371–380 of 767 posts
I find it amazing that not one of the top comments gives Elon ANY consideration that maybe, just maybe, he has a legitimate case against Twitter. We don’t know what he’s found, what he was told, what he was promised, what changed on Twitter’s side. Some very top level people bailed or were fired shortly after Elon’s acquisition proposal was announced. It sure appears that Elons is just balking, but what is far more l…
I found this part most interesting. Public awareness of the Delaware Court of Chancery is about to skyrocket during this court battle. The fact that Musk is working in such bad faith here — that he seems so unconcerned with law and the contract he signed — cuts both ways. On the one hand, it will certainly annoy a Delaware chancellor; Delaware likes to think of itself as a stable place for corporate deals, with predi…
> What if the court orders Musk to close the deal and he says no? I can't believe people are taking this very silly statement seriously. This is utter nonsense. There are remedies for people who disobey court orders. Having assets makes you more vulnerable to a court's authority because you have something to lose. If a court orders specific performance and he doesn't do it then he's liable and the court will take his…
There are remedies for people like you and me and most people who disobey court orders.
You can observe time and again that for those who are well connected and have some billions, the concept of law is far more malleable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one of those things that could genuinely cause problem for the entire US (corporate) legal system. There’s a genuine danger that the result of this case will be “some people are too powerful to be regulated by the US system, and this is now obvious”.
It's wild to me that people think that Elon might actually face legal consequences for this. The Delaware court isn't some magical place run by elves. It's a court in the US. You know what's a lot cheaper than $34 billion dollars, or heck even $1 billion dollars? $200k for 3-4 judges. The Supreme Court just changed the law of the land based on a right-wing political campaign. You think a billionare, let alone the ric…
This article says Musk agreed to buy Twitter mostly as a joke. I think there's a far better explanation. This wasn't a joke for Musk because after agreeing to buy Twitter he proceeded to sell billions of dollars' worth of TSLA stock, supposedly to finance the purchase. Even for the richest man in the world that's not a joke. I think a better explanation is that Musk offered to buy Twitter as a cover for selling billi…
> I think a better explanation is that Musk offered to buy Twitter as a cover for selling billions of dollars' worth of TSLA. Why waive due diligence then? What’s that saying don’t assume malice when it can be explained by ignorance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've basically written a lot of words here to say that Musk is making companies people want to invest in, and somehow that's the Fed's fault.
You’re missing the key point then. People want to invest in NFTs too, and if you don’t see why that’s a problem you’re willfully blind.
I think NFTs are stupid, but I don't think they're "a problem".
People spend lots of money on stuff I find stupid. I would never buy a Gucci handbag, they have about as much value as an NFT. But if someone else wants to, it doesn't hurt me, so, so what?
This article says Musk agreed to buy Twitter mostly as a joke. I think there's a far better explanation. This wasn't a joke for Musk because after agreeing to buy Twitter he proceeded to sell billions of dollars' worth of TSLA stock, supposedly to finance the purchase. Even for the richest man in the world that's not a joke. I think a better explanation is that Musk offered to buy Twitter as a cover for selling billi…
> I think a better explanation is that Musk offered to buy Twitter as a cover for selling billions of dollars' worth of TSLA. Why waive due diligence then? What’s that saying don’t assume malice when it can be explained by ignorance.
Most people would do their due diligence under NDA for a while while negotiating prices before making an announcement, and before lining up funding.
I found this part most interesting. Public awareness of the Delaware Court of Chancery is about to skyrocket during this court battle. The fact that Musk is working in such bad faith here — that he seems so unconcerned with law and the contract he signed — cuts both ways. On the one hand, it will certainly annoy a Delaware chancellor; Delaware likes to think of itself as a stable place for corporate deals, with predi…
Maybe this is a good reason a single human being shouldn't be so fucking rich. If enough money makes you untouchable by the law, then our system is simply broken.
if you look at this as a problem with the rich, you're not being creative enough.
Speaking as if we're assuming Musk gets away with this, this is a justice enforcement problem -- when all the mega-rich are gone the justice system that displays this level of corruption will just skim the highest payers available to them; they won't just give up these corrupt practices because there isn't a local billionaire to tap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they still own the stock, the government hasn’t taken anything from them. The stock might be worth less money the same way a house might be worth less money if a city government decided to stop repairing the road in front of it, or if the city relaxed zoning laws, but the price of assets in the market isn’t a responsibility of the government, and it generally does not incur liability when it causes them to change…
I think a more appropriate example would be if the government did some work around the house and in the process damaged the house, thereby lowering the value. The thing being damaged is shareholder confidence, which I thought (but IANAL) taps into different securities-related laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This to me seems the most reasonable explanation and explains most of the behaviors involved on both sides. I don’t buy into “it was just a joke that went too far” theory. Musk doesn’t want a turd. Twitter, essentially made a deal with the devil (from their perspective). Despite being initially opposed to this deal, they now has to sue to try and make it happen, because I suspect if it doesn’t “south of $30” is going…
The possibility of other takeovers doesn’t need to factor into this. If Twitter’s share price is significantly below the price they can force Musk to buy the company at, then the board has an obligation to shareholders to force the sale, and will be sued by the shareholders if they don’t.
I think Twitter does have a danger here. Their want to know. That last part is the danger.
I found this part most interesting. Public awareness of the Delaware Court of Chancery is about to skyrocket during this court battle. The fact that Musk is working in such bad faith here — that he seems so unconcerned with law and the contract he signed — cuts both ways. On the one hand, it will certainly annoy a Delaware chancellor; Delaware likes to think of itself as a stable place for corporate deals, with predi…
> What if the court orders Musk to close the deal and he says no? I can't believe people are taking this very silly statement seriously. This is utter nonsense. There are remedies for people who disobey court orders. Having assets makes you more vulnerable to a court's authority because you have something to lose. If a court orders specific performance and he doesn't do it then he's liable and the court will take his…