Warner/Discovery

[Lee A Stewart]

AT&T Could Owe Discovery $1.7 Billion If WarnerMedia Merger Is Scuttled

Discovery would owe AT&T $720 million if it backs out of the deal, according to the Plan of Merger filed Thursday.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...ee-1234956763/

[EvaDK]

Originally Posted by kemcha

Uh, say what? Shareholders don't own the company, they are merely financial investors in the company.

Indeed.

If a shareholder was truly considered an 'owner' in legal terms of the company in which they own shares, that shareholder would then also be liable to the debt held by the company and therefore be a debtor. They are not (we know this for a fact), hence shareholders are not owners either in the traditional sense.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by EvaDK

Indeed.

If a shareholder was truly considered an 'owner' in legal terms of the company in which they own shares, that shareholder would then also be liable to the debt held by the company and therefore be a debtor. They are not (we know this for a fact), hence shareholders are not owners either in the traditional sense.

Generally, shareholders are not personally liable for the debts of the corporation. Creditors can only collect on their debts by going after the assets of the corporation. Shareholders will usually only be on the hook if they cosigned or personally guaranteed the corporation's debts.

[kemcha]

It's hilarious that most people don't realize this. When a company or corporation is in talks for a merger, each side has stipulations in the event the other party backs out. For instance, if Discovery pulls out of the deal, they would owe AT&T $720 million but if AT&T pulls out of the deal, they would owe Discovery $1.7b.

What this means is that if the regulators kill the deal then nobody owes anyone anything. It was the same agreement between Fox and Disney. Mergers/Acquisitions always have this included as a safe harbor in case the other party decides they no longer want the deal. Some may be surprised to fini that this type of agreements are common.

Originally Posted by EvaDK

Indeed.

If a shareholder was truly considered an 'owner' in legal terms of the company in which they own shares, that shareholder would then also be liable to the debt held by the company and therefore be a debtor. They are not (we know this for a fact), hence shareholders are not owners either in the traditional sense.

Originally Posted by mwynn

Generally, shareholders are not personally liable for the debts of the corporation. Creditors can only collect on their debts by going after the assets of the corporation. Shareholders will usually only be on the hook if they cosigned or personally guaranteed the corporation's debts.

That's the gist of it. Most don't realize that shareholders are just another fancy term for "investors". When you buy stock in a company, you're betting on the financial success of the corporation and that your investment will be profitable to you. The problem is that the financial community tends to look at stockholder/shareholders/investors as "owners' of the company and that's not exactly true.

Corporations issue stock to raise capital for the purpose of growing the company. Those stocks don't tend to give owners of those stocks any actual ownership[ into the company. The only benefit, besides financial benefit, is that they have voting rights at shareholder meetings. They only own the stock, they don't have an ownership stake in the company.

Nerdwallet.com wrote an article on this:

When you buy the stock of a company, you’re effectively buying an ownership share in that company. Does that mean you get to sit next to Tim Cook at Apple’s next shareholder meeting? No. But in most cases, it does mean you get a right to vote at those meetings, if you choose to exercise it. But the primary reason that investors own stock is to earn a return on their investment.

Source: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/i...-how-they-work

That's probably the best explanation about it.

[Darkstream]

BREAKING Discovery Interested in Selling DC Comics & WB Assets to Disney, Apple or Netflix - YouTube

[kemcha]

Originally Posted by Darkstream

BREAKING Discovery Interested in Selling DC Comics & WB Assets to Disney, Apple or Netflix - YouTube

Don't believe it, they're just speculating on what every other blogger has been speculating about.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by kemcha

Don't believe it, they're just speculating on what every other blogger has been speculating about.

I don't. Just sharing.

[kemcha]

Originally Posted by Darkstream

I don't. Just sharing.

Ah!.

But, I see that bloggers, websites and fans are dragging up an old news story that Disney is considering buying WarnerMedia along with DC Comics. I just don't find any validity behind that.

The reason being is that Disney sunk themselves into some serious debt when they acquired Fox Studios. They would also run into problems with federal regulators because they would effectively control more than 60% of the comic industry (Marvel controls around 33-34% which DC controlling another 29-30%). It would add more debt onto Disney's rolls and the studio could effectively hamper any real competition.

Considering how Disney had to borrow from European creditors in order to purchase Fox, they would face an uphill battle. Their shareholders might not even approve such a merger. Corporations like Disney must get the approval of shareholders before making such large acquisitions, especially where it might affect the stock prices of that corporation.

The story was dredged up because people were talking about this same issue back in 2018, about the possibility of Disney acquiring WarnerMedia and DC Comics. But after the acquisition of Lucasfilm, Pixar and Fox ... I just think Disney has leveraged themselves too thin. Even if they wanted to acquire WM, I don't think they have the capitol to acquire it much less get it approved by the feds. If the feds did approve it, I suspect there would be all types of outrage by all sectors as to why Disney is being given preferential treatment for buying all these studios and production companies.

[Lee A Stewart]

Warner Bros. Discovery Set As Name Of Merged Company

https://deadline.com/2021/06/discove...ry-1234767195/

[kylor]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Warner Bros. Discovery Set As Name Of Merged Company

https://deadline.com/2021/06/discove...ry-1234767195/

Disco Bros would've been cooler.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Warner Bros. Discovery Set As Name Of Merged Company

https://deadline.com/2021/06/discove...ry-1234767195/

How much did they pay the marketing firm for this one?
Almost as bad as Sony naming the PS5.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by kylor

Disco Bros would've been cooler.

WCW Disco Inferno 1st Theme(With Custom Tron) - YouTube

[John1701D]

Yeah that's completely unoriginal.

[Lee A Stewart]

Good name. Takes advantage of brand awareness. Everyone knows Warner Bros. and Discovery.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by mwynn

WCW Disco Inferno 1st Theme(With Custom Tron) - YouTube

The Disco Bros. - Let's Go To The Disco - YouTube

[John1701D]

It's literally just the two company names together. I guess that's why I'm not paid the big bucks.

At least throw a / in between

[mwynn]

Super Discovery Bros.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by John1701D

It's literally just the two company names together. I guess that's why I'm not paid the big bucks.

At least throw a / in between

The two companies involved are Discovery and WarnerMedia.

[John1701D]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

The two companies involved are Discovery and WarnerMedia.

Now why you gotta go be getting all technical...

[vertigop1ayer]

No problem with the name and no different than Time-Warner, 20th Century Fox, or other merged-up names before.

On the subject of off-loading DC, I would find that slightly surprising. The DCEU on the whole has been a commercial "meh" (to put it kindly), but the potential is obviously there and has to be one of the most valuable single entities within what is currently Warner Media. Doing this giant deal and then selling one of your most prized arms is not a move this armchair executive would advise.