Former top Seagram and Warner Music executive Edgar Bronfman Jr. has entered the fray to acquire Paramount Global, throwing an 11th-hour curveball in an already chaotic auction of the storied Hollywood entertainment company.

Bronfman submitted a bid Monday to take control of the media conglomerate that owns CBS, MTV, Comedy Central and the Paramount film studio by acquiring the Redstone family holding company, National Amusements Inc., said three sources familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment publicly. Bronfman’s bid is valued at about $4.3 billion.

The offer comes a month after Shari Redstone and Paramount’s other board members approved a bid from tech scion David Ellison’s Skydance Media to buy Paramount in a multipronged transaction valued at $8.4 billion.

Bronfman is leading an investor group that includes longtime media executives Jon Miller, Steven Paul and John Martin.

“We believe there is significant upside in the Paramount business and in the value of Paramount’s shares,” Bronfman wrote said in a letter to Paramount’s lead independent director, Charles Phillips, which was viewed by The Times.

Bronfman’s offer lands just two days before Paramount’s window to accept alternative bids to Skydance’s proposal closes. Paramount’s special board committee, led by Phillips, must now weigh the two offers for the struggling media company.

Skydance’s deal allowed for a 45-day window during which Paramount could consider competing offers.

A Paramount spokesperson declined to comment on the bid, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

It’s not clear that Bronfman’s play for Paramount will be successful.

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.

His father, Oracle Corp. co-founder Larry Ellison, also is backing his son’s effort to build a larger media empire by merging Skydance and Paramount.

Under terms of the proposed 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. Their deal sets aside $4.5 billion to buy shares of Paramount’s Class B shareholders who are eager to exit.

Non-Redstone Class A shareholders would receive $23 a share to exit. Investors could maintain their shares in the new entity.

But some shareholders have bristled over Ellison’s proposal, alleging that it places an inflated value on Skydance, which has co-produced some of Paramount’s biggest blockbuster movies, including “Top Gun: Maverick.” The subsequent all-stock merger of Skydance into Paramount values Ellison’s firm at $4.75 billion.

Bronfman is seeking to capitalize on controversy over that component of the deal.

“Our proposal eliminates the risks, uncertainties and costs of combining Paramount with Skydance,” Bronfman wrote. “We believe Paramount is most valuable as a standalone business.”

Paramount executives have initiated a deep round of cost-cutting, including eliminating about 2,000 job cuts to achieve $500 million in annual savings. The company suffered a credit downgrade earlier this year.

Bronfman’s group believes it could slash another $3 billion in permanent costs by achieving greater profits in the streaming division, employing artificial intelligence in business functions and “right sizing the bloated corporate structure,” according to their letter.

Under both scenarios, 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.

Bronfman’s group said they would pay non-Redstone A-Class shareholders $24.53 a share — more than what’s envisioned in the Skydance deal. Non-voting B-Class shareholders could cash out at $16 a share.

Paramount shares traded at $10.86 Tuesday morning, falling about 2%.

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.

Paramount has agreed to pay a $400-million breakup fee to Skydance if the deal doesn’t close.

Bronfman’s bid would cover that $400-million breakup fee, the Wall Street Journal reported.

A New York Supreme Court judge on Monday denied motions by talent agency CAA, Walt Disney Co. and Miramax to dismiss actress Julia Ormond’s lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein for sexual battery.

The suit, filed last October, named CAA for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, as well as Walt Disney Co. and Miramax, accusing them of negligent supervision and retention.

“The complaint sufficiently alleges that CAA failed to protect plaintiff from Weinstein, failing to warn her of his alleged reputation while at the same time negotiating the production company agreement between the plaintiff and Miramax, and later arranging the dinner meeting between plaintiff and Weinstein,” said the court in its ruling.

Disney owned Miramax at the time of the alleged assault.

“We are very pleased by the Court’s decision, which is a complete repudiation of CAA, Disney, and Miramax’s attempts to evade accountability for their failure to protect Julia Ormond from Harvey Weinstein. The case will now proceed to discovery, where, thanks to Ms. Ormond’s bravery, we will be able to expose the truth of how these powerful Hollywood companies enabled Harvey Weinstein,” said Ormond’s attorneys Meredith A. Firetog and Kevin Mintzer in a statement to The Times.

“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s ruling and continue to believe there is no legal or factual basis for Ms. Ormond’s claims against CAA,” said a spokesperson for the agency in a statement. “While we have deep compassion for Ms. Ormond and are incredibly disturbed by what she says she suffered at the hands of Weinstein, CAA did not learn of Weinstein’s sexually assaultive behavior until it became public knowledge decades later. As a result, the claim that CAA should have warned Ms. Ormond about Weinstein’s criminal conduct in December 1995 defies logic.”

Representatives for Disney were not immediately available for comment.

Ormond, who starred in such films as “Legends of the Fall” and the remake of “Sabrina,” alleged that the disgraced movie mogul sexually assaulted her in December 1995 after a business dinner in New York City, where the two were to discuss a project.

She further alleged that after she informed her agents Bryan Lourd and Kevin Huvane, currently CAA’s co-chairmen, they did nothing to help her and instead cautioned her about speaking out.

Lourd and Huvane were not named as defendants in the suit. However, their names were cited throughout the complaint.

“The men at CAA who represented Ormond knew about Weinstein. So too did Weinstein’s employers at Miramax and Disney,” the lawsuit states. “Brazenly, none of these prominent companies warned Ormond that Weinstein had a history of assaulting women because he was too important, too powerful, and made them too much money.”

Weinstein insisted on discussing a project at the Manhattan apartment Miramax provided for the English actor, part of her two-year, first-look deal with the company, according to the complaint.

Once there, Ormond, who was “inebriated” to the point she could not put the keys in the door, says despite her protests, Weinstein “stripped naked,” forced her to give him a massage, climbed on top of her, masturbated and then forced her “to perform oral sex on him.”

A few weeks after the alleged assault, Ormond traveled to Copenhagen to work on a film and was informed that Weinstein planned to visit her.

“Horrified,” according to the suit, she called her agents at CAA, Lourd and Huvane, to “plead with them to prevent Weinstein from coming to Copenhagen.” They declined to intervene, the suit states.

Ormond filed her lawsuit under the Adult Survivors Act, that was passed in New York in 2022. It established a one-year “lookback” window for survivors of sexual assault that occurred when they were over the age of 18, regardless of when it took place.

Weinstein’s attorney Imran H. Ansari, “categorically denie[d] the allegations made against him by Julia Ormond and he is prepared to vehemently defend himself,” according to a statement after the suit was filed.

At the time of the filing, CAA called the claims baseless.

The agency said that Ormond’s legal counsel approached them in March about the allegations. The Century City-based agency then hired attorney Loretta Lynch and her law firm, Paul, Weiss. The firm’s review “found nothing to support Ms. Ormond’s claims against CAA.”

Ormond’s attorneys asked CAA to pay $15 million in exchange for Ormond not making public allegations against the agency, which it rejected, CAA said.

At the Bloomberg Screentime conference last year, Lourd said: “We were falsely accused of something that we did not do and we are going to address those accusations in court in a proper forum.”

In April, a New York appellate court decided to overturn Weinstein’s rape conviction in a separate case, saying a state judge erred in allowing three women to testify at trial despite no charges being filed against the movie mogul in connection with their accusations.

Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an extradition warrant seeking the transfer of Harvey Weinstein from custody in New York to California, where he was previously convicted on rape charges.

Staff writer Wendy Lee contributed to this report

Dear Liz: You recently answered a question about whether to finance a car purchase. I bought a car in 1963 whose wheels couldn’t stay in alignment. By the time I had driven it 20,000 miles, I was on my third set of new tires. My next car had other repeated problems. Solution? Since then I have always leased and when the lease is up, I buy the car if it has been reliable. By then, the car is cheaper.

Answer: There are at least two ways to view your approach to cars. One is that you found an approach that suits you. The other is that you’ve been overpaying for vehicles for decades based on two long-ago experiences. Meanwhile, car reliability has steadily — and dramatically — improved.

Although there are exceptions, leasing is generally the most expensive way to pay for a car. And buying cars after the lease is over also can be problematic if the buyout price, which typically is set at the beginning of the lease, is higher than the vehicle’s market value.

On the surface, leasing can seem like a good deal. The car’s always under warranty and unlikely to need repairs. Lease payments are often lower than loan payments, since you’re not paying principal. That means you can drive a more expensive car than you could afford if you were paying cash or financing.

But that also means you don’t have any equity in the vehicle. Plus, leasing means you’re paying for cars during their first few years on the road, when they’re rapidly depreciating.

Sometimes manufacturers sweeten lease deals to make them less expensive than an equivalent loan, but usually you’ll pay a lot more over time leasing than you would buying.

What to do with a drawer full of unused credit cards?

Dear Liz: At 75 and 79, my husband and I have no plans to buy a new car or property. We own our home and cars. We have excellent credit ratings. We use one major credit card. I’m consolidating our financial life for our heirs. We have a drawer full of cards we never use. Is there any reason not to just cancel these cards and save our heirs the trouble? Should I care if my 850 credit score tanks?

Answer: At this point, simplifying your finances probably makes more sense than trying to keep your credit scores as high as they can possibly be.

Cards you aren’t using still need to be monitored for fraud, which is a hassle, plus you may be paying unnecessary annual fees. Reducing the number of accounts should make your life easier, but don’t go too far.

As explained in previous columns, each spouse should have at least one card on which they are the primary account holder. A spouse who is an authorized user often loses access to the card when the primary account holder dies and card issuers close the account. Few credit card issuers offer joint accounts these days, so you should determine who is the primary account holder and who is the authorized user on each of your cards before deciding which to close.

You can reduce the damage to your scores by trying to preserve as much of your current credit limits as possible. Ideally, the cards you keep will be the ones with the highest limits. If you’re closing other accounts at your chosen issuer, you can ask that the credit limits for the shuttered cards be transferred to the card you’re keeping.

Eyeing a second divorce and the first ex’s Social Security

Dear Liz: I was married for 12 years and have remarried. If I divorce again, am I eligible for my first husband’s Social Security?

Answer: People who were married for at least 10 years and who are currently unmarried may be eligible for divorced spousal benefits based on their ex’s work record. So if you divorce, you may be eligible for up to half of your first husband’s benefit at his full retirement age — assuming that this divorced spousal benefit is more than your own retirement benefit.

Applying before your own full retirement age means your divorced spousal benefit would be reduced. The benefit also would be subject to the earnings test, which reduces your benefit by $1 for every $2 you earn over a certain amount, which in 2024 is $22,320.

Liz Weston, Certified Financial Planner, is a personal finance columnist. Questions may be sent to her at 3940 Laurel Canyon, No. 238, Studio City, CA 91604, or by using the “Contact” form at asklizweston.com.