42 ms·
FWIW, I believe the key line is this: We believed the best path forward was having Elon as a fiduciary of Twitter where he, like all board members, must act in
by yumraj 5y ago
FWIW, I believe the key line is this:
We believed the best path forward was having Elon as a fiduciary of Twitter where he, like all board members, must act in the best interests of our company and our shareholders.
The fact that Elon would have had to act in the best interest of Twitter and not his own might have been the deal breaker.
OTOH, I was preparing myself to read that Elon has forced Twitter to enable Trump's account, given Elon's dislike for Biden and his earlier tweets about "free speech". Perhaps that was the deal breaker which made Elon decide to double down, increase his stake and do a hostile takeover and appoint him the CEO.
I guess Twitter is in for some real fun over the next few months..
- nocoiner 5y agoI think that Delaware has a takeover statute that’ll basically for the next few years prevent Musk from effecting a hostile takeover without the support of the board. And if he acquirers enough shares to to become a “controlling” stockholder, he’ll owe fiduciary duties to the rest of the stockholders based on his status as a controller.
- yumraj 5y agoGood info, didn’t know that. But, if he acquires a controlling stake he can vote his own board and go that route. Either ways I don’t see this ending well for Twitter - though may not happen in time for the midterm elections. 2024, who knows..