Live data from Hacker News

Elon’s Out

bloomberg.com

21–30 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#21

I don’t understand why we need to make things personal: a multibillionaire with practically unlimited resources is negotiating with a multibillion dollar corporation with practically unlimited resources. It’s clear that the offer Elon got stuck with has an unrealistic price at this point (and Elon just want a reason to get out of the deal), just like it’s clear that Twitter’s management is incompetent in the last few…

Twitter management is not incompetent, Musk set his own price. He should definitely pay a fine. You can't walk into a situation and cause major chaos - literally executive turnover, stock going crazy, all sorts of turmoil - and then walk away on bad faith and excuses. Also - he does not have unlimited resources. He literally cannot afford this deal right now.

He practically bought it; it's unlikely an agency or third party to intervene / object; only thing to "save" him is stating he doesn't have the monwy/funding was pulled due to lack of information. Even then, I doubt he would avoid it.

Of course they can drag each other to the bottom until one gives up. I doubt Musk will and Twitter might have existential issues if it doesn't get bought with rumors related to their user base quality.

Re: Elon’s Out

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could ask him to pay the $1B fine in the deal for walking away?

No. The $1B clause does not involved the two contractual parties pulling out of the deal.

Why do you think it's mutual when Twitter is suing him for backing out?

Re: Elon’s Out

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The $1B clause does not involved the two contractual parties pulling out of the deal.

? It's my understanding that if Musk walks, he's supposed to pay $1B and visa versa. So he's using the 'bot' issue to find an excuse for a deal he wants out of. [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/elon-musk-twitter-1.6432315

It seems like a common misunderstanding because the reporting around this is so bad.

> Musk and Twitter agreed to a so-called reverse termination fee of $1 billion when the two sides reached a deal last month. Still, the breakup fee isn’t an option payment that allows Musk to bail without consequence.

> A reverse breakup fee paid from a buyer to a target applies when there is an outside reason a deal can’t close, such as regulatory intermediation or third-party financing concerns. A buyer can also walk if there’s fraud, assuming the discovery of incorrect information has a so-called “material adverse effect.” A market dip, like the current sell-off that has caused Twitter to lose more than $9 billion in market cap, wouldn’t count as a valid reason for Musk to cut loose — breakup fee or no breakup fee — according to a senior M&A lawyer familiar with the matter.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-awa...

Re: Elon’s Out

#25

I'd like to learn how to read billionaires' minds. Anyone know a good book I can read so that I can have the skills of this opinion writer?

There's reams of Musk's direct thoughts about this topic and many many others, coincidentally available on twitter dot com. It's not overly difficult to get a sense of who he is and how he thinks about things.

Re: Elon’s Out

#26
post #2

This is a second time Musk has offered to buy a public company in bad faith. His reputation as a sufficiently reliable counterparty is gone.

His money will keep on talking tomorrow, unfortunately.

His dollar is worth 70 cent after this.

It's likely that this will be the most expensive manic episode any individual has suffered.

Re: Elon’s Out

#27

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…

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”.

Re: Elon’s Out

#28

I don’t understand why we need to make things personal: a multibillionaire with practically unlimited resources is negotiating with a multibillion dollar corporation with practically unlimited resources. It’s clear that the offer Elon got stuck with has an unrealistic price at this point (and Elon just want a reason to get out of the deal), just like it’s clear that Twitter’s management is incompetent in the last few…

Pretty much.

It’s like selling a house and buyer makes an offer with no contingencies.

Sure, you can sue them to close the deal but the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. Does Twitter want to be locked into some multi-year court battle?

They’ll settle and the news will move onto something else.

Re: Elon’s Out

#29
There's been a lot of speculating around here on exactly what it would take for Musk to get out of this deal; here's the TLDR of the analysis from Levine:

> Musk cannot get out of the deal just because one of Twitter’s representations is false. He still has to close the deal unless the representation is false and it would have a “material adverse effect” on Twitter. This is a famously under-defined term but it generally needs to be a pretty catastrophic effect. If the bots are 6% of mDAUs, whatever. If the bots are 75% of mDAUs and Twitter has been knowingly misleading its advertisers, and Musk can expose that scam and advertisers flee and Twitter faces legal trouble for its fraud, then, sure, material adverse effect.

As to whether there is any evidence of a false representation (not even addressing material adverse effect due to that false representation):

> The only basis for the claim is that “preliminary analysis by Mr. Musk’s advisors of the information provided by Twitter to date causes Mr. Musk to strongly believe that the proportion of false and spam accounts included in the reported mDAU count is wildly higher than 5%.” Notice that Ringler does not say that the analysis shows that the bots are “wildly higher than 5%” of mDAUs: That would be a factual claim that, I suspect, Musk’s advisers know is false. They make only the subjective claim that Musk “strongly believes” it.

And then, perhaps the better grounds for Musk to prevail:

> The second pretext is: Twitter is not giving Musk enough information about the bot problem. This is a better pretext, for technical legal reasons, which we have also discussed previously. In the closing conditions to the merger, representations are qualified by “material adverse effect”; just finding that a representation is false would not give Musk the right to terminate the deal unless it caused an MAE. But covenants are qualified by “all material respects”: In the merger agreement, Twitter promised to do certain things between signing and closing, and it has to do those things, whether or not there would be a material adverse effect from not doing them. So if Musk can prove that Twitter hasn’t complied with its obligations, he can get out of the deal.

Re: Elon’s Out

#30
post #28

I don’t understand why we need to make things personal: a multibillionaire with practically unlimited resources is negotiating with a multibillion dollar corporation with practically unlimited resources. It’s clear that the offer Elon got stuck with has an unrealistic price at this point (and Elon just want a reason to get out of the deal), just like it’s clear that Twitter’s management is incompetent in the last few…

Pretty much. It’s like selling a house and buyer makes an offer with no contingencies. Sure, you can sue them to close the deal but the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. Does Twitter want to be locked into some multi-year court battle? They’ll settle and the news will move onto something else.

> Does Twitter want to be locked into some multi-year court battle?

Delaware courts are pretty fast. The court case could conceivably be finished before the end of this year.

Post reply on HN