Paramount Global Says Skydance Merger Should Close in Two Weeks
After the deal closes, the company will be renamed Paramount Skydance Corp and its Class B shares will trade under the ticker symbol PSKY.
Skydance CEO David Ellison is prepared to assume the helm at Paramount Skydance, home to the venerable Paramount Pictures, the CBS broadcast network, and a collection of cable television channels.
The new chief executive already is confronted with questions from investors about the future of the Paramount+ streaming service, plans for Paramount's declining television assets, and forecasts for spending on content — including professional sports.
'Now that the long, drawn-out sale process is finally nearing its end, Skydance leadership is poised to take control,' wrote MoffettNathanson media analyst Robert Fishman. 'With that, the real work begins — rebuilding Paramount, addressing the critical strategic questions ahead, and charting a path toward a more sustainable and competitive future.'
Announced more than a year ago, the merger will unite Paramount's prized film and TV library including classics such as 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off' and 'Breakfast at Tiffany's,' with films it produced with Skydance, including 'Top Gun: Maverick' and 'Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning.'
Ellison was not available for comment. He has previously said he plans to expand Paramount's technological capabilities, rebuild the Paramount+ platform and grow the streaming business, and reorganize the business to prioritize cash flow. A year ago, he said the team had identified $2 billion in cost savings.
The Federal Communications Commission cleared the deal on Thursday, just weeks after Paramount settled a lawsuit filed by U.S. President Donald Trump over CBS' editing of a '60 Minutes' interview with his Democratic opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris.
The $16-million settlement drew criticism that Paramount had effectively bought regulatory approval, with the Democratic dissenter in the FCC's 2-1 vote calling it a 'cowardly capitulation' to the Trump administration. The agency has repeatedly said its review was independent of the lawsuit.
The deal marks the end of media mogul Shari Redstone's control over Paramount parent National Amusements. Redstone, long hesitant to part with the studio her late father, Sumner Redstone, acquired in 1994, relinquishes the reins of a media empire her family built over decades.
As part of FCC negotiations, Skydance agreed to appoint an ombudsman to address complaints about editorial bias or other concerns at CBS. The company also pledged to end diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that Trump claimed were discriminatory.
CBS News named Tanya Simon its top producer for '60 Minutes' on Thursday, replacing Bill Owens, who stepped down citing a lack of editorial independence amid Trump's lawsuit.
Since announcing the deal, Paramount has undergone several changes that include internal restructuring, significant cost-cutting and management changes.
CFO Naveen Chopra exited the company in June to take on a similar role at video game company Roblox RBLX.N.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Kyodo News
4 hours ago
- Kyodo News
Japan, U.S. ministers reached trade agreement in mid-June: sources
TOKYO - Japan's chief negotiator reached an agreement with U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in mid-June on a deal offering massive Japanese investment in the United States in exchange for a reduction in tariffs, sources close to the matter said Saturday. Over the following month, Japan focused on convincing U.S. President Donald Trump through Lutnick of the advantages of the agreement, with the proposal of expanding imports of U.S.-grown rice used as the final bargaining chip. The trade deal, announced by Trump on July 23, includes tariffs on Japanese cars set at 15 percent -- lower than the 27.5 percent that was to have been levied -- in exchange for $550 billion of Japanese investment in the United States. During the course of the negotiations, which spanned around three months from mid-April, Japan identified Lutnick as the only person who could communicate "directly and on a deep level" with Trump due to their close friendship of over 30 years, and directed its efforts on him, according to one of the sources. Ryosei Akazawa, Japan's chief tariff negotiator, built trust with Lutnick not only through in-person talks but also through dozens of phone calls, the source said. Believing that Lutnick placed a high priority on economic security amid China concerns, Japan emphasized its willingness to contribute to strengthening U.S. domestic supply chains and eventually reached an understanding with him. Trump, however, maintained a hardline stance even in late June, venting frustration that Japan does not import significant amounts of American cars and rice. "I'm not sure we're going to make a deal. I doubt it," he had said, while demanding additional concessions in exchange for lowering tariffs. The tide turned on July 22 immediately following Japan's upper house election. A sudden meeting was arranged for the following day between Trump and Akazawa, who was in Washington for an eighth round of talks. Akazawa and Lutnick began to "rehearse" in preparation for the talks, with Lutnick suggesting that a total investment of $400 billion be proposed in the expectation that Trump would ask for $500 billion. A board was prepared by U.S. officials to clearly show Trump how much Japan would investment. But Trump demanded even more, leaving Akazawa no choice but to agree to $550 billion. A senior official of the prime minister's office acknowledged that the deal does not align with World Trade Organization rules or the Japan-U.S. trade agreement that took effect in January 2020, but also conceded that Trump "is a president who genuinely believes in protecting his country through tariffs."
The Mainichi
7 hours ago
- The Mainichi
US-Japan: Reimagining an alliance for a fractured world
The following is a contribution to the Mainichi Shimbun from Michael Schiffer, who served as assistant administrator of the Bureau for Asia at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which was dismantled by the Donald Trump administration. In his contribution, Schiffer discusses the future of the Japan-U.S. alliance. -- In the first six months of the second Trump administration, the U.S.-Japan alliance has been rocked by renewed uncertainty. Although the July 22 tariff agreement has relieved some of the immediate pressure, the negotiations were contentious and drawn-out, with the White House's threats to impose fresh tariffs on Japanese automobiles and agriculture, coupled with demands that Tokyo increase its host-nation support for U.S. forces and step up its security commitments in the region -- demands that may have contributed to the "postponement" of a planned 2+2 meeting earlier this month -- reviving painful memories of the trade wars and alliance strains of the 1980s. Trump's public questioning of whether the United States will live up to its alliance commitments, alongside his erratic posture on Ukraine and unilateral cuts to foreign assistance programs -- including those supporting Indo-Pacific infrastructure and governance -- have further shaken confidence in the reliability of American leadership. At a time when the foundational pillars of the post-war world are cracking under the combined weight of technological upheaval, environmental crisis, demographic transformation, and a new era of great-power rivalry, these moves have undermined the sense of strategic stability that has long defined an alliance that has served as the cornerstone for peace, security and prosperity for Tokyo and Washington alike. In the face of these structural changes, alliance managers must move beyond the conceptual mainstream, and seek to imagine a new world rather than continue to act as custodians of a fading order, attempting to solve 21st-century problems with 20th-century blueprints and defending the sanctity of an alliance built for a world that no longer exists. And yet, Japan remains one of America's most capable, trusted, and forward-looking allies. With its advanced economy, technological prowess, and increasingly assertive defense policy, Japan is uniquely positioned to work with the United States on the basis of shared interests and shared values to navigate the strategic challenges of a more contested Indo-Pacific -- and the generational challenge of a more assertive and aggressive China, with its own vision for what the regional and global order should look like. Neither the U.S. or Japan are likely to be successful in this undertaking alone, and even less so if Washington and Tokyo are working at cross-purposes. Doing so will also require more than a reaffirmation of old commitments. The rapidly changing global geostrategic and geoeconomic landscapes demand a fundamental reimagining of the alliance -- across economic, technological, diplomatic, and military domains. The rise of a more assertive China -- militarizing the South and East China Seas, threatening Taiwan, weaponizing economic coercion, and seeking to shape global norms to its advantage -- has made clear that alliances anchored in Cold War-era assumptions about roles, missions and capabilities are no longer sufficient. Tokyo recognizes this: Japan has undertaken a historic defense build-up, doubled its defense budget, and committed to acquiring counterstrike capabilities, signaling a Japan that is ready to be not just a junior partner, but a co-equal shaper of regional stability. The United States must meet this moment with strategic imagination, not just a narrowly construed "America First" transnationalism. That means moving beyond instrumental debates over cost-sharing to deepen integration across defense planning, technological innovation, and economic resilience. The U.S.-Japan alliance faces a precarious security landscape, one demanding immediate and decisive action. From China's assertive military expansion and "gray zone" tactics in the East and South China Seas, particularly around the Senkaku Islands and Taiwan, to North Korea's relentless pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, the Indo-Pacific is increasingly volatile, all part and parcel of an international system that is rapidly evolving from X to Y. Given the scope and scale of these challenges, we cannot afford complacency. It is imperative that Washington and Tokyo accelerate our joint development of next-generation defense technologies -- AI-enabled command systems, autonomous platforms, cyber defense -- and fast-tracking the co-development and deployment of advanced technologies, strengthening integrated air and missile defense systems, and ensuring seamless interoperability of our forces across all domains. This will help the alliance to deter aggression and operate effectively in an era defined by multi-domain conflict. The time to act is now, not only to safeguard our shared security interests but to uphold regional stability and to set the rules for the evolving international order against growing authoritarian challenges. Economically, the alliance must focus on shaping the rules of the road for the 21st century. With the Trans-Pacific Partnership long abandoned, the U.S. and Japan should spearhead digital trade agreements, investment screening regimes, and supply chain partnerships that insulate both economies from coercive pressures. Initiatives like the U.S.-Japan Economic Policy Consultative Committee (EPCC) should be scaled up into a formal economic dialogue akin to the 2+2 defense framework, driving coordination on geoeconomic strategy. While headlines may be dominated by tariffs and calls for economic rebalancing, it's crucial to recognize these discussions as echoes of a bygone era. While there are valid arguments for rebalancing, obsessing over trade deficits and protectionist measures risks diverting our focus from the true challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. The global economic landscape has fundamentally shifted, and our attention must pivot from the battles of the past to the imperative of co-leading the future. This means looking beyond traditional trade in goods to foster deeper collaboration and shared investments in areas like the governance of emerging technologies, resilient supply chains, and the green economy, ensuring our alliance is not just economically balanced but future-proofed. Finally, Japan and the United States should jointly invest in regional capacity-building -- from infrastructure finance to maritime domain awareness to climate resilience. This means reconsidering cuts to foreign assistance and treating development as a strategic instrument. Japan's extensive development networks and America's innovation ecosystem can be combined to offer a robust alternative to China's Belt and Road. To meet the test of this moment, the U.S.-Japan alliance must become more than a security arrangement. It must be a platform for shared strategy, innovation, and governance in the Indo-Pacific. The future of the U.S.-Japan alliance hinges on our willingness to confront the present with clear eyes and bold action. This isn't a moment for nostalgia; it's a demand for strategic reimagining. We must move beyond outdated notions of stability and influence to rebuild an alliance fit for a fragmented and fast-moving world. This means prioritizing investment beyond military modernization to include the governance of emerging technologies. It requires us to fully integrate climate adaptation and economic competitiveness as core pillars of national security. And critically, it compels us to evolve the institutions and coalitions -- both formal and informal -- that are essential for managing geopolitical volatility and for competing effectively with the PRC. The past six months have been challenging for Tokyo and Washington. But we have an opportunity to seize the moment to forge an alliance that is not just resilient, but truly transformative for the 21st century. Profile: Michael Schiffer has served as U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia, senior advisor and counselor on the Democratic Staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and assistant administrator of the USAID Bureau for Asia. His areas of expertise include U.S. foreign and defense policy, and security in the Indo-Pacific region.
Yomiuri Shimbun
13 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
They're Rich. They're Anti-Trump. And They Don't Want Their Big Tax Cut.
Kimberly Hoover has been to most Michelin-star restaurants on the East and West coasts. She and her wife, multimillionaires from their real estate firms, own homes in or near New York City, Washington, Miami and Quebec. Their lives are filled with skiing, fine wine and long trips to Europe. Hoover's accountant estimates that the new tax law that President Donald Trump signed this month will save her several million dollars over the next few years. While many Americans might rejoice at that kind of windfall, Hoover worked hard to stop it from becoming a reality, arguing to lawmakers that she has more money than she needs. 'At some point, it starts to feel wrong. It starts to feel excessive. It starts to feel somehow inappropriate. And at some point, it just doesn't feel good,' said Hoover, who spoke while on break from a sapphic literature conference she helps sponsor in Albany. 'Imbalanced is really not good for anyone, even if you're on the positive end of that imbalance, because it's unsustainable.' Hoover's experience reflects an unusual irony of Trump's signature tax legislation: Many of its biggest beneficiaries fiercely oppose the president – and even oppose policies he is pushing that will make them richer. The mismatch is partly a result of a crucial, if ongoing, evolution of the role class plays in American politics. During the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, affluent Americans who benefited from tax cuts were more likely to be Republicans. The political party they supported delivered material benefits that boosted their pocketbooks. Democratic voters, by comparison, were more likely to be working or middle class. Now, more than half of upper-income families – defined as those earning more than $215,400 per year – vote Democratic, according to a 2024 Pew Research survey, as more highly educated voters shift to the left. The top fifth of earners went from supporting Barack Obama in 2008 by a 2.5-point margin to supporting Joe Biden in 2020 by close to 15 percentage points. 'Affluent Americans used to vote for Republican politicians. Now they vote for Democrats,' one 2023 paper found. That shift intensified during the 2024 presidential election, when large numbers of Black and Latino voters, who tend to be lower-income, defected to the Republican ticket for the first time in decades, according to several political scientists, exit polls and studies. 'There's been a lot of talk about how even though the Republican coalition has changed and gotten more working class, their policies have not,' said Matt Grossmann, a political scientist at Michigan State University. 'But there's been less attention to a similar but true fact on the other side – a lot of Democratic politicians were elected by very rich constituents who are more likely to benefit from Republican tax policy than Democratic policy.' As a result, many of the provisions of the GOP tax law will benefit a voting bloc that is increasingly Democratic. The $3.4 trillion legislation extends a lower tax rate for the top tax bracket, rejecting the president's suggestion of a new tax on million-dollar earners. It expands and makes permanent a smaller federal estate tax, allowing up to $15 million to be passed on tax-free ($30 million for couples). It also makes permanent a large deduction for businesses formed as pass-through entities, while raising the cap on what filers can deduct in state and local taxes. (The GOP's 2017 tax law also permanently lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent.) When all these provisions are combined, Trump's second tax bill devotes roughly $1 trillion in tax cuts for those earning more than $400,000 per year – roughly the size of the law's cuts to Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for the poor. (Most of the bill's cost, though, comes from provisions that largely benefit middle-class households, such as a larger child tax credit and standard deduction.) Steve Lockshin, a financial adviser and co-founder of the estate advisory platform Vanilla, represents clients with at least $50 million and whose fortunes are sometimes in the billions of dollars. A tax cut of about 2 percent for a middle-class family translates into about $1,800 per year, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank. But for Lockshin's clients, saving several percentage points in taxes can mean hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, per year. One provision that has become particularly beneficial to his clients is the law's expansion of 'Opportunity Zones,' which allow investors to defer capital gains taxes by reinvesting profits into designated economically distressed areas. The program allows wealthy individuals to delay or, in some cases, permanently avoid paying taxes on capital gains if they make investments in specified zones. 'The general mentality is the same across the board with my clients: 'I want to pay the least I can. I also want the best for my country, and I would invert the two if it had a meaningful impact,'' Lockshin said. 'And if you are wealthy – but aren't pro-Trump and just along for the ride – most of my network is thinking, 'While Rome is burning, at least I'll save a few dollars in taxes.'' Opposition to tax cuts has surfaced in many wealthy liberal enclaves. At the Harvard Club in New York City, 'everyone under 50 feels this way,' said Bob Elliott, chief executive of Unlimited, an investment firm. 'The classic question is how much do you worry about it benefiting yourself versus the societal consequences – that's the trade-off,' Elliott said. 'Many of the people who don't like the bill are saying, 'Really, even if I get money, it's still at the expense of taking people off Medicaid.'' Nonpartisan estimates have found that the GOP tax law will lead to more than 13 million fewer Americans having health insurance. Some experts say rich people have self-interested reasons to oppose the tax cuts that go beyond the broader social consequences. Many of the law's short-term benefits come with long-term drawbacks, said Constance Hunter, chief economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, a research firm. That, she said, is because many people at least intuitively understand the concept of 'Ricardian equivalence' – the idea that deficits will need to be paid for eventually through higher taxes, so consumers adjust their behavior accordingly by saving more in preparation. 'I think there are a number of people, some of whom are affluent and that span the political spectrum, who realize we cannot keep expanding our deficits indefinitely, especially at a time when our economy is showing resilience and growing,' Hunter said. 'A lot of wealth is held by business owners, and while certain provisions may be providing tax cuts now, these are likely to be accompanied by greater financing costs for business owners,' as reflected in the higher interest rates needed to combat increases in inflation. Drew E. Pomerance, a Los Angeles lawyer in business and commercial litigation, said that his net worth is in the tens of millions of dollars and that he will probably save tens of thousands of dollars from the law every year. While he said 'it never ceases to amaze me that people vote against their own economic self-interest,' he also said he will benefit from the bill but thinks 'it's terrible for America.' 'Don't get me wrong: I like money. I like having money. I'm not opposed to having money,' he said. 'But at the expense of what it does to the rest of the country, it should not be a priority to give me and other rich people more money.' The willingness of some liberals to vote against their economic self-interest should give them pause before they accuse conservatives of doing the same, said Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank. He said Republican voters in lower-income states are often unfairly maligned this way, pointing to the 2004 book 'What's the Matter With Kansas?' 'Nothing is the matter with Kansas. The people of Kansas vote for a variety of reasons, one of which is economic self-interest,' Strain said. Some multimillionaires, such as Morris Pearl, who served as managing director at the investment firm BlackRock, say they are getting money from the tax cut they do not need. (Pearl, like Hoover and Pomerance, is part of Patriotic Millionaires, a group of rich Americans devoted to trying to raise taxes on the rich.) Pearl's mother-in-law died last year, and he and his wife benefited from the 2017 changes to the estate tax. He has taken advantage of the low-tax Opportunity Zone rules, though he does not remember where or how much he has invested. He will probably continue to do so now that they have been extended. 'It's great for me personally, financially,' Pearl said. 'But even looking at my own and my family's long-term self-interest, I would prefer less inequality and less of a country of very rich and very poor, and more of a country with lots of people doing all right.' In August, Pearl is traveling to a fundraiser for Democratic lawmakers in California. Every year, he donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic politicians, which he described as the first thing he would cut back on if his fortune started to shrink. Thanks in part to the GOP tax law, Pearl added, that is not going to happen any time soon.
