This is like PE takeovers that sink companies that were previously treading water. It took on a new, ongoing expense that it couldn't afford. The layoffs, the auction, not paying leases, and this, all seem to have some cost cutting angle to them. I don't think it's necessarily because Musk is cheap or sees lots of fat to cut; I think he's desperate to lose less of his original investment.

I still don't understand why this behavior -- leveraged buyouts -- should not be illegal. Congresspeople are tools, I guess.

> Probably shouldn't have landed it with $1bn/year debt payments then, eh.

It's worth remembering the market setting was very different when he made the offer. It's also worth remembering the offer was refused at the time it was made. It was only after the tech market saw a downturn, turning a good offer into an incredible one, was the offer pursued. Around that time, it also looks like he attempted to renegotiate the offer, but that was also refused.

Poor timing of the offer (only knowable in retrospect!) and shareholder obligations more or less forced this situation into existence. Musk made a good offer with a terrible contract; time, shareholders, the board, the legal system, and the stock market turned that terrible contract into a huge payout for shareholders and a signed a death warrant for Twitter.

Musk made a mistake in the way he made the offer for Twitter--but let's not pretend that the legal system isn't equally responsible for forcing the current situation. Even if the previous leadership were open to negotiating a lower buyout (and thus lower debt burden), they would have just opened themselves up to endless shareholder lawsuits had they done so. Their hands were effectively tied once the rest of the tech stock market started going down.