discy

Author: Ayantika Goswami

  • Paramount’s hostile bid for WB Against Netflix

    Paramount’s hostile bid for WB Against Netflix

    In December 2025, the international media community was left reeling by a corporate showdown: Paramount Skydance made a hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD mere days after Netflix struck a deal for key Warner assets.

    This hostile bid added even more to what promised to be one of the biggest media deals of the last decade. It was no less than a challenge to Netflix’s acquisition of the studios and streaming divisions of Warner Bros., which Paramount was also pursuing, as it essentially turned what could have been a negotiated acquisition into more of a high-stakes company showdown between the parties.

    Background: Netflix’s Agreement with Warner Bros.
    Earlier in December, Netflix reached an agreement with Warner Bros. Discovery for the acquisition of its production house, including Warner Bros. film production houses, as well as HBO/HBO Max and other intellectual properties such as Harry Potter, DC Comics, and Game of Thrones. This acquisition was approximately $82.7 billion.
    However, this acquisition excluded Warner’s cable and news divisions, including properties such as CNN, TNT, and TBS, which WBD intends to spin off into a new company as a result of its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.

    Paramount’s Hostile Takeover Offer
    On 8 December 2025, Paramount Skydance, the result of the merger between Paramount Global and Skydance Media, initiated an unsolicited, hostile takeover bid for the entirety of Warner Bros. Discovery. This proposal consisted of $30 per share in cash, amounting to approximately $108.4 billion in enterprise value, exceeding Netflix’s cash bid for the purchase of WBD by more than $18 billion. This is characteristic of an unsolicited takeover bid, as it is submitted directly to the company’s shareholders, rather than being approved by the board of directors.

    It also involved support from key investors, including the Ellison family and RedBird Capital, as well as sovereign funds from the Middle East. Additionally, it involved significant debt financing commitments from Bank of America, Citigroup, and Apollo Global Management.
    Contrary to Netflix’s more complex plan, which involved separating its linear cable assets, as seen with Warner, Paramount took a more direct approach that was potentially more appealing to investors seeking clarity. This is also a reflection of Paramount’s long-term plan to ensure that it remains relevant in a market where mid-size production companies face challenges in keeping up with the likes of global streamers.

    Why Paramount’s Approach is ‘Hostile’
    A hostile takeover occurs when a bidder acquires control of a target company without the target’s management’s consent. In this respect, it is worth noting that the board of Warner Bros. Discovery expressed support for Netflix’s proposal. Paramount argued that the sales process was tilted in favour of Netflix, and as such, it recommended that the WBD board consider its better offer, which was an all-cash bid. The management of Paramount, led by David Ellison, appealed to investors to shift their loyalty.

    Industry and Political Implications
    This was not a purely financial battle- it was steeped in strategic as well as political undertones. Already, antitrust lawyers in the U.S. as well as other jurisdictions are scrutinising the Netflix takeover for potential antitrust issues, given its dominance of the streaming market. Paramount argued that its group could encounter less government regulation, which would put it in the same context as other media conglomerates. Politicians, such as former U.S. President Donald Trump, have weighed in on the implications of the Netflix-WBD merger for the media landscape, adding further uncertainty to the discussion.

    Reaction to the announcement in the markets 
    Financial markets reacted swiftly. Netflix shares momentarily fell following Paramount’s bid announcement, indicating that investors were not comfortable with the escalating price tag, as well as the complications entailed in negotiating with Warner Bros. Discovery. On the other hand, shares for Warner rose as the potential for a “bidding war” fueled hopes of reaping a better reward for stakeholders.

    Now the big question is straightforward: Will Paramount be able to convince Warner shareholders to support their bid, or will Netflix make a better offer to save its own deal? Currently, the Warner Bros. Discovery board is aligned with Netflix, making it challenging for Paramount to persuade shareholders without the board’s support.

    Impact on the Streaming Landscape
    Apart from the stock exchange, the battle for Warner Bros. Discovery could also revolutionise the streaming media space itself, where scale is quickly becoming the key to survival. Today, Netflix is far ahead of the competition with over 300 million subscribers globally. Amazon Prime Video is second, followed closely by Disney+ and Hulu. Currently, HBO Max and Discovery+, streaming offerings from Warner Bros. Discovery, rank fourth with a total of approximately 128 million subscribers, while Paramount+ ranks fifth with about 78 million subscribers, according to King.

    When the dust settles, the ultimate owners of Warner Bros. would not only get excellent production facilities, but more importantly, a considerable advantage in the battle for scale in the increasingly consolidating streaming landscape would fall into their laps. However, the possibility of further mergers has raised concerns about political and regulatory implications.

    Those who oppose the acquisition believe that Netflix merging with Warner Media would be too powerful for one group to wield. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren warned that Netflix’s acquisition of Warner Media could “create one giant media giant with control of almost half of the streaming market.” Netflix is likely to defend itself against these allegations by promoting a more expansive definition of the online streaming industry. As cited by The Guardian, Netflix is expected to argue that services like YouTube, with their massive followings despite differences in their respective business models, should be taken into account when calculating their shares of the respective markets.

    What Comes Next
    However, whether Paramount succeeded with its hostile takeover or was only forced to sweeten the Netflix offer, the situation amidst the streaming wars is revealing a truth that is about to shift into a phase where mergers are no longer optional but structural. The escalating cost of content, declining growth rates of subscribers, and continued governmental regulations are forcing firms into fewer, larger, and more powerful players.
    Whichever company ultimately emerges victorious in this round of bidding, the new owners of Warner Bros. Discovery are poised to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of legendary properties, high-end TV programming, and the global streaming landscape.

  • Kolkata Court Delivers Final Verdict for RG Kar Rape-Murder Case

    Kolkata Court Delivers Final Verdict for RG Kar Rape-Murder Case

    In January 2025, Sanjay Roy, a civic volunteer with the Kolkata Police, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of a 31-year-old trainee doctor. The crime occurred in August 2024, when the victim was found dead in RG Kar Medical College and Hospital’s seminar hall. The incident sparked national outrage and widespread protests demanding better security for women in public institutions.

    Conviction and Sentencing

    On 18 January 2025, Kolkata’s Sealdah court found Roy guilty under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; he was convicted under BNS Section 64 (rape), Section 66 (rape causing death) and Section 103(1) (murder). The conviction was based on substantial forensic evidence, including DNA matches from hair and skin samples, CCTV footage, and Roy’s contradictory statements of being framed. The CBI charge sheet alleged that Roy attacked the sleeping doctor in the seminar hall while intoxicated. A post-mortem later confirmed the victim was strangled to death and sustained injuries consistent with a struggle.

    Despite the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) pushing to classify the crime as “rarest of the rare” and advocating for the death penalty, Judge Anirban Das sentenced Roy to life imprisonment until death, citing the need to rise above the “primitive instinct of an eye for an eye,” which the victim’s family disagrees with. The court also imposed a fine of ₹50,000 on the convict and directed the West Bengal government to provide ₹17 lakh as compensation to the victim’s family.

    Investigation and Legal Proceedings

    Initially handled by the Kolkata Police, the investigation was transferred to the CBI amid allegations of evidence tampering and mishandling by local politicians. The CBI’s investigation involved examining 128 witnesses, with 51 testifying during the trial. The specific actions of the hospital authorities and local police were also criticised, highlighting the need for accountability in such sensitive cases.

    The victim’s parents were present at the court proceedings and claimed that other perpetrators were not punished and, therefore, justice had not been fully served. When told the state was to pay ₹17 lakh compensation, the family retorted, “We don’t want compensation, we want justice,” and indicated they will challenge the case in higher courts if needed.

    The case also revived discussion about sexual violence laws. India’s 2013 overhaul of rape laws (after the 2012 Delhi case) was often cited by commentators, stressing the need for legal and social change. In Parliament, leaders reiterated the government’s intent to make punishments harsher and to improve police accountability (as Prime Minister Modi noted, the Supreme Court has rebuked police delays in FIR registration ). Victim advocates have urged better protection for women workers everywhere – not only in hospitals but all public workplaces – reflecting the sentiment “the nation cannot await another rape to take steps”.

    Public and Political Reaction

    The sentencing led to significant public and political reactions. Political figures, including members of the BJP and other opposition parties, criticised the verdict as a “travesty of justice” and called for a more thorough investigation into potential evidence tampering by local authorities. In response to the public outcry, the West Bengal government, led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, filed an appeal in the Calcutta High Court seeking the death penalty for Roy, asserting that the crime warranted capital punishment. The “Aparajita Bill,” which amends the criminal law to inflict harsher punishments for rape, including requiring the death penalty when rape results in death, was even pushed by the state legislature in early September, and she campaigned to enact the law, emphasising that the offender deserved nothing less.

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke in parliament about the case, calling crimes against women “unpardonable” and praising new laws (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) for harsher punishments. He noted that the Supreme Court had criticised West Bengal for a 14-hour delay in registering the FIR, and assured victims that e-FIR provisions would prevent such delays. National medical associations like the Indian Medical Association (IMA) continued to press for reforms, calling for “airport-level” security measures in all hospitals and for doctors to be able to register police complaints remotely.

    The case sparked mass protests in mid-August 2024 when tens of thousands marched under slogans like “Hang the rapist, save women” and “Reclaim the Night”. Medical students and staff across India held a strike; emergency services continued, but routine procedures were halted on 17 August by IMA’s nationwide shutdown.

    Even after the recent trial and verdict, many junior doctors staged demonstrations outside the court. Immediately following the life-sentence verdict, doctors outside the courtroom protested that Roy could not have acted alone and demanded that all accomplices be caught.

    The case has drawn parallels to the 2012 Delhi Nirbhaya gang rape incident, highlighting ongoing concerns about women’s safety in India and prompting discussions on legal reforms in handling crimes against women. As India continues to confront the layered realities of gendered violence, this case remains a point of inflection. It demands that hospital corridors be made safe, that survivors’ voices be heard without delay, and that justice not be left to the whims of public outrage alone.