Live data from Hacker News

Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

sec.gov

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#811
post #809

> 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 lo…

It doesn’t really matter. The time to ask these questions was before signing a binding contract to purchase the company.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#812
post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a way, Twitter played Musk's ego to perfection and he didn't see it until its too late. In fact I'm not sure he even admits it to himself yet.

Musk played everyone. I called it as soon as it was announced that he was just manipulating the markets. Hopefully SEC actually does something for once.

He didn't play anyone, he got played. There was a ton of way he could have sold stocks without being on the hook for a 44 billions purchase he doesn't want to close. And he even could have sold the stock without any excuses since the stock fell anyway.

He is not getting anything out of this that he couldn't have gotten in a better, smarter way. But they told him he couldn't so he let his ego get the best of him again and got himself trapped.

Even went ahead and threw out his right to due diligence, which is the part that confirms it was ego and not smart thinking, and the entire reason he cannot get a clean exit now.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#813
post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a way, Twitter played Musk's ego to perfection and he didn't see it until its too late. In fact I'm not sure he even admits it to himself yet.

Musk played everyone. I called it as soon as it was announced that he was just manipulating the markets. Hopefully SEC actually does something for once.

That would imply that he didn’t outplay SEC, which is a big deal. So not that smart.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#814

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.

Why wouldn't courts have the power to do that? If the court rules you have no grounds to terminate the contract then you will have to execute the contract as originally agreed upon.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#815
post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So my hunch that this could lead to him going broke isn't completely off base? I figure he ends up having to pay $10E+10, and everyone knows it, so he gets short-squeezed in Tesla stock, then margin called on any loans against his stock... then POOF

> he gets short-squeezed in Tesla stock What?

Yeah that makes no sense. He has a lot of stock and wants to sell some.

A short squeeze means you have an obligation to buy shares and not enough are available, that drives the price up like crazy.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes more sense if you assume that Elon Musk is both a sometimes successful businessman and also suffering from unmanaged bipolar disorder.

Can we not jump to blaming a person's bad choices on the first medical condition that fits? I know Musk has said he has bipolar disorder, and I'm not trying to discount that. I'm just saying what if... gasp... he simply did something foolish? The blame-it-on-the-bipolar out reinforces the narrative of an infallible person who only make mistakes because of a medical condition. Take that line of thinking one step furth…

A mistake or doing something foolish is going out in shorts in the winter and then getting a cold.

He spent days/weeks/months on setting up this deal, he became obsessed with it at some point.

(Hopefully) no one is "blaming" it on the bipolar. It's simply something consistent with bipolar. (But it's also consistent with rich people getting obsessed with something and then spending way too much resources on it.)

> reinforces the narrative

That narrative is simply bad and pushed by people who have no idea what they are talking about. Musk's previous instances of risk taking (that "all" turned out to be fine) is also perfectly consistent with bipolar. (Of course if you look at it then it turns out that he took many risks that made very little sense, like when he talked about taking Tesla private, the infamous funding secured tweet.)

And of course just a label like bipolar means (almost) nothing, these spectrum disorders are complex (and there are usually other comorbidities at the same time, just with different severity), we don't know how he is treating/medicating/managing it, or is it even the right diagnosis or not. Or he could have simply lied.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#817
post #801

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…

> Why would you force someone to buy something they don't want, whatever the reason is ?

Because they agreed to buy it? And because you stand to make a lot of money. Doesn't seem that complicated to me.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#818

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.

Well the court could obligate Musk to pay damages. One (simplistic) possibility might be to take the value Musk agreed to pay minus the current value of Twitter and force Musk to pay that. Then in theory Twitter would have received same value in the end.

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> With Tesla very likely losing the 'biggest EV maker' title

Since you mention it...

https://uk.pcmag.com/cars-auto/141332/tesla-is-no-longer-the...

Re: Notice of termination of Twitter merger agreement

#820
post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So my hunch that this could lead to him going broke isn't completely off base? I figure he ends up having to pay $10E+10, and everyone knows it, so he gets short-squeezed in Tesla stock, then margin called on any loans against his stock... then POOF

$10 bn out of $200+ bn won't make him go broke though. Don't see the logic in that, Mike.

Elon owns 16% of Tesla and Tesla stock is the vast majority of his wealth. If the market cap of Tesla were to crash below $150 billion it would be in the territory where his penalty to Twitter could be multiple billions more than the value of his Tesla stock.

I personally don’t think Tesla is worth even $100 billion. However, the markets disagree, and it is difficult to imagine a scenario where Tesla loses 80% of its value.

…but it’s not totally inconceivable.

Post reply on HN