New Jersey attorney general drives wedge between state leaders over Paramount merger lawsuit

Multiple New Jersey state leaders, including Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), appear to be at odds with Democratic state Attorney General Jennifer Davenport’s decision to take part in a 12-state antitrust lawsuit against Paramount Skydance’s pending merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.Sherrill declined to answer whether she supports Davenport’s litigation led by California, but instead praised the Garden State’s burgeoning partnership with Paramount on film and television production.“We are excited to welcome Paramount to Hudson County because film is in New Jersey’s DNA — we’re Hollywood East and the only state where film shoots are up this year,” the governor said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. “New Jersey is open for film business, so we are going to keep building, keep filming, and keep making it easier for companies like Paramount to create good-paying jobs and lay down roots in the Garden State.” Sherrill’s response came one day after 11 state politicians penned an op-ed in the New Jersey Globe that raised concerns about the economic consequences New Jersey faces if the $111 billion merger remains delayed and the costs that state taxpayers would have to bear if the litigation proceeds in court. Based on these concerns, the op-ed authors suggested one of two courses of action for Davenport to take.“We respectfully urge our Attorney General to withdraw our state from this action or work toward a prompt and reasonable resolution of this matter and to be a voice of reason in the room,” they wrote.The New Jersey attorney general’s office declined to comment on the op-ed.While the state leaders did not express an opinion on whether the lawsuit will succeed, they argued that “New Jersey taxpayers are entitled to know whether they face any conceivable exposure, what the State has already spent and expects to spend, and whether those risks were evaluated before joining the litigation.”A similar statement was made by Arizona Republican Senate President Warren Petersen, who exclusively told the Washington Examiner last month that he would request a public hearing on the potential financial burden taxpayers would bear if Paramount obtains its hefty bond request. Paramount wants the $1.88 billion bond to cover its financial losses from the blocked merger. Starting Oct. 1, the company loses about $7 million every day the transaction is not closed.In New Jersey, the op-ed authors were alarmed by the bond’s staggering price and the impact that would have on the state.“Paramount has now moved for approximately $1.88 billion in security against losses it attributes to the injunction action — an amount that could be assessed on a joint and several basis, meaning any one of the 12 states involved could have to cover the full cost,” they said.IOWA AND MONTANA PLOT TAKING PARAMOUNT MERGER FIGHT TO SUPREME COURTIf anything, these statements from nearly a dozen New Jersey state officials and the governor show that the merger lawsuit is not popular enough to justify the cost of the state’s involvement.So far, none of the 12 state plaintiffs have withdrawn from the lawsuit as California Attorney General Rob Bonta proceeds to trial. A settlement appears to be out of the question right now after Bonta canceled settlement talks with Paramount representatives last week.