"a $3.3bn deal" sounds to me like just "puff". He paid 1.3bn for the company and took on the company's debt. The transfering of debts adds to the amount of money involved with the deal but not how much he effectively paid for WB (IE, one presumes that by gaining control of WB, he gained control of the assets which hypothetically backed the 1.9bn debt so whether he owes the debt or whether warner-which-he-controls owes the debt doesn't change anything except to make some bankers feel more secure).