Twitter board adopts poison pill after Musk’s $43B bid to buy company

Post by nonethewiser » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 4:28 PM UTC

systemvoltage wrote: post #281

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #105

So, I'm not very corporate savvy and this might be a very stupid question. Is there a NON-culture/political reason for all the push back against Musk buying Twitter? From the read, this just seem to be opening the door for someone else to try and take majority control and pining away for the days of Dorsey (which, if looked at objectively, weren't great... just filling an opportunity).

The sad truth is that this is an intense political battle. I would personally favor Elon Musk taking over and shaking things up, any other position is untenable. And, I am saying this as a progressive. I think an open and transparent social platform would be great for the society. The issue is that managerial class of America, both in private and public sector, are in bed with each other. The government cannot suppre…

Post by nonethewiser » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 4:32 PM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #291

nickysielicki wrote: post #29

I don’t understand how any board can implement a “poison pill”, not just Twitter but Netflix and others, and not be found working against the interest of shareholders. Can anyone help me understand? You’re categorically changing the profile of the stock. This has a chilling effect on large investors, including but not limited just to Musk, right? Vanguard, for example, has just had its range of further investment lim…

If I was a member of Twitter's board, Musk's history of erratic public behavior, SEC settlement, and openly hostile attitude towards the company's employees would be more than sufficient to justify my belief that his controlling ownership would not be in the interest of the current average shareholder. That opinion would also be consistent with how "fiduciary duty" is interpreted by US regulators: companies are not r…

Post by mlindner » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 5:05 PM UTC

kderbyma wrote: post #936

mlindner wrote: post #931

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk has never done a pump and dump, so I'm not sure where you get the idea of it being a "favorite pasttime".

he prompts his massive following to jump...he is Pavlovian in a way with his cult

Post by bingohbangoh » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 5:28 PM UTC

the_svd_doctor wrote: post #344

bingohbangoh wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it legal until somebody successfully sues for it to be nulled? The US legal system is kind of based around this adversarial situation imo.

Given that it's not a new mechanism and the amount of money involved, I assume if it wasn't legal this would have been sued into oblivion already.

Post by throwntoday » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 5:42 PM UTC

imilk wrote: post #657

throwntoday wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's more interested in the power of twitter as the public square. There's no doubt Trump won his presidency through that social media presence (and his non-stop rallying of course). That kind of power is more useful than say buying the Washington Post. I would be more interested in him implementing certain features like a journalistic credibility score for outlets and individuals. Base it on number of retrac…

> I would be more interested in him implementing certain features like a journalistic credibility score for outlets and individuals. Base it on number of retractions, mistakes, and outright lies. Surely a score like that might put certain fake news propagators in line. Which then raises the issue of who scores the scorer. You already have people throwing fits because the garbage they post gets labeled as misleading o…