Paramount closes US$8 billion merger with Skydance after settling ‘60 Minutes' lawsuit
Renamed 'Paramount Skydance Corp', the company's Class B shares began trading on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol PSKY on Thursday, under the deal announced more than a year ago. They closed up US$0.10, or 1 per cent, to US$11.74.
The merger combines Paramount's sprawling global distribution network and prized film and TV library with Skydance's production and technological capabilities.
'Today marks Day One of a new Paramount... the coming months will be defined by a series of focused efforts to re-engineer how our company operates, produces its creative content, and goes to market,' said David Ellison, chairman and CEO of the combined company.
The company will be structured into three business segments, studios, direct-to-consumer, and TV media, with Ellison emphasising the need to expand Paramount's technological capabilities, grow its streaming business and prioritise cash flow.
Paramount, like other legacy media players, is struggling with a sagging traditional linear TV business as consumers shift to streaming platforms. It took nearly US$6 billion in write-downs on cable assets.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cleared the merger last month, weeks after Paramount settled a lawsuit filed by US President Donald Trump over CBS' editing of a '60 Minutes' interview with his Democratic presidential opponent Kamala Harris.
The merger was approved after Skydance agreed to ensure CBS news and entertainment programming would be free of bias, hire an ombudsman for at least two years to review complaints, and end diversity programmes.
Democratic FCC commissioner Anna Gomez, who voted against the merger, said the closing 'marks the final chapter of a dark moment in our nation's history. After months of cowardly capitulation, including an unprecedented payout to settle a meritless lawsuit in exchange for regulatory approval, Paramount and Skydance have completed their merger'.
Gomez criticised the company's agreement to 'never-before-seen forms of government control over newsroom decisions and editorial judgement – actions that violate both the First Amendment and the law'.
FCC chair Brendan Carr, a Republican, defended the provisions, saying it was necessary to include a commitment to more 'fact-based reporting, unbiased journalism... It is clear to me that something fundamental needs to change when it comes to the legacy mainstream media'. REUTERS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
32 minutes ago
- Straits Times
University of California reviews US government's $1.2 billion UCLA settlement offer
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox UCLA, which is part of the University of California system, said this week the government froze US$584 million in federal funding. WASHINGTON –The University of California said on Aug 8 it was reviewing a US$1 billion (S$1.28 billion) settlement offer by US President Donald Trump's administration for UCLA after the government froze hundreds of millions of dollars in funding over pro-Palestinian protests. UCLA, which is part of the University of California system, said this week the government froze US$584 million in federal funding. Mr Trump has threatened to cut federal funds for universities over pro-Palestinian student protests against US ally Israel's war in Gaza. The government alleges universities, including UCLA, allowed antisemitism during the protests, while some faculty groups have sued saying the cuts have chilled free speech. Large demonstrations took place at UCLA in 2024. Protesters, including some Jewish groups, say the government wrongly equates their criticism of Israel's military assault in Gaza and its occupation of Palestinian territories with antisemitism, and their advocacy for Palestinian rights with support for extremism. 'The University of California just received a document from the Department of Justice and is reviewing it,' University of California President James Milliken said in a statement, adding the institution offered to have talks earlier this week with the government. Last week, UCLA agreed to pay over US$6 million to settle a lawsuit by some students and a professor who alleged antisemitism. It was also sued this year over a 2024 violent mob attack on pro-Palestinian protesters. In July, the government settled its probes with Columbia University, which agreed to pay over US$220 million, and Brown University, which said it will pay US$50 million. Both institutions accepted certain government demands. Talks to settle with Harvard University are ongoing. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. World Trump says he will meet Putin on Aug 15 in Alaska Opinion This US-India spat is going from bad to worse Asia Chinese villagers hit by worst floods in generations say they had no warning Singapore 'This is home', for retired shop owner putting up 11th flag display in Toa Payoh to mark SG60 Singapore Nation building is every Singaporean's responsibility, not the work of one party alone: Pritam Asia 'Very nerdy' hobby of doujinshi self-publishing is a growing billion-dollar market in Japan Business Are you set to retire comfortably in Singapore? Singapore Senior Gentlemen's Circus debuts to engage older men to stay active The US$1 billion settlement offer for UCLA marks an unusually high amount. The White House had no immediate comment. Experts have raised concerns about the government's federal funding threats to universities, saying they amount to an assault on free speech and academic freedom. The government has also attempted to deport some international students, over which civil rights groups have raised due process concerns. Rights advocates note a rise in antisemitism, anti-Arab bias and Islamophobia due to the conflict in the Middle East. The Trump administration has not announced equivalent probes into Islamophobia. REUTERS
Straits Times
39 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Trump administration asks to dismiss Harvard suit over foreign students
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox A Harvard spokesperson said that the government's motion on Aug 8 has has no impact on the school's ability to enrol international students. WASHINGTON – The Trump administration asked a federal judge to throw out Harvard University's lawsuit over a proposed ban on international students, saying the president has broad authority to issue rules restricting the entry of non-citizens into the country. The Justice Department said in a court filing in Boston on Aug 8 that Harvard doesn't have the legal right to challenge the restrictions. The dispute involves Harvard's certification with the Student Exchange and Visitor Programme – a requirement for any university to enrol international students. In June, President Donald Trump signed an executive action that prevents foreign nationals from entering the US to study at Harvard, accusing the school of failing to implement discipline on campus and fostering a dramatic rise in crime. Mr Trump has made Harvard the main target of his effort to force universities to reshape higher education by cracking down on alleged antisemitism, removing perceived political bias among the faculty and eliminating diversity programs. Judge Allison Burroughs is expected to rule soon in another dispute over whether the government can terminate more than $2 billion in federal research funding for the school. Harvard sued the administration over the international students in May, arguing that the enrollment ban violates its due process rights and fails to follow federal regulations. Burroughs, who is overseeing multiple lawsuits between the school and the Trump administration, granted the university's request for a preliminary injunction blocking the policy, and then issued another order saying the government can't enforce Mr Trump's ban on its international students entering the US. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. World Trump says he will meet Putin on Aug 15 in Alaska Opinion This US-India spat is going from bad to worse Asia Chinese villagers hit by worst floods in generations say they had no warning Opinion Beyond the hype: Will AI eat Singapore's lunch or provide it in the future? Singapore 'This is home', for retired shop owner putting up 11th flag display in Toa Payoh to mark SG60 Singapore Nation building is every Singaporean's responsibility, not the work of one party alone: Pritam Business Are you set to retire comfortably in Singapore? Singapore Senior Gentlemen's Circus debuts to engage older men to stay active The Harvard lawsuit related to foreign students addresses both sections of the Trump policy. Compliance with the programme 'is an important requirement for hosting foreign student visa holders to ensure they are adequately monitored, disciplined, and reported on', the US said in the filing. 'Harvard was not complying with its obligations. This raised serious national security and public safety concerns, of which the President's determination is due the utmost deference.' A Harvard spokesperson said that the government's motion on Aug 8 has has no impact on the school's ability to enrol international students. 'The university will continue to defend its rights – and the rights of its students and scholars,' the spokesperson said. The Justice Department didn't immediately return a message seeking comment. The Trump administration has been trying for months to stop foreign students from enrolling at Harvard, one of several levers that could hurt the university's finances. In the last academic year, 27 per cent of Harvard students came from abroad. Ivy League settlements Harvard, the oldest and richest US college with an endowment of US$53 billion (S$68 billion), and the government have been negotiating toward a global settlement but have yet to come to a deal. Ivy League peers the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia and Brown have reached agreements in recent weeks. The White House views a payment of US$500 million by Harvard University as a floor in negotiations, and the cost of a deal could climb far higher if the school doesn't submit to government oversight provisions, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Justice Department lawyers said earlier this week that the US would no longer rely on a May 22 letter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to justify the near-immediate ban on foreign students it sought, but plans to move forward through an administrative process to 'simplify this case and narrow the issues'. BLOOMBERG
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
McDonald's secret sauce – plus a pickle or two
THE success of the Golden Arches rests on three simple, sturdy foundations: a menu of reliably decent grub, at a decent price, shored up by catchy marketing. Ever since it went public in 1965, McDonald's has done best whenever it stuck to this original blueprint. When one or more of these pillars crumbles, the fast-food fortress looks shaky. A quarter of a century ago this led to a near-collapse. Overly rapid expansion in the number of outlets and, at the same time, of products on offer made it harder for burger-flippers to keep up, hurting reliability. A price war with Burger King turned downright indecent. And the ads were stale, too. The result was acid reflux for investors. Between late 1999 and early 2003 the company shed two-thirds of its market value. The wobble in the first six months of 2024 was mild by comparison. But it still made investors nauseous. McDonald's shares lost 16 per cent of their value between January and July, their worst half-yearly run since the global financial crisis of 2007 to 2009. This time the wonky pillar was affordability, especially in America. Post-pandemic inflation had pushed average McDonald's prices up by 40 per cent from 2019. Videos of US$18 Big Mac combos went viral. The company's own forgettable marketing efforts did not. Realising its mistake, in July 2024 McDonald's launched a US$5 meal deal, comprising a burger, fries, nuggets and a fizzy drink. In January, it packaged this together with a 'buy one, add one for US$1' offer and digital-only promotions in its app, which it called the McValue menu. McValue's memorable face is John Cena, a beefy wrestler turned Hollywood superstar. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up In another marketing coup, in March and April diners ate up Minecraft Movie Meals, promoted in collaboration with the video-game-inspired blockbuster, so fast that the included collectibles ran out a fortnight into the weeks-long campaign. A food-safety snafu affecting outlets in 14 states in October proved mercifully short-lived. All this has worked a treat. On Aug 6 McDonald's unveiled hearty results for the second quarter. Revenue, derived primarily from the licence fees, royalties and rents which franchise operators hand over to headquarters in Chicago, rose by 5 per cent year on year, to US$6.8 billion. The preferred industry measure of same-store sales increased by 3.8 per cent globally and 2.5 per cent in America, a big improvement on four consecutive quarters of no growth or worse. McDonald's operating margin, already the industry's envy, topped 47 per cent for only the fourth time in the company's history. Investors are lovin' it, sending McDonald's market value up by 3 per cent after the earnings announcement, to US$221 billion. They are certainly preferrin' it to its fast-food rivals. The day before, Yum! Brands, which owns KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, saw its stock slip after its latest results came in less than finger-lickin' good. Those of Shake Shack and Chipotle, slightly fancier 'fast-casual' chains, crashed by a fifth in the past month after each reported fewer takers for their burgers and burritos as middle-class American diners stayed away amid mounting uncertainty over the health of the world's biggest economy. As the earlier meagre quarters showed, McDonald's is not unshakeable. But aspects of its business model do allow it to withstand recent shocks better than its competitors. Take tariffs, which US President Donald Trump is slapping on trading partners left and right. Given that the US imports lots of food, from Brazilian beef to Colombian coffee, these levies are bound to raise restaurants' costs. In the case of Chipotle, which runs all its own outlets, or Shake Shack, which operates 329 of its 579 eateries, tariffs result in a direct hit to the bottom line. For McDonald's, these costs are borne by franchisees, who manage 95 per cent of its 13,500 American stores (and a similar share of its 30,000 or so foreign outposts). Since their payments to McDonald's are a function of sales rather than profits, franchise operators' margins can shrink without necessarily hurting the brand owner's earnings. JPMorgan Chase, a bank, calculates that it would take cost inflation of 7.5 per cent for McDonald's to feel any hit to net profit, and then only of about 1 per cent. A cost increase of just 2.5 per cent would dent Chipotle's net profit by 4 per cent and Shake Shack's by 9 per cent. For less global rivals, the tariff pain is compounded by a weaker dollar, the result of Trump's chaotic economic stewardship, which makes imports dearer still. McDonald's, by contrast, peddles burgers in over 100 countries and earns 60 per cent of its revenues in other currencies, compared with 43 per cent for Yum! Brands, 3 per cent for Shake Shack and 2 per cent for Chipotle. A softer greenback boosts the dollar value of these foreign sales. A premature McFlurry of excitement? Yummy, indeed. Still, as investors digest the good news, they should consider two potential snags. First, McDonald's frugal menu disproportionately attracts lower-income consumers. These diners, as the company's chief executive, Chris Kempczinski, admitted on the latest earnings call, continue to feel 'a lot of anxiety and unease'. Rather than eat out, some are opting for groceries, notes Dennis Geiger of UBS, a Swiss bank. Diners with fatter wallets may prefer rival joints such as Chili's, which offers a starter, main and drink for US$10.99 – and has waiters. McDonald's risks ending up too pricey for the poor and not posh enough for the less so. Keeping prices in check is, then, vital. Yet so is keeping franchisees happy. These two imperatives are in tension. Franchise operators are permitted to set their own prices – which explains why a Big Mac will set you back US$4.36 (the same in today's dollars as the 45 cents the first one cost in 1967) in Austin but US$7.06 in Seattle. Urging them to flog McValue menus may squeeze them to breaking point, especially as their costs balloon. McDonald's may be in a sweet spot right now. But this doesn't mean things can't sour. ©2025 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved
