Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 1001 posts

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#381

Post by formerkrogemp »

thereare5lights wrote: post #274
slg wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Tesla stock did drop after the announcement of the deal. I think that is the real reasoning behind him quickly getting cold feet. He probably thought Twitter would be a fun side project, but the backlash from people in regards to Tesla, SpaceX, and just the general public meant it would be more costly both to his reputation and financially beyond just the sticker price. That took the fun out of it so he has been…

> but the backlash from people in regards to Tesla, SpaceX, and just the general public There's no way he didn't foresee this. It would be shocking if he is lacking in self-awareness to that extent.

> It would be shocking if he is lacking in self-awareness to that extent.

'Ol Musky missing self-awareness? Surely, you jest Mr. Spock!

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#382

Post by soneca »

paxys wrote: post #149
cormacrelf wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s because they want him to pay the agreed price. It is an extremely good deal for the shareholders now, so they are behaving perfectly rationally. And they can possibly force him to.

Yes but it was clear (to all outside observers, not the board apparently) that Musk never intended to pay the agreed price. He was just collecting enough material from them to justify his breach, and fake users was a smokescreen. Their response to any questions/statements about fake users should have been the equivalent of "you signed the agreement, now stick to it" not "let's work together and resolve your issues".

They said “let’s work together “ precisely to be able to sue and increase their chances of win for acting in good faith.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#383

Post by filoleg »

petilon wrote: post #311
rappatic wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything that is not explicitly illegal is allowed That's what free speech is , whether or not you agree that such a policy of unrestricted free speech is constructive or beneficial.

Disagree, there is no absolute freedom of speech, for example you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Also disagree that such unrestricted free speech is constructive or beneficial. Sacha Baron Cohen explains it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM

> You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

I am so tired of seeing this overplayed urban myth. The precedent you mention was set by Schenck v. United States in 1919, but it was partially overturned later in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 [0]. Which is the part that people who bring up this myth every time conveniently forget about.

So no, you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater or whatever else you want, as long as it doesn't meet the legal standard for imminent lawless action (e.g., a riot). And the legal standard for imminent lawless action is much higher than you think it is.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#384

Post by ramacastro »

maxerickson wrote: post #375
ramacastro wrote: post #297

Quoted post unavailable.

It's not success until the first long term mission dies a desperate unnecessary death.

Sure, let's wait until the sun expands and kills all life on earth. All because of the fear of a single accident killing a few people. Sound logic.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#385

Post by namecheapTA »

Sporktacular wrote: post #361
pryce wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone's stock is as incredibly overinflated as Tesla has been for so long, choosing the most effective way to liquidate stock without triggering a run becomes a social engineering problem with the incentive of a multi-billion dollar payoff. Honestly I think other people trying to read this situation in some way that ignores a multi billion dollar incentive just sitting there is utterly naive.

Minus 1 billion for a termination fee. Why would he have agreed to that if it was his plan all along?

Sell $40b of Tesla without causing a dip, is worth a lot more than $1b. A 3% dip from news he's selling that much stock would cost way more than $1b.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#386

Post by beeboop »

Animats wrote: post #255

Tesla needs to focus. Two major assembly plants are down for line rework because the line runs too slowly. The battery factories are behind schedule. Solar roof installations are way under goal, despite high energy prices. "Self driving" is a flop. And whatever happened to the Cybertruck? Tesla is a car company. They need to focus on making cars. They're past the startup stage. To grow into that bloated market cap, t…

Can you provide the detailed schedule for battery factories? Can you provide the communications that show the lines are running too slowly? Can you provide the development roadmap for self driving to demonstrate it's ceasing to have progress? Can you provide evidence that the equipment in Giga Factory in Austin that's installed and ready to build the cyber trunk isn't going to be used for that?

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#387

Post by jmyeet »

I'm increasingly getting the sense that SpaceX is the anomaly here and otherwise Elon has been steadily failing upwards his entire life. Is that just me? Obligatory joke: this is the only time Elon has pulled out (if you know you know).

Tesla's peak market cap is ~$1.5T. It's still sitting at just under ~$800B. Tesla sold just under 1M cars last year putting one metric at (currently) $800,000 per car sold in a year.

How does any of that make sense? Just watch as traditional auto manufacturers ramp up EV production. The Ford F150 Lightning is in my mind a bellwether. From what I've seen it's been incredibly well-received and that's only the beginning. Compare that to the often ridiculed and clearly beleaguered Cybertruck.

I really wonder if Elon's attempted acquisition of Twitter is just a symptom of him becoming increasingly unhinged (eg his screeds against the "far left"). I really wonder if this hwole thing wasn't motivated by the perceived injustice (according to him) of Trump being banned in particular and the idea that conservatives are somehow being silenced.

But maybe this is 5 dimensional Chess. One can argue this hass done a lot of damage to Twitter and Elon may be on the hook for more than the $1B breakout fee (which he will of course try and weasel out of). This may actually drag on for years.

Personally I'd be happy just disappeared into a lab in a remote location where he can build rockets without distraction. I can but hope.

I honestly think the skyrocketing valuation

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#388

Post by elliekelly »

agrajag wrote: post #358
elliekelly wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My heart sank when I read your comment: why on earth would the board sue for specific performance!? But my reading of the statement in the tweet is that they plan to sue for enforcement of the agreement which I believe means paying the agreed-upon penalty for backing out of the deal. I don’t at all read that statement as a plan to seek specific performance.

> closing the transaction on the price and terms agreed upon They're definitely suing for specific performance, and I'm not sure they really have any other option at this point. It would be by far in their best financial interest if they can force closing the sale, and Musk's objections seem really thin. Doing anything less than that is complete capitulation I can see them reaching a settlement to agree to cancel the…

Is his “financing secured”? It just seems like an incredible (and incredibly risky) long shot to me: a judge actually ordering a sale to an unwilling buyer (and Musk, of all buyers!) is a long shot and the big banks going through with funding such a big deal to an _unwilling_ owner is a long shot. But _even_if_ both of those two unlikely things happen what happens when the judge orders specific performance and Musk just... doesn’t? (Not usually a risk you have to factor in but with Musk I think this is absolutely a real possibility. Maybe even the most likely possibility.) Will they issue a warrant for his arrest? A daily fine for contempt? That would be the deal of the century for Musk.

I don’t know the right answer when you’re dealing with a megalomaniac like Musk but I really don’t think specific performance is it.

I am cautiously optimistic that whatever it is Musk is up to will eventually give rise to some cool new federal securities laws. Maybe even some new federal crimes! (Who am I kidding, a crime that only the wealthiest of the wealth would even be able to commit? Not in a million years!)

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#389

Post by beeboop »

adrr wrote: post #176
DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly would it result in his downfall? Do you think the terminally online even buy Teslas, or use Starlink, or, you know, shoot rockets into space?

His tweets are shared on the news. Like when he accused Thailand diver of being a pedophile.

Thanks you just finished my HN-thread-about-Elon bingo card.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#390

Post by sjs7007 »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #303

I have very little context here. It seems the general sentiment in the comments is that this attempt to get out of the merger agreement will fail and that Musk will be forced to follow through with the purchase of Twitter. At the current rate Twitter is trading at, Musk will be paying roughly 50% over market value to acquire the company. So a question: if you believe Musk will still purchase Twitter at an inflated pr…

Small correction, he'll be paying 50% over market value, not 150% more.
Post reply on HN