It looks like Skydance thought that getting the non-voting class B Paramount shareholders on board would put pressure on the voting ones.
But it seems like Redstone was sensitive to the minority group of voting shareholders and that they were not on side. That is, it wasn’t enough to have the Redstones as the majority holders of class A NAI shares, and the majority of non-voting class B Paramount shareholders, Shari Redstone felt she had to have sufficient support from the minority of voting NAI shareholders to avoid problems such as accusations of imposing losses on a group.
“According to a source familiar with the talks, Redstone’s request for a “majority of the minority” vote, in which other Class A shareholders could vote to approve or nix the deal, was a nonstarter for Skydance, and the studio was anticipating a regulatory review of more than a year, which gave Redstone pause given the constraints it would have required of the business in the meantime.”
While I’m still burning that SNW introduced the first main cast person with disability and killed them off just to lean on the crutch of development-by-death-of-mentor for Uhura, I’m super happy that Bruce Horak is now being regularly cast in guest star and recurring television roles in Canada.
It’s a long way from a Star Trek stint being a career-limiting choice as it was viewed in the past.
It’s disappointing in its limitations, yes, but another step in bringing warp-driven travel into a more mainstream conversation and line of theoretical research in physics.
As with Albucierre’s proof, theoretical research always starts with the corner solutions and odd cases to reduce the variables.
Well, now I know who was the executive on the org chart responsible for all of Viacom and more recently Paramount Global’s stunningly awful corporate strategic communications.
There have been a lot of senior or management changes one tier down since the merger, but perhaps what was really needed was for Baklish and his top VPs to exit.
SkyShowtime seems to be a pilot version of this in Eastern Europe and the Netherlands. Not that it seems to be doing all that well. However, I’m not sure what Peacock offers that’s original content so it’s questionable what a bundle would add.
In any event, this seems a daft thing to do when they’re trying to sell the firm. One of the biggest problems Paramount+ has had is that it doesn’t stick with a strategy and has been so tangled up in previous licensing or partnership deals that it can’t pursue its plans in any reasonable or systematic way. Tying the hands of a new owner with a poison pill deal with Comcast doesn’t seem to benefit anyone.
I’ve tried including tags for Mastodon user accounts here previously, but was never sure if the users were getting notifications. Nice that Brian Tatosky confirmed it and that he was able to reply directly.
Well, I’m not going to assume that every decision made by the senior decision-makers in a company is rational for the firm or for ‘maximizing shareholder wealth’ in the long term.
CEOs and executives may act in their own, or their firm’s short term interests, they can however also get complex decisions entirely wrong. Not to mention tax law can incentivize some sub rational behaviour.
There are enough historical cases of absolutely bad thinking running companies into the ground, with deceptive practices that leave lenders and subcontractors short.
The stock market’s reaction to act against bad management can be tardy.
(I’m setting aside corporations taking responsibility for larger societal benefits here because US SEC norms for publicly traded corporations don’t provide for that the way they are in Canadian or European law. In the other hand, there may be some arguments that some of these actions are anticompetitive, and worthy of antitrust investigation.)
So they think it’s better to get a tax write off of half the cost, and sell it to a streamer to cover the other half, than make money and profit with a global cinematic release?