51–60 of 250 posts
> Twitter hasn’t paid rent on its headquarters, or any of its other global offices, in weeks, the New York Times reported on Dec. 13. Isn’t rent paid once per month? When I was a renter, this could’ve been said about me literally every month, once two weeks had elapsed between payments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually not. Typically in a bankruptcy the debtholders become the new shareholders and then replace existing management with ones more friendly to their interests.
At which point Musk wouldn't own Twitter anymore, like he wanted. It sounds crazy, but is this his exit strategy?
Seems HN is does not have expertise in this and who holds the cards in the current market in SF. The lease previously negotiated by the past regime has little relevance as Twitter is currently occupying less than 50% of the floor space. The landlord has to either accept lower payment, or look for a new tenant and Twitter moves to Austin. Given the current environment in SF, it's likely a new tenant won't be found for…
What a completely bizarre interpretation of contract law. Lessors may be in a bind after the lease expires, but during the term of the lease they are entitled to its terms. Nobody can simply stop performing the terms of a lease, outside of bankruptcy.
Sure you have a contract but you need to enforce it. So you have to sue which takes time - a lot of time.
Then you “win” but the other party can still not pay, or they could appeal - back to court and even more time.
The landlord has an iron clad contract sure - but Twitter has what they want ($) and the leverage as a result.
None of this is as interesting as most people seem to think. Businesses do lots of stuff to negotiate and renegotiate and bully / squeeze / etc. each other. It will likely be worked out without the lawsuit actually making its way through the court system.
> Businesses do lots of stuff to negotiate and renegotiate and bully / squeeze / etc. each other. The United States elected a President who bragged about doing exactly this, so it’s a little odd that it appears unfamiliar to most here.
Seems HN is does not have expertise in this and who holds the cards in the current market in SF. The lease previously negotiated by the past regime has little relevance as Twitter is currently occupying less than 50% of the floor space. The landlord has to either accept lower payment, or look for a new tenant and Twitter moves to Austin. Given the current environment in SF, it's likely a new tenant won't be found for…
Reputation matters.
Might as well go 100% remote.
Is the calculation just that the cost of litigation will be less than the full contract lease? I don’t understand how that could work.
Litigation takes years to play out, paying the lease would result in bankruptcy imminently. Plan is to live another day, long enough to stabilize finances, and then unload it on the public markets where the litigation becomes somebody else's problem.
Is the calculation just that the cost of litigation will be less than the full contract lease? I don’t understand how that could work.
Bankruptcy and leases survey:
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/what-to-do-when-commercial...
> Twitter hasn’t paid rent on its headquarters, or any of its other global offices, in weeks, the New York Times reported on Dec. 13. Isn’t rent paid once per month? When I was a renter, this could’ve been said about me literally every month, once two weeks had elapsed between payments.