credits that were set to expire in the new year.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), a former House speaker, reminded the public on Friday that Democrats were unable to get Republican support for extending the tax credits, resulting in increasing healthcare costs for millions of Americans.

“House Democrats passed a bipartisan fix, yet Senate Republicans continue to block this critical relief for millions of Americans,” Pelosi wrote in a post on X.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

Jan. 29 (Asia Today) — U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Tuesday that Washington does not recognize any trade agreement with South Korea unless it is ratified by the South Korean National Assembly, reaffirming that higher tariffs would remain in place until legislative approval is secured.

In an interview with CNBC, Bessent said the absence of parliamentary ratification meant no valid agreement existed between the two countries.

“Because the South Korean National Assembly has not passed the trade agreement, there is no trade agreement with South Korea until they approve it,” Bessent said, repeatedly emphasizing the need for lawmakers to ratify the deal.

Asked whether South Korea would face 25% tariffs until ratification, Bessent replied, “I think that helps move the situation forward,” a comment widely interpreted as signaling tariff pressure aimed at accelerating legislative action.

His remarks clarified the backdrop to Donald Trump’s announcement Sunday that the United States planned to raise reciprocal tariffs on South Korean exports, including automobiles, timber and pharmaceuticals, from 15% to 25%.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said the South Korean legislature had failed to enact what he described as a “historic trade agreement.” No executive order or formal notice has yet been issued to implement the tariff increase.

Trump later suggested negotiations could still resolve the issue, saying Monday that Washington would “work with South Korea to find a solution.”

Pressure from the Trump administration has extended beyond tariffs. The Wall Street Journal reported that Washington has raised concerns over South Korea’s regulatory treatment of U.S. technology companies. According to the report, J.D. Vance told South Korean Prime Minister Kim Min-seok during a White House meeting last week that the administration wanted meaningful de-escalation in how U.S. tech firms are regulated.

South Korea has fully mobilized its trade channels to assess Washington’s intentions. Trade Minister Kim Jeong-kwan is scheduled to travel to Washington later Tuesday after completing meetings in Canada, where he is expected to meet U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Trade Negotiations Commissioner Yeo Han-koo also plans consultations with the U.S. trade representative.

— 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=20260129010013312

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats reached a deal with the White House late Thursday to prevent a partial government shutdown by moving to temporarily fund the Department of Homeland Security for two weeks, providing more time to negotiate new restrictions for federal immigration agents carrying out President Trump’s deportation campaign.

The deal follows widespread outrage over the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens — Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti — by federal agents in Minneapolis amid an aggressive immigration crackdown led by the Trump administration.

Under the agreement, funding for the Department of Homeland Security will be extended for two weeks, while the Pentagon, the State Department, as well as the health, education, labor and transportation departments, will be funded through Sept. 30, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s office confirmed to The Times.

While the Senate could approve the deal as early as Thursday night, it is unclear when the House will vote for the package. To avert a government shutdown, both chambers need to approve the deal by midnight EST Friday.

After the agreement was reached, President Trump wrote on Truth Social that he was “working hard with Congress to ensure that we are able to fully fund the Government without delay.”

“Republicans and Democrats in Congress have come together to get the vast majority of the Government funded until September, while at the same time providing an extension to the Department of Homeland Security (including the very important Coast Guard, which we are expanding and rebuilding like never before),” Trump said.

He added: “Hopefully, both Republicans and Democrats will give a very much needed Bipartisan ‘YES’ Vote.”

The move to temporarily fund DHS is meant to give lawmakers more time to negotiate Democratic demands that include a requirement that federal immigration agents use body cameras, stop using masks during operations and a push to tighten rules around arrests and searches without judicial warrants.

The breakthrough comes after Senate Democrats — and seven Senate Republicans — blocked passage of a spending package that included additional funding for DHS through Sept. 30 but not enough guardrails to muster the 60 votes needed to pass the chamber.

“Republicans in Congress cannot allow this violent status quo to continue,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said after the vote. “We’re ready to fund 96% of the federal government today, but the DHS bill still needs a lot of work.”

Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) condemned Democrats for jeopardizing funding for other agencies as they pushed for their demands.

“It would be disastrous to shut down FEMA in the middle of a major winter storm. It’s affecting half the country, and it appears that another storm is along the way,” he said. “A shutdown would mean no paychecks for our troops once again, no money for TSA agents or air traffic controllers.”

The standoff comes after federal ICE agents shot and killed Pretti, an American citizen and nurse who attempted to help a fallen woman during an ICE operation in Minneapolis. Pretti’s death was the second fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen by federal agents in the city in less than two weeks, following the killing of Good earlier this month.

Published on
29/01/2026 – 12:38 GMT+1

Oil prices rose on Thursday after US President Donald Trump warned Iran that “time is running out” and said a “massive armada” was heading towards the region if Tehran failed to agree to a nuclear non-proliferation deal.

In a Truth Social post, Trump said a fleet larger than the one sent to Venezuela was ready to “rapidly fulfil its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary” if Iran refused to negotiate a deal guaranteeing “no nuclear weapons”.

Global benchmark Brent rose by about 2.02%, trading at around $68.73 per barrel, while US crude (WTI) hovered around 2.15% higher, at $64.57 per barrel.

Trump previously threatened to attack Iran if it killed protesters during the ongoing protest movement across the country. Estimates of those killed range from around 6,000 to as many as 30,000, according to various reports.

Oil delivery disruptions

If the US were to escalate militarily, it could disrupt oil flows to countries that still trade with Iran.

Iran’s economy is already under heavy pressure from US secondary financial sanctions on its banking and energy sectors, compounded by the reimposition of JCPOA snapback sanctions.

These measures have severely limited Iran’s access to the Western financial system and constrained its ability to trade openly.

As a result, Iranian exports rely heavily on so-called “dark fleets,” ship-to-ship transfers and intermediary routes designed to obscure cargo origins along major maritime corridors.

Yet despite years of sanctions, Iran has retained access to oil markets, underlining the difficulty of fully enforcing restrictions on a high-value global commodity.

“Iran has a number of markets for its oil, despite the Western sanctions regime,” said Dmitry Grozubinski, a senior advisor on international trade policy at Aurora Macro Strategies.

China at centre of enforcement risk

China remains the largest buyer, with reports suggesting Iranian crude is often rebranded as Malaysian or Gulf-origin oil before entering the country.

“Independent refineries are purchasing it using dark fleet vessels, with transactions conducted through small private banks and in renminbi,” Grozubinski said.

Other destinations for Iranian oil and derivatives include Iraq, the UAE and Turkey, further complicating enforcement.

“It’s extremely difficult to maintain comprehensive sanctions on oil,” Grozubinski said, “especially when it requires policing transactions between Iran and states that don’t fully share Western priorities.”

China currently imports an estimated 1.2 to 1.4 million barrels of Iranian oil per day — around 80 to 90% of Iran’s crude exports.

US escalation could provoke Beijing

That dependence makes Beijing the central variable in any escalation. Analysts say China would be the most likely major economy to resist compliance and retaliate.

“Beijing has already signalled it would respond if Trump follows through,” said Dan Alamariu, chief geopolitical strategist at Alpine Macro, warning of renewed US–China trade friction.

One risk raised by analysts is the potential for China to again restrict exports of rare earths — a tool it has previously used during periods of trade tension — although such a move is considered unlikely in the short term.

“It’s not the base case,” Alamariu said, “but it’s not impossible.”

After a competitive bidding process, indie studio A24 has acquired the U.S. rights to Olivia Wilde’s comedy “The Invite” in a major deal out of the Sundance Film Festival.

The film, which stars Wilde, Seth Rogen, Penélope Cruz and Edward Norton, was purchased for around $10 million, according to a person familiar with the deal who requested anonymity due to the sensitive matter. One factor for Wilde was a preference for a traditional theatrical release.

“The Invite” focuses on a dinner party among neighbors and was billed as a must-see after it premiered over the weekend at Sundance. So far, the film has notched a 91% rating on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

The market at Sundance has traditionally been viewed as a bellwether for the indie film business. In the last few years, deals have been slower to emerge from the festival, particularly as streamers stopped offering massive sums for films to stock their platforms and as studios cut back on spending.

The deal for “The Invite” is one of a handful that have already been announced. On Tuesday, Neon said it acquired the worldwide rights to horror film “Leviticus,” which premiered at Sundance. Neon also bought the worldwide rights over the weekend for another horror flick, “4 X 4: The Event” from filmmaker Alex Ullom. That deal was the first to be made in Park City, though the film was not shown at Sundance and will begin production later this year. The value for both of Neon’s deals was not disclosed.

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.

Rwanda began the inter-state arbitration proceedings under the asylum partnership agreement in November.

Rwanda has taken legal action against the United Kingdom’s refusal to disburse payments under a now-scrapped, controversial agreement for Kigali to receive deported asylum seekers, according to a Rwandan official and UK media reports.

Rwanda launched arbitral proceedings against the UK through the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration on Tuesday. It is seeking 50 million pounds ($68.8m) in compensation after the UK failed to formally terminate the controversial agreement about two years ago, The Telegraph newspaper reported.

“Rwanda regrets that it has been necessary to pursue these claims in arbitration, but faced with the United Kingdom’s intransigence on these issues, it has been left with no other choice,” Michael Butera, chief technical adviser to the minister of justice, told the AFP news agency.

Butera added that Kigali had sought diplomatic engagement before resorting to legal action.

The programme to remove to East Africa some people who had arrived in the UK via small boats was agreed upon in a treaty between London and Kilgali. It was intended as a deterrent for those wanting to come to the UK in the same manner.

However, just four volunteers ultimately arrived in Rwanda.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer scrapped the deal – brokered by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative government in 2022 – when he took office in July 2024, declaring it “dead and buried”.

London had already paid Kigali 240 million pounds ($330.9m) before the agreement was abandoned, with a further 50 million pounds ($68.9m) due in April.

Starmer’s official spokesman told reporters on Tuesday, “We will robustly defend our position to protect British taxpayers.”

Last year, the UK suspended most financial aid to Rwanda for backing the M23 group’s offensive in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Kigali labelled the move “punitive”.

The agreement faced a string of legal challenges, culminating in a November 2023 ruling by the UK Supreme Court that it was illegal under international law.

Rwanda began the interstate arbitration proceedings under the asylum partnership agreement in November, according to the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s website, which lists the case status as pending.

Immigration has been an increasingly central political issue since the UK left the European Union in 2020, largely on a promise to “take back control” of the country’s borders.

Some 37,000 asylum seekers, including people fleeing Syria and Afghanistan, crossed the English Channel in 2024, and more than 40,000 in 2025 – the highest number since 2022, when nearly 46,000 people crossed. Dozens have died attempting the journey.

The UK government says it has removed 50,000 undocumented people living in the country.

In September, the UK and France implemented a “one-in-one-out” migrant deal aimed at returning asylum seekers to France while accepting those with UK family ties. However, the policy has faced criticism regarding its effectiveness. NGOs and charity groups have also described the scheme as a “cruel” move designed to restrict asylum rights.

The Dodgers’ $240-million signing of Kyle Tucker revived anguished cries that the team is ruining baseball. It also revived a strange chapter in team history, with frenzied online commentary that the signing of Tucker was made possible in large part because Major League Baseball long ago rewarded the Dodgers’ owners with preferential financial treatment that continues to this day.

Is that true?

Yes and no.

Uh, thanks. Go on.

Remember Frank McCourt, the Dodgers’ former owner?

In 2011, after then-commissioner Bud Selig rejected a proposed $3-billion local television deal between the Dodgers and Fox Sports, McCourt took the team into bankruptcy court before agreeing to sell. That meant Selig and the MLB owners would not pick the new Dodgers owner. McCourt would, in a process controlled by the court.

With the Dodgers’ local TV rights soon to expire, McCourt realized bidders for the team might offer more — and he might make more — if the bidders knew in advance how much the league would take from the sale of those rights.

In a settlement with McCourt — and to avoid the risk of the judge imposing a deal less favorable to the league — MLB agreed the fair-market value of a Dodgers TV deal would be based on the very Fox deal that Selig had rejected.

Why did that matter?

That value was $84 million for the first year and would increase thereafter, with the league taking its standard 34% cut and sharing that among all its teams.

However, with a bidding war looming between Fox Sports and Time Warner Cable, Selig knew the rights would be worth more than Fox had offered in its extension with McCourt, who needed immediate cash.

In bankruptcy court, an attorney for Guggenheim, the winning bidder and still the Dodgers’ owner, said the settlement represented a “substantial component of the value proposition of the transaction” — that is, a primary justification for the then-record $2.15-billion purchase price.

In 2013, one year after buying the team, Guggenheim sold those local TV rights. Were they indeed worth more?

You might as well ask if Shohei Ohtani is good. The rights that McCourt wanted to sell for $3 billion were bought by Time Warner Cable for a record $8.35 billion.

Because of the settlement, the league would take its cut based on a deal worth $3 billion rather than based on a deal worth $8.35 billion.

And the league was fine with this, because it wanted to help a marquee franchise return to glory?

LOL, no. In 2012, an MLB attorney had warned the court that the settlement could result in a league of “the Dodgers and the other 29 teams.” Under its terms, the Dodgers could keep tens of millions of dollars each year that otherwise would be shared with the league.

In the wake of the massive Time Warner deal, Selig’s office told other owners it planned to treat television revenue for the Dodgers like television revenue from any other team.

However, thanks to McCourt, the bankruptcy court was in charge, not the league. MLB did not have the power to redo the court-approved settlement, because Guggenheim could have asked the court to uphold the deal and order the league to abide by it.

After negotiations, MLB and Guggenheim made a modest adjustment, setting the “fair-market value” of the Time Warner deal at about $130 million for the first year rather than $84 million. That figure is used to determine the league’s cut, which for all local TV deals has since increased from 34% to 48%.

Just about every report on the Dodgers’ TV deal says the team is guaranteed $334 million each year. Is that accurate?

That $334 million is the annual average. The deal started at a lower value and increases every year.

By the time the deal ends in 2038, the Dodgers will be getting more than $500 million per year.

How is that possible? Aren’t local sports channels dying?

The parent company of the FanDuel Sports channels — including the one that carries the Angels — emerged from bankruptcy last year but now is fighting to remain in business. If your company spends millions upon millions on sports rights, and if your financial success depends on cable and satellite customers paying for a programming bundle that includes sports channels most viewers do not watch, you’re doomed.

The Angels’ local television revenue took a big hit last year and probably will do so again this year. The Milwaukee Brewers, the team that plays in the smallest market in the majors, reportedly got $35 million in its FanDuel deal last year.

The Dodgers own SportsNet LA through a related entity, American Media Productions (AMP), and the television revenue comes via a marketing and distribution agreement with Charter Communications, which inherited the deal when it acquired Time Warner Cable in 2016.

Charter’s revenue in 2024: $55 billion. The giant television, telephone and broadband company is not going out of business anytime soon, even as it is stuck with a money-losing Dodgers deal.

What did Dodgers chairman Mark Walter say upon the establishment of SportsNet LA?

“The creation of AMP will provide substantial financial resources over the coming years for the Dodgers to build on their storied legacy and bring a world championship home to Los Angeles.”

Nailed it. So why would Walter consider forsaking some of those substantial financial resources?

In 2028, when MLB national TV contracts expire, Commissioner Rob Manfred would like to offer traditional networks and streaming services the chance to bid not just on national broadcasts but on an all-baseball, all-the-time outlet where fans could watch any team, wherever they lived, and with no blackouts. With that, the league believes, it could strike gold — and then share the wealth among all 30 teams.

That would require teams to turn over their local broadcast rights to the league. The Dodgers’ local television revenues provide a massive competitive advantage. It’s hard to imagine Walter (and owners of other big-city teams with similar TV riches) surrendering those riches without the league offering him something significant in return.

Like what?

Perhaps a chance to exempt the Dodgers from sharing ticket revenue, or to secure the Japanese television rights now controlled by MLB. Maybe the league would buy SportsNet LA. Could be anything. But that is a 2028 issue. First up is collective bargaining, and the possibility of owners shutting down the sport next winter in pursuit of a salary cap.