Paramount will sit down with California attorney general Rob Bonta and the Writers Guild of America for two straight days starting on Oct. 14 to explore a deal settling lawsuits challenging the studio’s $111 billion bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, according to a court document filed on Tuesday.
The talks will come after Bonta last month canceled a meeting with Paramount scheduled for the following day, accusing the studio’s representatives of leaking and misrepresenting details of negotiations they held.
Ahead of the discussions, the two sides will file a brief statements of their positions in the case. This includes the “grounds upon which the claims are founded, a candid evaluation of the parties’ likelihood of prevailing” and a “description of the major issues in dispute,” plus any discrete issues that, if resolved, would facilitate a deal, the filing said.
Lead negotiators for Paramount, the states and the WGA will attend the settlement conference, according to the order, which noted that the studio’s representatives must have full authority to negotiate and settle the case. They must be prepared to discuss issues relating to their settlement objectives, any impediments to a deal and the “possibility of a creative resolution of the dispute.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson will oversee the discussions.
Movement on deal talks have been slow. Bonta has maintained he’ll only accept structural remedies, which typically involve companies selling off parts of the combined business. So far, Paramount has only offered behavioral concessions, including a pledge to release at least 30 movies with 45-day theatrical windows.
The scheduling of the settlement conference follows the government on Tuesday urging the court to force the states and WGA to bear the costs of the holdup caused by their lawsuits challenging the $111 billion megamerger. If Paramount prevails on this issue, a $1.88 billion bond to cover losses if the studio wins the case over the deal, which has temporarily been halted, must be posted.
In the filing, the government characterized the states’ lawsuit as a secondary enforcement mechanism subject to certain restrictions that don’t apply to the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission.