Inkhabar webdesk

By Sam Tobin LONDON, Dec 9 (Reuters) – Jimi Hendrix's classic 1960s albums are the focus of a London lawsuit over performers' rights asserted on behalf of his British bassist and drummer against Sony Music Entertainment, which warns that a win for the claimants could "throw the music industry into chaos". Guitarist Noel Redding, who had recently auditioned for the 1960s blues-rock band The Animals, and pioneering drummer Mitch Mitchell joined The Jimi Hendrix Experience in 1966 and created some of the most renowned music of the decade. Redding and Mitchell played on the group's three studio albums "Are You Experienced", "Axis: Bold As Love" and "Electric Ladyland", released in 1967 and 1968 and featuring "Hey Joe", "Purple Haze", "Foxy Lady" and other hits. The recordings helped usher in the psychedelic music age and made Hendrix a rock superstar before his untimely death in London in September 1970, aged 27. Five decades on, The Jimi Hendrix Experience's music remains both popular and profitable. Their albums are at the centre of a trial that began on Tuesday and seeks a share of potentially lucrative streaming royalties — a claim Sony says should be rejected. LAWSUIT CITES UNFORESEEN RISE OF STREAMING Redding and Mitchell died in 2003 and 2008 respectively and their descendants later assigned any rights they might have had to two companies, Noel Redding Estate Limited and Mitch Mitchell Estate Limited. The companies sued Sony at London's High Court in 2022 and are seeking a declaration that they own a share of the sound recording copyrights of, and performers' property rights in, the three Jimi Hendrix Experience albums. Sony's lawyers argue that in 1966 the band signed away the rights to exploit the recordings "by any method now known or hereafter to be known". They also cite releases agreed by Redding and Mitchell to drop lawsuits in the early 1970s. But the companies' lawyer Simon Malynicz said Sony's case relied on deals signed "long before the internet revolutionised music" and the rise of streaming platforms like Spotify. "The agreements from the 1960s and 1970s simply do not extend to the radically different modes of digital exploitation which underpin (Sony's) current business model," he said in court filings. Sony, however, raised concerns about the wider impact of the companies' case if they succeed, which it said could prompt a slew of lawsuits from session musicians and backing vocalists. Sony's lawyer Robert Howe said in court filings that "deals done with virtually every 1960s and 1970s artist, from The Beatles to the Berlin Philharmonic … would be vulnerable to retrospective attack". (Reporting by Sam Tobin, Editing by William Maclean)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

By Sam Tobin LONDON, Dec 9 (Reuters) – Jimi Hendrix's classic 1960s albums are the focus of a London lawsuit over performers' rights asserted on behalf of his British bassist and drummer against Sony Music Entertainment, which warns that a win for the claimants could "throw the music industry into chaos". Guitarist Noel Redding, who had recently auditioned for the 1960s blues-rock band The Animals, and pioneering drummer Mitch Mitchell joined The Jimi Hendrix Experience in 1966 and created some of the most renowned music of the decade. Redding and Mitchell played on the group's three studio albums "Are You Experienced", "Axis: Bold As Love" and "Electric Ladyland", released in 1967 and 1968 and featuring "Hey Joe", "Purple Haze", "Foxy Lady" and other hits. The recordings helped usher in the psychedelic music age and made Hendrix a rock superstar before his untimely death in London in September 1970, aged 27. Five decades on, The Jimi Hendrix Experience's music remains both popular and profitable. Their albums are at the centre of a trial that began on Tuesday and seeks a share of potentially lucrative streaming royalties — a claim Sony says should be rejected. LAWSUIT CITES UNFORESEEN RISE OF STREAMING Redding and Mitchell died in 2003 and 2008 respectively and their descendants later assigned any rights they might have had to two companies, Noel Redding Estate Limited and Mitch Mitchell Estate Limited. The companies sued Sony at London's High Court in 2022 and are seeking a declaration that they own a share of the sound recording copyrights of, and performers' property rights in, the three Jimi Hendrix Experience albums. Sony's lawyers argue that in 1966 the band signed away the rights to exploit the recordings "by any method now known or hereafter to be known". They also cite releases agreed by Redding and Mitchell to drop lawsuits in the early 1970s. But the companies' lawyer Simon Malynicz said Sony's case relied on deals signed "long before the internet revolutionised music" and the rise of streaming platforms like Spotify. "The agreements from the 1960s and 1970s simply do not extend to the radically different modes of digital exploitation which underpin (Sony's) current business model," he said in court filings. Sony, however, raised concerns about the wider impact of the companies' case if they succeed, which it said could prompt a slew of lawsuits from session musicians and backing vocalists. Sony's lawyer Robert Howe said in court filings that "deals done with virtually every 1960s and 1970s artist, from The Beatles to the Berlin Philharmonic … would be vulnerable to retrospective attack". (Reporting by Sam Tobin, Editing by William Maclean)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

By Aditya Soni and Harshita Mary Varghese Dec 8 (Reuters) – Paramount Skydance's 11th-hour, hostile $108.4 billion bid for Warner Bros Discovery was rooted in what it considered a lack of responsiveness from Warner Bros to its ardent overtures late last week, a securities filing on Monday showed. Paramount offered a blow-by-blow account of Paramount CEO David Ellison's communication over months with his counterpart David Zaslav at Warner Bros in the lengthy filing, which led to Paramount bidding for Warner Bros in September. That bid was rebuffed, as were the next two that Paramount said offered improved terms. Finally, Zaslav called Ellison on December 3 to relay concerns from Warner Bros' board about Paramount's bid. Later that same day, Warner Bros' legal advisers told Paramount's counsel that the board viewed the absence of a full backstop from Ellison's family as a negative, despite the involvement of deep-pocketed sovereign wealth funds. They also flagged potential scrutiny from U.S. regulators. On December 4, following a Paramount Skydance board meeting where it agreed to improve a previous offer, Ellison texted Zaslav according to the regulatory filing. "I heard you on all your concerns and believe we have addressed them in our new proposal. Please give me a call back," Ellison told Zaslav in the text. By mid-morning that day, Paramount sweetened its bid. But having received no response from Zaslav to his text, Ellison tried again at around 4 p.m. EST, adding a personal appeal: "It would be the honor of a lifetime to be your partner."  Paramount's bankers and Ellison told Warner Bros and Zaslav that their new $30 per share offer – or $108.4 billion – was "not best and final," signaling they could go higher.  But Ellison's phone never rang. By 11 p.m. that night, media reports swirled that Warner Bros had entered exclusive talks with Netflix to sell its TV and film studios as well as the streaming business that houses HBO Max. By Friday, Netflix and Warner Bros announced a deal. On Monday, Paramount took its offer directly to Warner Bros shareholders, heating up a bidding war whose outcome will reshape the media industry. Asked to comment on the Paramount securities filing, Warner Bros Discovery said: "The board and the company have for months run a completely fair and transparent process with each of the bidders, and the bids speak for themselves.” At stake in the race are some of Hollywood's crown jewels including the Warner Bros studio, DC Comics and HBO. A deal will help Netflix extend its lead in the streaming wars, while Paramount would gain the scale in streaming to compete better with the streaming giant as well as cable assets such as CNN. PERSUASION  Bypassing a Warner Bros board that it says has "never engaged meaningfully," Paramount is betting it can persuade investors that its all-cash offer tops Netflix's $82.7 billion enterprise bid. Paramount's Ellison is the son of the world's second-richest man, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, who is also an ally of President Donald Trump. David Ellison has touted a quicker path to regulatory approval to investors. His Skydance Media bought Paramount Global in August, overcoming regulatory hurdles.  For its bid for Warner Bros, Paramount dropped Chinese tech firm Tencent from the investor group and secured a waiver on all governance rights from the remaining outside investors, a structure it said puts the deal outside the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.  Its offer is backstopped by the Ellison family and includes financing from Affinity Partners, an investment firm run by Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, and several Middle Eastern government-run investment funds. Warner Bros said it would review Paramount's offer, but was not yet modifying its recommendation with respect to Netflix. Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos said Paramount's hostile bid for Warner Bros was "entirely expected," but added that he was confident of closing the deal. ACCUSATIONS OF BIASED PROCESS The alleged breakdown in communications between Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery marked a sharp reversal from earlier, according to Paramount's filing. The Ellisons had dined with Zaslav on November 24, discussing the benefits of a deal and potential co-CEO and co-chairman roles for Zaslav in the combined company. But the warmth was short-lived. Paramount alleged delays by Warner Bros in signing a "clean team" agreement needed to review sensitive data, prompting its legal counsel to warn WBD's advisers that Paramount "would be disadvantaged" without access.  Paramount also cited in its filing a CNBC interview of Warner Bros Chairman Emeritus John Malone last month where he "lamented how Paramount 'interrupted' the Warner Bros separation and discussed the merits of Netflix as a bidder."  Paramount's tender offer will be open for 20 business days and can be extended. Warner Bros has 10 days to respond. "We're here to fight for value for our shareholders and for WBD shareholders," David Ellison said on Monday. (Reporting by Aditya Soni and Harshita Mary Varghese in Bengaluru; Additional reporting by Dawn Chmielewski in Los Angeles; Editing by Sayantani Ghosh and Matthew Lewis)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

By Sam Tobin LONDON, Dec 9 (Reuters) – Jimi Hendrix's classic 1960s albums are the focus of a London lawsuit over performers' rights asserted on behalf of his British bassist and drummer against Sony Music Entertainment, which warns that a win for the claimants could "throw the music industry into chaos". Guitarist Noel Redding, who had recently auditioned for the 1960s blues-rock band The Animals, and pioneering drummer Mitch Mitchell joined The Jimi Hendrix Experience in 1966 and created some of the most renowned music of the decade. Redding and Mitchell played on the group's three studio albums "Are You Experienced", "Axis: Bold As Love" and "Electric Ladyland", released in 1967 and 1968 and featuring "Hey Joe", "Purple Haze", "Foxy Lady" and other hits. The recordings helped usher in the psychedelic music age and made Hendrix a rock superstar before his untimely death in London in September 1970, aged 27. Five decades on, The Jimi Hendrix Experience's music remains both popular and profitable. Their albums are at the centre of a trial that began on Tuesday and seeks a share of potentially lucrative streaming royalties — a claim Sony says should be rejected. LAWSUIT CITES UNFORESEEN RISE OF STREAMING Redding and Mitchell died in 2003 and 2008 respectively and their descendants later assigned any rights they might have had to two companies, Noel Redding Estate Limited and Mitch Mitchell Estate Limited. The companies sued Sony at London's High Court in 2022 and are seeking a declaration that they own a share of the sound recording copyrights of, and performers' property rights in, the three Jimi Hendrix Experience albums. Sony's lawyers argue that in 1966 the band signed away the rights to exploit the recordings "by any method now known or hereafter to be known". They also cite releases agreed by Redding and Mitchell to drop lawsuits in the early 1970s. But the companies' lawyer Simon Malynicz said Sony's case relied on deals signed "long before the internet revolutionised music" and the rise of streaming platforms like Spotify. "The agreements from the 1960s and 1970s simply do not extend to the radically different modes of digital exploitation which underpin (Sony's) current business model," he said in court filings. Sony, however, raised concerns about the wider impact of the companies' case if they succeed, which it said could prompt a slew of lawsuits from session musicians and backing vocalists. Sony's lawyer Robert Howe said in court filings that "deals done with virtually every 1960s and 1970s artist, from The Beatles to the Berlin Philharmonic … would be vulnerable to retrospective attack". (Reporting by Sam Tobin, Editing by William Maclean)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

By Sam Tobin LONDON, Dec 9 (Reuters) – Jimi Hendrix's classic 1960s albums are the focus of a London lawsuit over performers' rights asserted on behalf of his British bassist and drummer against Sony Music Entertainment, which warns that a win for the claimants could "throw the music industry into chaos". Guitarist Noel Redding, who had recently auditioned for the 1960s blues-rock band The Animals, and pioneering drummer Mitch Mitchell joined The Jimi Hendrix Experience in 1966 and created some of the most renowned music of the decade. Redding and Mitchell played on the group's three studio albums "Are You Experienced", "Axis: Bold As Love" and "Electric Ladyland", released in 1967 and 1968 and featuring "Hey Joe", "Purple Haze", "Foxy Lady" and other hits. The recordings helped usher in the psychedelic music age and made Hendrix a rock superstar before his untimely death in London in September 1970, aged 27. Five decades on, The Jimi Hendrix Experience's music remains both popular and profitable. Their albums are at the centre of a trial that began on Tuesday and seeks a share of potentially lucrative streaming royalties — a claim Sony says should be rejected. LAWSUIT CITES UNFORESEEN RISE OF STREAMING Redding and Mitchell died in 2003 and 2008 respectively and their descendants later assigned any rights they might have had to two companies, Noel Redding Estate Limited and Mitch Mitchell Estate Limited. The companies sued Sony at London's High Court in 2022 and are seeking a declaration that they own a share of the sound recording copyrights of, and performers' property rights in, the three Jimi Hendrix Experience albums. Sony's lawyers argue that in 1966 the band signed away the rights to exploit the recordings "by any method now known or hereafter to be known". They also cite releases agreed by Redding and Mitchell to drop lawsuits in the early 1970s. But the companies' lawyer Simon Malynicz said Sony's case relied on deals signed "long before the internet revolutionised music" and the rise of streaming platforms like Spotify. "The agreements from the 1960s and 1970s simply do not extend to the radically different modes of digital exploitation which underpin (Sony's) current business model," he said in court filings. Sony, however, raised concerns about the wider impact of the companies' case if they succeed, which it said could prompt a slew of lawsuits from session musicians and backing vocalists. Sony's lawyer Robert Howe said in court filings that "deals done with virtually every 1960s and 1970s artist, from The Beatles to the Berlin Philharmonic … would be vulnerable to retrospective attack". (Reporting by Sam Tobin, Editing by William Maclean)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

By Sam Tobin LONDON, Dec 9 (Reuters) – Jimi Hendrix's classic 1960s albums are the focus of a London lawsuit over performers' rights asserted on behalf of his British bassist and drummer against Sony Music Entertainment, which warns that a win for the claimants could "throw the music industry into chaos". Guitarist Noel Redding, who had recently auditioned for the 1960s blues-rock band The Animals, and pioneering drummer Mitch Mitchell joined The Jimi Hendrix Experience in 1966 and created some of the most renowned music of the decade. Redding and Mitchell played on the group's three studio albums "Are You Experienced", "Axis: Bold As Love" and "Electric Ladyland", released in 1967 and 1968 and featuring "Hey Joe", "Purple Haze", "Foxy Lady" and other hits. The recordings helped usher in the psychedelic music age and made Hendrix a rock superstar before his untimely death in London in September 1970, aged 27. Five decades on, The Jimi Hendrix Experience's music remains both popular and profitable. Their albums are at the centre of a trial that began on Tuesday and seeks a share of potentially lucrative streaming royalties — a claim Sony says should be rejected. LAWSUIT CITES UNFORESEEN RISE OF STREAMING Redding and Mitchell died in 2003 and 2008 respectively and their descendants later assigned any rights they might have had to two companies, Noel Redding Estate Limited and Mitch Mitchell Estate Limited. The companies sued Sony at London's High Court in 2022 and are seeking a declaration that they own a share of the sound recording copyrights of, and performers' property rights in, the three Jimi Hendrix Experience albums. Sony's lawyers argue that in 1966 the band signed away the rights to exploit the recordings "by any method now known or hereafter to be known". They also cite releases agreed by Redding and Mitchell to drop lawsuits in the early 1970s. But the companies' lawyer Simon Malynicz said Sony's case relied on deals signed "long before the internet revolutionised music" and the rise of streaming platforms like Spotify. "The agreements from the 1960s and 1970s simply do not extend to the radically different modes of digital exploitation which underpin (Sony's) current business model," he said in court filings. Sony, however, raised concerns about the wider impact of the companies' case if they succeed, which it said could prompt a slew of lawsuits from session musicians and backing vocalists. Sony's lawyer Robert Howe said in court filings that "deals done with virtually every 1960s and 1970s artist, from The Beatles to the Berlin Philharmonic … would be vulnerable to retrospective attack". (Reporting by Sam Tobin, Editing by William Maclean)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

LOS ANGELES, Dec 9 (Reuters) – Writer and director Rian Johnson is unveiling his third “Knives Out” mystery movie, “Wake Up, Dead Man,” which streams on Netflix on December 12.  The film centers around Father Jud Duplenticy, played by Josh O’Connor, who finds himself the prime suspect in a murder amidst a small, close-knit Catholic church congregation.   The “Knives Out” detective from the previous franchise films, Benoit Blanc, played by Daniel Craig, turns up to solve the mystery.  Johnson told Reuters about the process of creating the third film in the franchise. Q. When you’re picking titles for films, like the last film “Glass Onion,” and this one “Wake Up, Dead Man,”– how much are you trying to befuddle the audience just with the title alone?  A. Well, I mean, you’re trying to pick a title that sounds like a good murder mystery title, that sounds a little intriguing but also that hopefully once you see the movie, you’re like, "it couldn’t have been named anything else." And this movie, I think the title is apropos. Q. When you’re writing these mysteries, do you know who you have in mind for who the cast is?  A. I try not to, because it’s a pathway to heartbreak because in one way, all the actors are excited about being in them. It’s still we’re going after people who are the busiest people in the world, who are these movie stars so you don’t always know if it’s going to work out schedule-wise. So, if you’ve written with somebody deeply ingrained for that part and you can’t get them, then that’s a heartbreak. I try and write just to the characters. I try and just write an interesting group and then find the best people to play them. Q. I think last time I interviewed you for "Glass Onion", you’d done this script already. How far ahead are you of future installments?  A. I actually think it’s quite important for me not to come up with an idea and start writing it until I know it’s going to be the next thing. So it’s not like I have a drawer of ideas for these things.  (Reporting by Rollo Ross and Danielle BroadwayEditing by Frances Kerry)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

By Aditya Soni and Harshita Mary Varghese Dec 8 (Reuters) – Paramount Skydance's 11th-hour, hostile $108.4 billion bid for Warner Bros Discovery was rooted in what it considered a lack of responsiveness from Warner Bros to its ardent overtures late last week, a securities filing on Monday showed. Paramount offered a blow-by-blow account of Paramount CEO David Ellison's communication over months with his counterpart David Zaslav at Warner Bros in the lengthy filing, which led to Paramount bidding for Warner Bros in September. That bid was rebuffed, as were the next two that Paramount said offered improved terms. Finally, Zaslav called Ellison on December 3 to relay concerns from Warner Bros' board about Paramount's bid. Later that same day, Warner Bros' legal advisers told Paramount's counsel that the board viewed the absence of a full backstop from Ellison's family as a negative, despite the involvement of deep-pocketed sovereign wealth funds. They also flagged potential scrutiny from U.S. regulators. On December 4, following a Paramount Skydance board meeting where it agreed to improve a previous offer, Ellison texted Zaslav according to the regulatory filing. "I heard you on all your concerns and believe we have addressed them in our new proposal. Please give me a call back," Ellison told Zaslav in the text. By mid-morning that day, Paramount sweetened its bid. But having received no response from Zaslav to his text, Ellison tried again at around 4 p.m. EST, adding a personal appeal: "It would be the honor of a lifetime to be your partner."  Paramount's bankers and Ellison told Warner Bros and Zaslav that their new $30 per share offer – or $108.4 billion – was "not best and final," signaling they could go higher.  But Ellison's phone never rang. By 11 p.m. that night, media reports swirled that Warner Bros had entered exclusive talks with Netflix to sell its TV and film studios as well as the streaming business that houses HBO Max. By Friday, Netflix and Warner Bros announced a deal. On Monday, Paramount took its offer directly to Warner Bros shareholders, heating up a bidding war whose outcome will reshape the media industry. Asked to comment on the Paramount securities filing, Warner Bros Discovery said: "The board and the company have for months run a completely fair and transparent process with each of the bidders, and the bids speak for themselves.” At stake in the race are some of Hollywood's crown jewels including the Warner Bros studio, DC Comics and HBO. A deal will help Netflix extend its lead in the streaming wars, while Paramount would gain the scale in streaming to compete better with the streaming giant as well as cable assets such as CNN. PERSUASION  Bypassing a Warner Bros board that it says has "never engaged meaningfully," Paramount is betting it can persuade investors that its all-cash offer tops Netflix's $82.7 billion enterprise bid. Paramount's Ellison is the son of the world's second-richest man, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, who is also an ally of President Donald Trump. David Ellison has touted a quicker path to regulatory approval to investors. His Skydance Media bought Paramount Global in August, overcoming regulatory hurdles.  For its bid for Warner Bros, Paramount dropped Chinese tech firm Tencent from the investor group and secured a waiver on all governance rights from the remaining outside investors, a structure it said puts the deal outside the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.  Its offer is backstopped by the Ellison family and includes financing from Affinity Partners, an investment firm run by Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, and several Middle Eastern government-run investment funds. Warner Bros said it would review Paramount's offer, but was not yet modifying its recommendation with respect to Netflix. Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos said Paramount's hostile bid for Warner Bros was "entirely expected," but added that he was confident of closing the deal. ACCUSATIONS OF BIASED PROCESS The alleged breakdown in communications between Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery marked a sharp reversal from earlier, according to Paramount's filing. The Ellisons had dined with Zaslav on November 24, discussing the benefits of a deal and potential co-CEO and co-chairman roles for Zaslav in the combined company. But the warmth was short-lived. Paramount alleged delays by Warner Bros in signing a "clean team" agreement needed to review sensitive data, prompting its legal counsel to warn WBD's advisers that Paramount "would be disadvantaged" without access.  Paramount also cited in its filing a CNBC interview of Warner Bros Chairman Emeritus John Malone last month where he "lamented how Paramount 'interrupted' the Warner Bros separation and discussed the merits of Netflix as a bidder."  Paramount's tender offer will be open for 20 business days and can be extended. Warner Bros has 10 days to respond. "We're here to fight for value for our shareholders and for WBD shareholders," David Ellison said on Monday. (Reporting by Aditya Soni and Harshita Mary Varghese in Bengaluru; Additional reporting by Dawn Chmielewski in Los Angeles; Editing by Sayantani Ghosh and Matthew Lewis)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

By Aditya Soni and Harshita Mary Varghese Dec 8 (Reuters) – Paramount Skydance's 11th-hour, hostile $108.4 billion bid for Warner Bros Discovery was rooted in what it considered a lack of responsiveness from Warner Bros to its ardent overtures late last week, a securities filing on Monday showed. Paramount offered a blow-by-blow account of Paramount CEO David Ellison's communication over months with his counterpart David Zaslav at Warner Bros in the lengthy filing, which led to Paramount bidding for Warner Bros in September. That bid was rebuffed, as were the next two that Paramount said offered improved terms. Finally, Zaslav called Ellison on December 3 to relay concerns from Warner Bros' board about Paramount's bid. Later that same day, Warner Bros' legal advisers told Paramount's counsel that the board viewed the absence of a full backstop from Ellison's family as a negative, despite the involvement of deep-pocketed sovereign wealth funds. They also flagged potential scrutiny from U.S. regulators. On December 4, following a Paramount Skydance board meeting where it agreed to improve a previous offer, Ellison texted Zaslav according to the regulatory filing. "I heard you on all your concerns and believe we have addressed them in our new proposal. Please give me a call back," Ellison told Zaslav in the text. By mid-morning that day, Paramount sweetened its bid. But having received no response from Zaslav to his text, Ellison tried again at around 4 p.m. EST, adding a personal appeal: "It would be the honor of a lifetime to be your partner."  Paramount's bankers and Ellison told Warner Bros and Zaslav that their new $30 per share offer – or $108.4 billion – was "not best and final," signaling they could go higher.  But Ellison's phone never rang. By 11 p.m. that night, media reports swirled that Warner Bros had entered exclusive talks with Netflix to sell its TV and film studios as well as the streaming business that houses HBO Max. By Friday, Netflix and Warner Bros announced a deal. On Monday, Paramount took its offer directly to Warner Bros shareholders, heating up a bidding war whose outcome will reshape the media industry. Asked to comment on the Paramount securities filing, Warner Bros Discovery said: "The board and the company have for months run a completely fair and transparent process with each of the bidders, and the bids speak for themselves.” At stake in the race are some of Hollywood's crown jewels including the Warner Bros studio, DC Comics and HBO. A deal will help Netflix extend its lead in the streaming wars, while Paramount would gain the scale in streaming to compete better with the streaming giant as well as cable assets such as CNN. PERSUASION  Bypassing a Warner Bros board that it says has "never engaged meaningfully," Paramount is betting it can persuade investors that its all-cash offer tops Netflix's $82.7 billion enterprise bid. Paramount's Ellison is the son of the world's second-richest man, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, who is also an ally of President Donald Trump. David Ellison has touted a quicker path to regulatory approval to investors. His Skydance Media bought Paramount Global in August, overcoming regulatory hurdles.  For its bid for Warner Bros, Paramount dropped Chinese tech firm Tencent from the investor group and secured a waiver on all governance rights from the remaining outside investors, a structure it said puts the deal outside the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.  Its offer is backstopped by the Ellison family and includes financing from Affinity Partners, an investment firm run by Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, and several Middle Eastern government-run investment funds. Warner Bros said it would review Paramount's offer, but was not yet modifying its recommendation with respect to Netflix. Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos said Paramount's hostile bid for Warner Bros was "entirely expected," but added that he was confident of closing the deal. ACCUSATIONS OF BIASED PROCESS The alleged breakdown in communications between Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery marked a sharp reversal from earlier, according to Paramount's filing. The Ellisons had dined with Zaslav on November 24, discussing the benefits of a deal and potential co-CEO and co-chairman roles for Zaslav in the combined company. But the warmth was short-lived. Paramount alleged delays by Warner Bros in signing a "clean team" agreement needed to review sensitive data, prompting its legal counsel to warn WBD's advisers that Paramount "would be disadvantaged" without access.  Paramount also cited in its filing a CNBC interview of Warner Bros Chairman Emeritus John Malone last month where he "lamented how Paramount 'interrupted' the Warner Bros separation and discussed the merits of Netflix as a bidder."  Paramount's tender offer will be open for 20 business days and can be extended. Warner Bros has 10 days to respond. "We're here to fight for value for our shareholders and for WBD shareholders," David Ellison said on Monday. (Reporting by Aditya Soni and Harshita Mary Varghese in Bengaluru; Additional reporting by Dawn Chmielewski in Los Angeles; Editing by Sayantani Ghosh and Matthew Lewis)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)