241–250 of 767 posts
Did anyone think he would actually be allowed to buy it? Twitter, as a weapon for propaganda and a tool for information collection, is too important and powerful to just let someone like Musk do what he wants with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They could seize and sell at auction the real property of any of his businesses. SpaceX rockets? Office chairs? Servers? Anything. They could not, because he does not own those businesses outright. Doing so would violate the other owners rights. They can seize his shares in SpaceX, but not SpaceX property.
If they take all of Musk's shares in SpaceX and acquire a voting majority, they can then use those shares to vote to sell off the company's assets at the next board meeting.
Musk holds a key piece of America’s future in space in SpaceX. I wonder if it’s only a matter of time before he starts dangling that to get what he wants in cases like this. I still am generally favorable toward Elon, but I think we’re seeing him transform into a villain
I see in Elon a trait I also have, which is to pick up random things, get interested in them for a while, and start to do things, and then realize you're not interested in it at all and drop it. I'm thinking of tunnels, neuralink, AI, taking Tesla private, child saving cave submarine, things like that. I can easily imagine he thought one day that he wanted to get into social media, went full steam ahead, and then rea…
Did anyone think he would actually be allowed to buy it? Twitter, as a weapon for propaganda and a tool for information collection, is too important and powerful to just let someone like Musk do what he wants with it.
Twitter, the banks lending him money, and the other investors Elon lined up are all trying to make the transaction go forward.
So the answer is clearly that yes, Elon musk is "allowed" to buy Twitter if he actually wants to. He may even have to buy it based on the agreement he signed even if he no longer wants to.
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”.
US law obviously works in favor of billionaires. I doubt even Musk would want to expose it further, and the other parties involved in this deal surely don't. They will set their lawyers at it and come to a settlement. The super rich know better than to be at each others throats, that sort of behavior is for the poor...
Musk holds a key piece of America’s future in space in SpaceX. I wonder if it’s only a matter of time before he starts dangling that to get what he wants in cases like this. I still am generally favorable toward Elon, but I think we’re seeing him transform into a villain
I don't know about a villain, but he definitely isn't a saviour. Was hoping he'd follow through in reforming Twitter. But it turns out, even with all his resources, he's actually pretty weak in comparison to the forces set against him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the court will take his assets to compensate. How do you seize billions of dollars of stock without affecting share prices?
You don’t care and keep seizing and selling off assets until you hit the target number or you run out of things to seize. You’re acting like the asset value at all matters to the courts.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And those appeals can be ruled upon and then the case can reach a conclusion. It's not like the lawyers can just take _any_ case with _any_ facts and keep the case from _ever_ reaching a conclusion. The real question you should ask yourself is, if $44 billion is on the line, how long would you continue to pursue the case in the face of lawyers who are just trying to drag it out? Even if it went on for years (it's not…
I think you underestimate the burden on a company of multi-year litigation. They won’t get any more buyers while it’s happening and it’s a massive distraction. I’ve worked at companies like this and it brutal on employee morale. People just leave.
Who cares? If you think you're going to win, it's just Elon causing his future employees to quit. It's not going to affect your payday of $54.20. Similarly, no other buyers will make lower offers. Those are, by definition, worse than just suing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do public statements before he signed the deal that imply that he was aware that Twitter has a bot problem and already suspected that the number we much higher than reported by Twitter have any effect?
wasn't that literally the reason he claimed he wanted to buy it for in the first place? I remember him going on about verifying every human on twitter and improving our discourse the thing he's pretending to ditch the deal for was the thing he allegedly wanted to fix