A federal judge this week dismissed a securities fraud lawsuit brought by two men who claim they purchased Warner Bros. Discovery common stock “at artificially inflated prices” and who insist they were duped by allegedly false or misleading statements made by WBD chief executive officer David Zaslav as his company unsuccessfully tried to renew NBA media rights in 2024.
During WBD’s negotiations with the NBA, Zaslav offered remarks that the plaintiffs allege downplayed the importance of NBA rights to WBD or suggested he was confident a deal would be struck.
More from Sportico.com
For example, as part of an earnings call held in February 2024, Zaslav optimistically spoke of WBD’s financial future due to a “global sports portfolio” and the company’s plan to “drive increased shareholder value.”
The lawsuit, filed by Anthony Yuson and Michael Steinberg, criticized Zaslav for these remarks. He allegedly omitted mention of how “NBA Rights were crucial to support the high carriage rates that WBD was able to command, produce significant advertising dollars, provide a ‘halo effect’ that boosted all of WBD’s other properties, and negotiate more favorable terms with other sports leagues.” From that same lens, the lawsuit maintains that Zaslav should have acknowledged that “WBD internally viewed the NBA Rights as a unique irreparable asset.”
Zaslav’s remarks during an earnings call in May 2024 were also slammed in the lawsuit. At the time, Zaslav emphasized how WBD had “matching rights that allow us to match third-party offers before the NBA enters into an agreement with them.” He added, “we’re hopeful that we’ll be able to reach an agreement that makes sense for both sides.”
The plaintiffs maintain Zaslav was disingenuous since, they claim, he knew WBD “could not in fact match NBCUniversal’s and Amazon’s bids.” For instance, Zaslav was aware NBCUniversal and Amazon “offered the NBA cross-promotion alongside their pre-existing NFL media rights, which WBD did not have.”
Also, WBD allegedly could not match Amazon’s ability to offer an internet streaming audience and infrastructure. To further this critique, the plaintiffs point out that while WBD submitted a bid that “equaled Amazon’s monetary offer,” the so-called “match” revised Amazon’s terms “so significantly” that it could not be understood as a match of Amazon’s offer.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla disagreed that anything Zaslav said could be construed as fraudulent.
Read the full article here