Not paying vendors and landlords as a negotiation tactic seems slimy. I assume they will eventually sue Twitter and win, but is there any punitive damages? If not, I am guessing Twitter will be rewarded for not paying by getting better terms on existing contracts.

They would at least get interest. But yes there isn't much in the way of consequences for being an asshole regarding AP.

I don't think it's uncommon. Big companies have always played dumb games with billing and contracting unless you can nail them to the wall with an ironclad "you pay us X on Y day or you pay us an extra Z per day" contract.

Big companies have a lot of leverage. Vendors don’t want to antagonize them in hope of getting paid eventually and due to a risk of retaliation. Going to court might be a suicide by legal expenses.

Tenporarily not paying vendors is pretty standard for cash strapped companies. (I've worked for some, we got away with a lot)

Large companies not paying their bills because they can get away with it is such bullshit. Trump famously did this with small business contractors at some of his casinos.

The reason it's such bullshit is that it's essentially hostage taking: "Why yes, I know we owe you $10 million and that's what we agreed to, but we're just not going to pay. You can sue us, but we have top notch lawyers that can drag it out for a long time, or else you can settle with us for $7 million right now."

I think there should be an equivalent of "small claims court" for cases like these where flat out missed payments are handled quickly and without the need for expensive lawyers, e.g. "Here's our contract, there is no disagreement that we delivered, so freeze their bank accounts if they don't pay us immediately."

Even if you have top notch lawyers, what exactly can they do, when there is a clear rent contract and no payment?

Drag it out? Force you to have to hire a lawyer to get paid?

Point being, I don't think a top notch lawyer will win, but given the cost of litigation (plus the time value of money), expensive corporate lawyers can force small vendors to settle with a sizable discount.

Yeah, but how can you drag it out, if the case is that clear?

And wouldn't have the loosing party pay everything in such a case, making it a very expensive case for them?

For a random Joe Schmoe, retaliation via collections harassment, eviction, and credit score problems is a real worry.

For a multibillion dollar company, especially one trying to STOP using things it’s currently obligated to use, the math works out different.

After all, being evicted actually helps them, as it breaks the lease and they don’t need to keep paying.

Especially when there is a huge commercial real estate crunch looming in many of these markets.

Plenty of delay and hassle tackles can be used to get some leverage when the letter of the contract/law isn’t in your favor.

Scummy, but often effective.