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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#801

Post by rvnx »

stingraycharles wrote: post #694
partloyaldemon wrote: post #691

Chancery courts will compel performance of this transaction absent a showing of an material adverse advent. Very, very high bar. The buyer is a highly sophisticated investor and the grounds that he is alleging form the basis of the breach of contract were and are public information that has not materially changed nor been alleged to have materially changed since the signing of the merger agreement. Moreover, and most…

I actually have experience with this type of stuff, some business tried to acquire mine and kept postponing, and ended up with some excuse that there wasn’t enough technical design documentation, which would be a real-breaker. It wasn’t super big money, but also not small (high 6-figures). I ended up suing them, won on all counts, and the deal had to go through. Unfortunately, this company simply refused to do that e…

Why would you force someone to buy something they don't want, whatever the reason is ? If they decided not to proceed to the deal it means it was a bad deal from their perspective or that it would put them in a worse situation. Essentially you are taking advantage of them by forcing them. It's like if you sell a very expensive "brown ice cream", the buyer tells you he wants to buy it, and then when the buyer has it in hands they realize it's not chocolate and you say: "but it's brown ice cream, you are forced to buy it now"

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#802

Post by hansword »

cloutchaser wrote: post #770
partloyaldemon wrote: post #691

Chancery courts will compel performance of this transaction absent a showing of an material adverse advent. Very, very high bar. The buyer is a highly sophisticated investor and the grounds that he is alleging form the basis of the breach of contract were and are public information that has not materially changed nor been alleged to have materially changed since the signing of the merger agreement. Moreover, and most…

I don't think Elon is trying to get out of it, he's got 2 goals: 1. Buy more time until stock market (i.e. Tesla shares) recover 2. Renegotiate the price Either one will probably mean he goes through with the deal. If he is under litigation for a year so be it, once the stock market recovers he's sacrificing a lot less of tesla to buy it. It's a big IF though. If the US recession gets really bad and the Fed stops int…

> buy more time until Tesla shares recover

The problem is that Tesla is massively over-inflated and Musk knows it and many people believe that was actually the reason for the whole twitter thing (Musk converting overinflated Tesla shares to fair-market value Twitter shares). With Tesla very likely losing the 'biggest EV maker' title to Volkswagen by the end of the year, it here has to be some sleight-of-musk for TSLA to recover.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#804

Post by ehnto »

rvnx wrote: post #801
stingraycharles wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually have experience with this type of stuff, some business tried to acquire mine and kept postponing, and ended up with some excuse that there wasn’t enough technical design documentation, which would be a real-breaker. It wasn’t super big money, but also not small (high 6-figures). I ended up suing them, won on all counts, and the deal had to go through. Unfortunately, this company simply refused to do that e…

Why would you force someone to buy something they don't want, whatever the reason is ? If they decided not to proceed to the deal it means it was a bad deal from their perspective or that it would put them in a worse situation. Essentially you are taking advantage of them by forcing them. It's like if you sell a very expensive "brown ice cream", the buyer tells you he wants to buy it, and then when the buyer has it i…

To get their money, presumably. If Twitter stocks fall due to this situation then all the more interest in getting the previously set deal to go through.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#805

Post by xmodem »

rvnx wrote: post #801
stingraycharles wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually have experience with this type of stuff, some business tried to acquire mine and kept postponing, and ended up with some excuse that there wasn’t enough technical design documentation, which would be a real-breaker. It wasn’t super big money, but also not small (high 6-figures). I ended up suing them, won on all counts, and the deal had to go through. Unfortunately, this company simply refused to do that e…

Why would you force someone to buy something they don't want, whatever the reason is ? If they decided not to proceed to the deal it means it was a bad deal from their perspective or that it would put them in a worse situation. Essentially you are taking advantage of them by forcing them. It's like if you sell a very expensive "brown ice cream", the buyer tells you he wants to buy it, and then when the buyer has it i…

Well, this probably doesn't come up very often in general, but one reason for Twitter to want to proceed might be if someone had signed a legally binding agreement to pay 15 billion dollars more than the market rate.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#806

Post by scoopertrooper »

postmeta wrote: post #741
cjbgkagh wrote: post #651

It’s been amusing to see the flip from people saying Musk can’t buy Twitter to Musk must buy Twitter. Buying Twitter the way Musk did right before the most telegraphed recession in modern history was colossal stupidity. I have no insight to Musks liquidity, but if Twitter is able to force him to complete the sale in the middle of a raging recession then how much of his empire would be diminished by forced liquidation…

What happened to the poison pill strategy to keep him from buying it?

A moderate breeze came along and the Twitter board gave up on it after about an hour.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#807

Post by ekianjo »

partloyaldemon wrote: post #691

Chancery courts will compel performance of this transaction absent a showing of an material adverse advent. Very, very high bar. The buyer is a highly sophisticated investor and the grounds that he is alleging form the basis of the breach of contract were and are public information that has not materially changed nor been alleged to have materially changed since the signing of the merger agreement. Moreover, and most…

> Thus, the courts will obligate Musk to buy the business as he agreed to in April.

That last statement does not follow everything else before. Courts have no power to do that.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#808

Post by AussieWog93 »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #757
MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #578

Musk would have been a political player, as the owner of twitter. That could have gotten him into a fight with the wrong people, and could have hurt his business. I mean AWS didn't get the big pentagon contract, under the previous US president. Mr. Besos was very upset about this. Now Musk is much more exposed to that kind of thing, as SpaceX is a major Nasa contractor. There must be some politics here, if you consid…

wow, once upon a time you could have a discussion here on any topic, hope that feature is not disappearing....

You were downvoted because your comment about the veiled threat from Biden is a pretty crazy conspiracy theory.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#809

Post by Fiahil »

> While Twitter has provided some information, that information has come with strings attached, use limitations or other artificial formatting features, which has rendered some of the information minimally useful to Mr. Musk and his advisors. For example, when Twitter finally provided access to the eight developer “APIs” first explicitly requested by Mr. Musk in the May 25 Letter, those APIs contained a rate limit lower than what Twitter provides to its largest enterprise customers. Twitter only offered to provide Mr. Musk with the same level of access as some of its customers after we explained that throttling the rate limit prevented Mr. Musk and his advisors from performing the analysis that he wished to conduct in any reasonable period of time.

> Additionally, those APIs contained an artificial “cap” on the number of queries that Mr. Musk and his team can run regardless of the rate limit—an issue that initially prevented Mr. Musk and his advisors from completing an analysis of the data in any reasonable period of time. Mr. Musk raised this issue as soon as he became aware of it, in the first paragraph of the June 29 Letter: “we have just been informed by our data experts that Twitter has placed an artificial cap on the number of searches our experts can perform with this data, which is now preventing Mr. Musk and his team from doing their analysis.” That cap was not removed until July 6, after Mr. Musk demanded its removal for a second time.

Interesting. Technical limitation, or not, it's unlikely that their API was changed just to upset Musk's team. It's most probably a pile of wonky code with artificial limitations hardcoded by customer so it doesn't crash their database.

Post reply on HN