Paramount Shareholders Raise Voices Against Skydance Media Merger Speculation
Paramount Global investors are expressing reservations regarding a potential merger with Skydance Media, urging the U.S. media conglomerate to explore alternative options and ensure equitable treatment of shareholders in the event of such a deal. Skydance, known for its collaboration with Paramount Pictures on successful films like “Top Gun: Maverick,” has engaged in exclusive discussions with Paramount Global, controlled by Shari Redstone.
However, not all shareholders are supportive of the proposed merger. One long-term investor voiced concerns about shareholders receiving an unfair deal, while Ariel Investments advocates for a thorough examination of all alternatives to maximize shareholder benefits. Paramount Global has yet to respond to requests for comment.
Paramount Global initiated a 30-day exclusive negotiation period with Skydance as a special committee evaluates the potential acquisition of the smaller studio in a stock deal valued at $4 billion to $5 billion. Skydance is also in negotiations to acquire National Amusements, which holds the Redstone family’s controlling interest in Paramount, contingent upon a Skydance-Paramount merger.
Exclusive discussions between Skydance and Paramount commenced shortly after private equity firm Apollo Global Management submitted a $26 billion all-cash offer for Paramount Global, described as preliminary. Ariel Investments raised concerns about exclusive negotiations potentially undervaluing the company’s fair market value and favoring a single shareholder.
As deal talks progress to due diligence, investors question how they will be treated compared to Redstone, whose family controls a significant portion of Paramount’s Class A voting shares. Billionaire investor Mario Gabelli emphasizes equal treatment for all shareholders and warns of potential legal action if voting shareholders are not adequately compensated.
In a related development, four independent board members of Paramount Global will step down at the company’s annual shareholder meeting, reducing the board from 11 members to seven. While some sources describe these departures as part of a strategic board restructuring, others view them as a preemptive move to avoid potential lawsuits arising from perceived conflicts of interest.
Comment Template