Yeah. Wealthy individuals advised by the best experts can't figure out what is good for them. Only if they would have someone in their orbit who knows how to read hacker news comments. </sarcasm>
He ain't as smart as you think he is.
My comment didn’t say anything about Elon. Please read it again.
If you mean he has poor financial judgement, that's something else - but there are billions of reasons why you might be mistaken.
Saying that on HN is just cruel: you know full well you have exactly the niche in your grip that simultaneously wants to exclaim.. the behavioural tendency of the child that he is, and bears the feeling 'no no, not here'...
Is there some kind of politics more important for corporate decision making than claiming the $20bn or so you're entitled to by contract?
Sure. It's the principle-agent problem. Twitter as a whole might make more money under scenario A, but the people who make that choice on Twitter's behalf might make more money under scenario B.
Of course, that's short term thinking if you're a C-level executive. Because scenario A gets you more money at your next job. But if you're thinking about retiring, it could work.
Corporate politics are politics like any other. They're very complicated.
https://www.engadget.com/musk-twitter-lawsuit-florida-pensio...
What we're really seeing here is: can a very rich person completely flout a contract, ignore legal obligations he signed, and abuse the legal system to the point that contracts are basically unenforceable against him? Sure, he has no case, and there is no real conventional legal way to wiggle out of this, but that's not really the question, is it?
As Matt Levine said in his column today, a merger arb told him that "if you're reading the contract, you've already lost."
In all likelihood, it seems the most probable outcome is a modest adjustment of purchase price to further "secure the deal" (whatever that means). But Musk is a bit crazy, so while that's the most likely outcome, it's hard to say it with much confidence.
Suddenly getting $1B without having to accept Musk as the new owner is beneficial to the share holders, and crucially tying up the company in a years long lawsuit to force Musk to acquire Twitter would be expensive, and until the contract is either completed or dissolved Twitter's fund raising options are greatly limited. Suing Musk for wanting out would not be a sound financial move and could even result in Twitter becoming insolvent. Their stock price could crash, their funds to continue the lawsuit exhausted, and most likely under those circumstances Musk would win and immediately turn around and buy Twitter for a far lower price.
With that said, the only real question here is what will Musk do under the circumstances? Funding the acquisition could cause his other businesses to suffer or even fail. SpaceX is particularly vulnerable, and it wouldn't take much to end the Borring Company if Musk's finances are in a dangerous position. If he just walks away he's out $1B, assuming they'll allow it. That can't be a super attractive option. Most likely he's going to exhaust every avenue in an attempt to raise the cash without putting his other businesses at risk. But there's a clock on that, and he could end up owing Twitter a shit load if he stalls for too long.
> but they were legally obligated to consider an accept a fair offer of acquisition because it would be in the best interests of the share holders.
Musk buying the company at 30% over market value seems like it would absolutely be in the best interest of the shareholders as well
> Suing Musk for wanting out would not be a sound financial move and could even result in Twitter becoming insolvent
Why not? This seems like an easy case and a huge win for shareholders. I feel like shareholders could sue Twitter into insolvency if they didn't pursue Musk for massive reparations if he flouted the contract
Matt Levine had a pretty different take, pointing out that if Elon Musk suddenly appears to be unwilling to buy Twitter, his financing might see that and - suddenly, but perfectly legitimately - evaporate, which would be a valid reason for Musk to walk away.
It really is true that lending someone a lot of money to make an investment they aren't interested in is a much worse financial move than lending the same money to the same person to make an investment they are interested in.
That was awhile ago. Since then, the funding agreements have been made public, and Matt's most recent take is that the funding basically can't disappear unless Musk can kill the deal via another route.
Look at Section 6.3
This has been repeated at nauseaum .
Just because you don't know their names and aren't shitposting on social media they are not incompetent.
They managed to screw Musk over, they basically looked at macroeconomics, regrouped after the initial no and sold Twitter to Musk at the very top of a 13 year old bubble in the making.
If you look at Musk carrer each and every time he sold onto bigger fools. Compaq, Ebay and of course all the equity raises of his overvalued businesses.
Twitter board managed to screw him over and demonstrate that only idiots don't change their minds, all in one swoop.
They have the upper hand now.
If everything goes as it should this would be like Trump election loss. Meaning a defeat that makes it so that you don't hear from a guy for a long time. A severe wound and an existential threat to the ego.
We can only hope.
Or even sub 3000 if inflation becomes deeply entrenched in the economy.
I don't think people are aware that the Twitter Board knew they were calling his bluff and are going to make him pay one way or another.
Oh, the agreement is absolutely in Twitter's favor if Musk pulls out of the deal.
But that doesn't mean *suing Musk* to complete the deal is actually their best move. As usual, the best move is probably some kind of plea-agreement (or starting to sue to get into the position of a plea-bargain), where the details are figured out.
---------
There's really no "political benefit" to forcing Elon Musk to become the new owner of Twitter. There's a lot of room for creativity here. Maybe Twitter manages to extract a $2 billion concession or $5 billion concession from Musk (rather than the limited $1 Billion in the deal, since that only applies to very restrictive terms)
Or maybe Twitter just bans Elon Musk from their platform for wanton trolling and collects the $1 Billion. Who knows?
Just because Twitter's Board is legally allowed to do X, doesn't mean that they will do X. They will use X to threaten Musk into doing Y (and Y is what they really want). I'm not sitting in Twitter's Board of Directors right now, I don't know what their "Plan Y" is. But I have reason to believe that X (ie: forcing Musk to buy Twitter at $54.20) isn't in their best interest.
Shame on Musk for writing $54.20 into the contract then.
Just because the value of something changed after you wrote the contract doesn't mean that you can break the contract unilaterally. Musk could have gotten around this with an all-stock deal (ex: I'll give the Twitter board 100,000 shares of TSLA or whatever), or other ways to write the contract without setting a particular dollar amount.
But Musk wrote $54.20 and signed it.
And the contract even says the Twitter Board can force Elon Musk to buy Twitter and finish the deal at $54.20. So they made it crystal clear to Musk (and his lawyers) that the $54.20 price points stays, no matter how Twitter's price changes over the next weeks.
I think offering a direct swap for his TSLA shares at 20:1 would have been a smart move. It would have cost him like 5% of TSLA, which is a lot but still would have left him with the same % that Bezos has of AMZN
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/30/tesla-recalls-475000-model-3...
Musk can claim that he relied on these numbers when making the offer. "Material misrepresentation" is the term he'd use and it just might work. There's an implied good faith in every contract, so irrespective of how "strict" the terms are, Twitter may have difficulty enforcing the agreement in this scenario.
That is, Twitter would have had to literally disclose that these numbers were unreliable, and have Musk agree under those terms in order to not have a fight on their hands.
But digging deeper, the "people in the know" are now pointing out that this $1 Billion escape clause is actually very restrictive and unlikely to be invoked. Musk might be forced into buying Twitter at the previously negotiated $54.20 price.
But there's also the question: will Twitter's board really go to court to force Musk to buy it at $54.20? There's also the question of politics here. Even if Twitter's board is in the legal-right to do so, forcing Musk to become the new owner is bad politics.
------
There's also the possibility of the Twitter Board's incompetence. Maybe they don't realize the advantageous position they're in and give up before testing Musk in court?