Connect with us

Business

Paramount's board approves bid by David Ellison's Skydance Media in sweeping Hollywood deal

Published

on

Paramount's board approves bid by David Ellison's Skydance Media in sweeping Hollywood deal

Tech scion David Ellison’s months-long quest to win control of Paramount Global moved closer to the finish line Sunday, in a deal that marks a new chapter for the long-struggling media company and parent of one of Hollywood’s oldest movie studios.

Paramount Global board members on Sunday approved the bid by Ellison’s Skydance Media and its backers to buy the Redstone family’s Massachusetts holding firm, National Amusements Inc., said two sources close to the deal who were not authorized to comment.

A spokesperson for Paramount declined to comment.

The Redstones’ voting stock in Paramount would be transferred to Skydance, giving Ellison, son of billionaire Oracle Corp. co-founder Larry Ellison — a key backer of the deal — control of a media operation that includes Paramount Pictures, broadcast network CBS and cable channels MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon.

The proposed $8.4 billion multipronged transaction also includes merging Ellison’s production company into the storied media company, giving it more heft to compete in today’s media environment.

Advertisement

The agreement, which mints Ellison as a Hollywood mogul, came together during the last two weeks as Ellison and his financing partners renewed their efforts to win over the Redstone family and Paramount’s independent board members.

Shari Redstone has long preferred Ellison’s bid over other those of potential suitors, believing the 41-year-old entrepreneur possesses the ambition, experience and financial heft to lift Paramount from its doldrums.

But, in early June, Redstone got cold feet and abruptly walked away from the Ellison deal — a move that stunned industry observers and Paramount insiders because it was Redstone who had orchestrated the auction.

Within about a week, Ellison renewed his outreach to Redstone. Ellison ultimately persuaded her to let go of the entertainment company her family has controlled for nearly four decades. The sweetened deal also paid the Redstone family about $50 million more than what had been proposed in early June. On Sunday Paramount’s full board, including special committee of independent directors, had signed off on the deal, the sources said.

Under terms of the deal, Skydance and its financial partners RedBird Capital Partners and private equity firm KKR have agreed to provide a $1.5-billion cash infusion to help Paramount pay down debt. The deal sets aside $4.5 billion to buy shares of Paramount’s Class B shareholders who are eager to exit.

Advertisement

The Redstone family would receive $1.75-billion for National Amusements, a company that holds the family’s Paramount shares and a regional movie theater chain founded during the Great Depression, after the firm’s considerable debts are paid off.

The proposed handoff signals the end of the Redstone family’s nearly 40-year reign as one of America’s most famous and fractious media dynasties. The late Sumner Redstone’s National Amusements was once valued at nearly $10 billion, but pandemic-related theater closures, last year’s Hollywood labor strikes and a heavy debt burden sent its fortunes spiraling.

In the last five years, the New York-based company has lost two-thirds of its value. Its shares are now worth $8.2 billion based on Friday’s closing price of $11.81 a share.

The struggles in many ways prompted Shari Redstone to part with her beloved family heirloom. Additionally, National Amusements was struggling to cover its debts, and the high interest rates worsened the outlook for the Redstone family.

Paramount boasts some of the most historic brands in entertainment, including the 112-year-old Paramount Pictures movie studio, known for landmark films such as “The Godfather” and “Chinatown.” The company owns television stations including KCAL-TV (Channel 9) and KCBS-TV (Channel 2). Its once-vibrant cable channels such as Nickelodeon, TV Land, BET, MTV and Comedy Central have been losing viewers.

Advertisement

The handover requires the approval of federal regulators, a process that could take months.

In May, Paramount’s independent board committee said it would entertain a competing $26-billion offer from Sony Pictures Entertainment and Apollo Global Management. The bid would have retired all shareholders and paid off Paramount’s debt, but Sony executives grew increasingly wary of taking over a company that relies on traditional TV channels.

Earlier this year, Warner Bros. Discovery expressed interest in a merger or buying CBS. However, that company has struggled with nearly $40 billion in debt from previous deals and is in similar straits as Paramount. Media mogul Byron Allen has also shown interest.

Skydance Media founder and Chief Executive David Ellison prevailed in his bid for Paramount.

(Evan Agostini/Invision/Associated Press)

Advertisement

Many in Hollywood — film producers, writers and agents — have been rooting for the Skydance takeover, believing it represents the best chance to preserve Paramount as an independent company. Apollo and Sony were expected to break up the enterprise, with Sony absorbing the movie studio into its Culver City operation.

The second phase of the transaction will be for Paramount to absorb Ellison’s Santa Monica-based Skydance Media, which has sports, animation and gaming as well as television and film production.

Ellison is expected to run Paramount as its chief executive. Former NBCUniversal CEO Jeff Shell, who’s now a RedBird executive, could help manage the operation. It’s unclear whether the Skydance team will keep on the three division heads who are now running Paramount: Paramount Pictures CEO Brian Robbins, CBS head George Cheeks and Showtime/MTV Entertainment Studios chief Chris McCarthy.

Skydance has an existing relationship with Paramount. It co-produced each film in the “Mission: Impossible” franchise since 2011’s “Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol,” starring Tom Cruise. It also backed the 2022 Cruise mega-hit “Top Gun: Maverick.”

Advertisement

Ellison first approached Redstone about making a deal last summer, and talks became known in December.

Redstone long viewed Ellison as a preferred buyer because the deal paid a premium to her family for their exit. She also was impressed by the media mogul , believing he could become a next-generation leader who could take the company her father built to a higher level, according to people knowledgeable of her thinking.

Larry Ellison is said to be contributing funding to the deal.

David Ellison was attracted to the deal because of his past collaborations with Paramount Pictures and the allure of combining their intellectual properties as well as the cachet of owning a historic studio, analysts said. Paramount’s rich history contains popular franchises including “Transformers,” “Star Trek,” “South Park” and “Paw Patrol.”

“Paramount is one of the major historic Hollywood studios with a massive base of [intellectual property], and so it seems to us that it’s more about using the capital that Ellison has and what he’s built at Skydance and leveraging that into owning a major Hollywood studio,” Brent Penter, senior research associate at Raymond James, said prior to the deal. “Not to mention the networks and everything else that Paramount has.”

Advertisement

The agreement prepares to close the books on the Redstone family’s 37-year tenure at the company formerly known as Viacom, beginning with Sumner Redstone’s hostile takeover in 1987.

Seven years later, Redstone clinched control of Paramount, after merging Viacom with eventually doomed video rental chain Blockbuster to secure enough cash for the $10-billion deal. Redstone long viewed Paramount as the crown jewel, a belief that took root a half-century ago when he wheeled-and-dealed over theatrical exhibition terms for Paramount’s prestigious films to screen at his regional theater chain.

Under Redstone’s control, Paramount won Academy Awards in the ’90s for “Forrest Gump” and “Saving Private Ryan.”

He pioneered the idea of treating films as an investment portfolio and hedging bets on some productions by taking on financial partners — a strategy now widely used throughout the industry.

Sumner Redstone and Shari Redstone in 2012.

The late Sumner Redstone and his daughter Shari Redstone have owned a controlling interest in Viacom, which was rebranded as Paramount, through their family holding company, National Amusements Inc., since 1987.

(Katy Winn/Invision/Associated Press)

Advertisement

In 2000, Redstone expanded his media empire again by acquiring CBS, a move that made Viacom one of the most muscular media companies of the time, rivaling Walt Disney Co. and Time Warner Inc. Just six years later, Redstone broke it up into separate, sibling companies, convinced that Viacom was more precious to advertisers because of its younger audience. Redstone also wanted to reap dividends from two companies.

After years of mismanagement at Viacom, which coincided with the elder Redstone’s declining health, and boardroom turmoil, his daughter stepped in to oust Viacom top management and members of the board. Three years later, following an executive misconduct scandal at CBS, Shari Redstone achieved her goal by reuniting CBS and Viacom in a nearly $12-billion deal.

The combined company, then called ViacomCBS and valued at more than $25 billion, was supposed to be a TV juggernaut, commanding a major percentage of TV advertising revenue through the dominance of CBS and more than two dozen cable channels.

But changes in the TV landscape took a toll.

Advertisement

As consumer cord-cutting became more widespread and TV advertising revenue declined, ViacomCBS’ biggest asset became a serious liability.

The company was late to enter the streaming wars and then spent heavily on its Paramount+ streaming service to try to catch up with Netflix and even Disney. (In early 2022, the company was renamed Paramount Global in a nod to its moviemaking past and to tie in with its streaming platform of the same name.)

The company’s eroding linear TV business and the decline of TV ad revenue, as well as its struggles trying to make streaming profitable, will be major challenges for Ellison as he takes over Paramount. Though traditional TV is declining, it still brings in cash for Paramount.

And streaming is a whole different economic proposition from television, one that offers slimmer profits. Meanwhile, the company also faces larger industry questions about when — if ever — box office revenue will return to pre-pandemic levels.

“This is a company that is floating on hope,” said Stephen Galloway, dean of Chapman University’s Dodge College of Film and Media Arts. “And hope isn’t a great business strategy.”

Advertisement

Business

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Published

on

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.

But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.

While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.

Advertisement

“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.

It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”

Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.

“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.

The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.

Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”

Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.

Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.

“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”

Advertisement

For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.

“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”

Continue Reading

Business

MrBeast company sued over claims of sexual harassment, firing a new mom

Published

on

MrBeast company sued over claims of sexual harassment, firing a new mom

A former female staffer who worked for Beast Industries, the media venture behind the popular YouTube channel MrBeast, is suing the company, alleging she was sexually harassed and fired shortly after she returned from maternity leave.

The employee, Lorrayne Mavromatis, a Brazilian-born social media professional, alleges in a lawsuit she was subjected to sexual harassment by the company’s management and demoted after she complained about her treatment. She said she was urged to join a conference call while in labor and expected to work during her maternity leave in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, according to the federal complaint filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

“This clout-chasing complaint is built on deliberate misrepresentations and categorically false statements, and we have the receipts to prove it. There is extensive evidence — including Slack and WhatsApp messages, company documents, and witness testimony — that unequivocally refutes her claims. We will not submit to opportunistic lawyers looking to manufacture a payday from us,” Gaude Paez, a Beast Industries spokesperson, said in a statement.

Jimmy Donaldson, 27, began MrBeast as a teen gaming channel that soon exploded into a media company worth an estimated $5 billion, with 500 employees and 450 million subscribers who watch its games, stunts and giveaways.

Mavromatis, who was hired in 2022 as its head of Instagram, described a pervasive climate of discrimination and harassment, according to the lawsuit.

Advertisement

In her complaint, she alleges the company’s former CEO James Warren made her meet him at his home for one-on-one meetings while he commented on her looks and dismissed her complaints about a male client’s unwanted advances, telling her “she should be honored that the client was hitting on her.”

When Mavromatis asked Warren why MrBeast, Donaldson, would not work with her, she was told that “she is a beautiful woman and her appearance had a certain sexual effect on Jimmy,” and, “Let’s just say that when you’re around and he goes to the restroom, he’s not actually using the restroom.”

Paez refuted the claim.

“That’s ridiculous. This is an allegation fabricated for the sole purpose of sparking headlines,” Paez said.

Mavromatis said she endured a slate of other indignities such as being told by Donaldson that she “would only participate in her video shoot if she brought him a beer.”

Advertisement

“In this male-centric workplace, Plaintiff, one of the few women in a high-level role, was excluded from otherwise all-male meetings, demeaned in front of colleagues, harassed, and suffered from males be given preferential treatment in employment decisions,” states the complaint.

When Mavromatis raised a question during a staff meeting with her team, she said a male colleague told her to “shut up” or “stop talking.”

At MrBeast headquarters in Greenville, N.C., she said male executives mocked female contestants participating in BeastGames, “who complained they did not have access to feminine hygiene products and clean underwear while participating in the show.”

In November 2023, Mavromatis formally complained about “the sexually inappropriate encounters and harassment, and demeaning and hostile work environment she and other female employees had been living and experiencing working at MrBeast,” to the company’s then head of human resources, Sue Parisher, who is also Donaldson’s mother, according to the suit.

In her complaint, Mavromatis said Beast Industries did not have a method or process for employees to report such issues either anonymously or to a third party, rather employees were expected to follow the company’s handbook, “How to Succeed In MrBeast Production.”

Advertisement

In it, employees were instructed that, “It’s okay for the boys to be childish,” “if talent wants to draw a dick on the white board in the video or do something stupid, let them” and “No does not mean no,” according to the complaint.

Mavromatis alleges that she was demoted and then fired.

Paez said that Mavromatis’s role was eliminated as part of a reorganization of an underperforming group within Beast Industries and that she was made aware of this.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Heidi O’Neill, Formerly of Nike, Will Be New Lululemon’s New CEO

Published

on

Heidi O’Neill, Formerly of Nike, Will Be New Lululemon’s New CEO

Lululemon, the yoga pants and athletic clothing company, has hired a former executive from a rival, Nike, as its new chief executive.

Heidi O’Neill, who spent more than 25 years at Nike, will take the reins and join Lululemon’s board of directors on Sept. 8, the company announced on Wednesday.

The leadership change is happening during a tumultuous time for Lululemon, which had grown to $11 billion in revenue by persuading shoppers to ditch their jeans and slacks for stretchy leggings. But lately, sales have declined in North America amid intense competition and shifting fashion trends, with consumers favoring looser styles rather than the form-fitting silhouettes for which Lululemon is best known.

“As I step into the C.E.O. role in September, my job will be to build on that foundation — to accelerate product breakthroughs, deepen the brand’s cultural relevance, and unlock growth in markets around the world,” Ms. O’Neill, 61, said in a statement.

Lululemon, based in Vancouver, British Columbia, has also been entangled in a corporate power struggle over the company’s future. Its billionaire founder, Chip Wilson, has feuded with the board, nominated independent directors and criticized executives.

Advertisement

Lululemon’s previous chief executive, Calvin McDonald, stepped down at the end of January as pressure mounted from Mr. Wilson and some investors. One activist investor, Elliott Investment Management, had pushed its own chief executive candidate, who was not selected.

The interim co-chiefs, Meghan Frank and André Maestrini, will lead the company until Ms. O’Neill’s arrival, when they are expected to return to other senior roles. The pair had outlined a plan to revive sales at Lululemon, promising to invest in stores, save more money and speed up product development.

“We start the year with a real plan, with real strategies,” Mr. Maestrini said in an interview this year. “We make sure decisions are made fast.”

Lululemon said last month that it would add Chip Bergh, the former chief executive of Levi Strauss, to its board to replace David Mussafer, the chairman of the private equity firm Advent International, whom Mr. Wilson had sought to remove.

Ms. O’Neill climbed the organizational chart at Nike for decades, working across divisions including consumer sports, product innovation and brand marketing, and was most recently its president of consumer, product and brand. She left Nike last year amid a shake-up of senior management that led to the elimination of her role.

Advertisement

Analysts said Ms. O’Neill would be expected to find ways to energize Lululemon’s business and reset the company’s culture in order to improve performance.

“O’Neill is her own person who will come with an agenda of change,” said Neil Saunders, the managing director of GlobalData, a data analytics and consulting company. “The task ahead is a significant one, but it can be undertaken from a position of relative stability.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending