Or effective regulation.
@NeilB on the ball as always. He ghost wrote
Whatever the strength of its legal case, it is hard to see how Twitter will outsmart Musk. Forcing him to buy a company he no longer wishes to own is not a good outcome for the business.
Why would you think that?
Also doesn’t that FT article hit basically all the same points as my comment? Like parts of it are almost verbatim.
What all this means for Musk’s bid for Twitter is anyone’s guess.
But some lawyers suggest Musk’s defence is thin, if not laughable.
Moreover, the Securities and Exchange Commission does not take kindly to potential bidders creating a false market.
Perhaps something to do with the title of the graphic you’ve used and what Mr Trump said in the video?
OK. Perhaps I read the FT article slightly differently. There is more to it than Musk is this and Musk is that in it. For example,
But Twitter’s board is hardly a model of effective governance or savvy practice. It has tolerated poor financial performance for years and mishandled the talks with Musk.
Ha I didn’t make that it was just a very popular meme that did numbers, I was just using it to establish the background.
My preference would be for this deal to not go through, but I won’t be donning supporters kit to join a side. Admittedly it would be hilarious if it did, but we’ve seen Elon operating outside his area of expertise and it isn’t pretty and it’s hard to see it being positive for the platform. It would also probably hurt SpaceX/Tesla which actually are doing good work.
My intention was only to have some fun by saying he agrees with you.
Of course what you are saying makes a lot of sense! And as you state, there is something about the craziness that
The outcome of the spat between Twitter and Musk goes deeper than who the eventual “winner” will be.
And in particular for Twitter, if the bot count is found to be significantly higher as Musk claims.
The link explains it well.
Sad Elon now he doesn’t have time to negotiate a settlement
Pivot’s coverage (the podcast) on this saga is absolutely brilliant.
I’m down 11.16% on my Twitter holdings at the moment but I think I’m going to keep them until the nonsense is resolved. At this stage it seems to nothing but a dumb bet that:
- A court in Delaware, the company registration capital of the USA, will force Musk to give me $54.20 a share
- They’ll let him off the hook, he’ll walk away and the Twitter share price will collapse.
I don’t wish to over inflate my importance here, but it’s basically down to Richest Man In The World vs CashCow.
You’ve missed the other option : court orders musk to pay the withdraw clause of 2 billion ( I think it was) & Twitter gets to laugh at what an arse musk is, and then they ban him
The share price will then collapse again
The Pivot presenters aren’t sure that Twitter would do that because then Twitter is going to get sued by its shareholders for not sticking to the legally binding $54.20 offer.
I think they called it a grass action lawsuit
Twitter might push for the deal to be forced forward… The judge might disagree and force the withdraw penalty…
Therefore Twitter can’t be sued as the judge ordered it.
The SEC must be looking at the outcome of this very closely… they’ll be wanting to put a boot into musk
Pivot has been amazing on this, you can tell Prof G is feeling another WeWork style debacle and that made his name.
Their is a third option which would be to pay the $1bn AND restitution to the shareholder of $XXbn.
I would also recommend signing up to the Matt Levine substack, it’s not behind a paywall like his Bloomberg writing. It’s deep and a bit wordy at times but goes into the legal aspects from a former M&A banker.
The withdrawal penalty isn’t a withdrawal penalty, it’s the breakup fee for when the deal can’t be completed for reasons beyond either parties control, i.e: financing falls through, or regulatory intervention prevents the deal from going through. For the breakup fee to be appropriate, the judge would have to determine that the deal has been unable to complete for reasons beyond Musk’s control which is exceptionally unlikely because Musk has made very clear that it’s his choice for this deal not to complete (i.e: he still has the financing, but he believes Twitter aren’t acting in good faith).
The realistic best case for Musk is that the judge orders him to pay Twitter the amount of financial damage he has caused to Twitter shareholders (i.e: the number of outstanding shares (less his own holding) multiplied by the difference between the current share price and Musk’s offer, which would be ~700,000,000 shares * ($54.20 - $39.60) = ~$10 billion) and the worst case is he is forced to complete the deal. Either way, the tens-of-billions of financial harm to Musk is a foregone conclusion, the question is not “will this cost Musk a lot of money?” (it will) but rather “will Musk be burdened with owning Twitter?”.
I would be exceptionally surprised if this costs Musk any less than $10,000,000,000. There’s zero ambiguity about the harm Musk has caused to Twitter, not just in terms of the share price (which is quantifiable in monetary terms) but the chaos caused by the harmful comments he has made (including an exodus of important, valuable employees). I would not be surprised if the cost of this, to Musk, exceeds $20,000,000,000 all said and done. I highly recommend reading the lawsuit, Musk could not have put himself in a worse position if he tried.
I just wish the Delaware courtroom was televised. I don’t watch much TV but I found the absurdity of the Herd/Depp trial to be gripping - I think I watched about 90% of it.
I feel that this is going to be just as weird and just as good.
There’ll be a TV drama about it, as well as plenty on analysis