Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon’s Out

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#391

Post by dodobirdlord »

kcplate wrote: post #379
dodobirdlord wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s going to be interesting to see if Musk can prove they are holding back data. I think Twitter does have a danger here. Their want to know. That last part is the danger.

If they’re actually holding back data they contractually agreed to provide, then they aren’t living up to their side of the contract and maybe he has a way out. That doesn’t seem to be the case though. There is no “provided Elon Musk can verify that bots are less than 5% of users” clause in the contract.

Re: Elon’s Out

#392

Post by bandyaboot »

abirch wrote: post #287
almost_usual wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t invest in a company ran by a lunatic?

Twitter employees are watching the board force a lunatic to buy their company.

The Twitter board would have a tough time explaining why they didn’t enforce the rock solid agreement allowing the shareholders to sell their shares for an extreme premium.

Re: Elon’s Out

#393

Post by avalys »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #140
alphabetting wrote: post #4

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…

From the Wall Street Journal this afternoon:

"“What are they going to do if there is a judgment and he says, ‘Well, I’m still not going to buy it’?” said Zohar Goshen, professor of transactional law at Columbia Law School. “They don’t really have tools to force him to go through with it. You don’t put people in jail because they don’t buy something.”"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-elon-musk-set-for-unpre...

Re: Elon’s Out

#394

Post by throwaway09223 »

powerhour wrote: post #357
throwaway09223 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a different problem and has to do with privacy. The government can't compel you to disclose everything you're doing without cause, and without due process. Having a court ordered judgement entered against you is cause and is a result of due process. It's an entirely different scenario.

We recently ditched privacy so I think we're getting closer to being able to have a wealth tax.

Roe's finding of a fundamental right to privacy in the 14th amendment is VERY different from the rights provided by the 4th amendment, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

It's a very different thing.

Re: Elon’s Out

#395

Post by bandyaboot »

scaramanga wrote: post #336
abirch wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter employees are watching the board force a lunatic to buy their company.

Because they know he has absolutely no ability to do so. They are simply trying to collect legal fees at this point.

I mean, he does though right? It’s just that doing so at this point would cause a world of hurt for Tesla and its shareholders?

Re: Elon’s Out

#396

Post by jogjayr »

refurb wrote: post #28
xiphias2 wrote: post #11

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.

> you can sue them to close the deal but the juice isn’t worth the squeeze

That really depends on the offer you accepted (A), the current value of the house (B), the cost of litigation (C), and the price you put on your time and mental energy (D). If A > B + C + D, it makes sense to force the buyer to close. And in most cases, you're relying on the buyer to close in order to be able to close on the house you're moving to so you may have no choice.

Re: Elon’s Out

#397

Post by kibwen »

scaramanga wrote: post #333
paulcole wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is Levine seriously suggesting that US courts don't have the authority to impose financial penalties, find liability, and seize assets No. He’s suggesting that Musk’s wealth and power will make the people who work in US courts reluctant to impose financial penalties, find liability, and seize assets.

Not to mention his bizarre hold on the public imagination. He's the worlds most simped compulsive liar. I think authorities may also be afraid of looking like Nazi jackboots on the neck of this innocent guy who would be in federal prison serving long sentences if he was just some obscure hedge fund dude, known only to other hedge fund dudes, like Bernie Madhoff.

> He's the worlds most simped compulsive liar.

Still a strong #2, but he sure is trying his hardest for that top spot.

Re: Elon’s Out

#398

Post by imgabe »

hotpotamus wrote: post #150
throwaway09223 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Anytime the idea of a wealth tax is brought up, I see commenters coming out of the woodwork to say that it would be impossible to actually collect it from the wealthy. Though I will note that it seems like we are able to collect yachts and planes from Russian oligarchs now, so perhaps our techniques have advanced in the last few months.

Yachts and planes are physical objects and represent a tiny, tiny fraction of a billionaire's wealth.

Wealth is actual ownership interest in valuable companies, which can be moved offshore or the person can renounce citizenship and relocate to a country with friendlier tax laws in the extreme case.

Re: Elon’s Out

#400

Post by throwaway09223 »

pc86 wrote: post #303
throwaway09223 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a different problem and has to do with privacy. The government can't compel you to disclose everything you're doing without cause, and without due process. Having a court ordered judgement entered against you is cause and is a result of due process. It's an entirely different scenario.

Assuming that a wealth tax was passed, wouldn't the cause here be proper reporting and collection of said tax? You can declare illegal income on your federal return and pay taxes on it. They're not (in this hypothetical I guess?) asking what you're doing , just how much it's made you.

The issue is that people can change how they own things so they don't have to disclose. The law is necessarily public and people can adjust the way they structure ownership accordingly.

We see this all the time already. For example, Medicaid won't pay for your extremely expensive end of life care if you have assets. So, people give away their assets (to a trust, to family) before applying for Medicaid to cover their nursing home. It becomes a game of cat and mouse. People will adjust where they can to avoid tax.

This also already happens with income tax. For example, executive compensation is primarily provided as capital gains rather than income because it's much more tax efficient. Everything is in the open.

The other issue here is one of cost. The IRS has to fund the cost of analyzing filings and deciding to audit. This is very different from a post-judgement scenario.

Post reply on HN