9 ms·

I actually have experience with this type of stuff, some business tried to acquire mine and kept postponing, and ended up with some excuse that there wasn’t eno

I actually have experience with this type of stuff, some business tried to acquire mine and kept postponing, and ended up with some excuse that there wasn’t enough technical design documentation, which would be a real-breaker. It wasn’t super big money, but also not small (high 6-figures). I ended up suing them, won on all counts, and the deal had to go through. Unfortunately, this company simply refused to do that even after the judge ruled against them, and I had to renegotiate the terms set by the judge. That was one hell of a ride. Point being, if Musk really doesn’t want it, even if Twitter wins a lawsuit, Musk will probably find another way to postpone or renegotiate or whatever. In the meantime, Twitter is not in a good shape, and this whole thing is probably hurting them so much more than that they could possibly benefit from.

synu 4y ago
What happened when they ignore dthe order from the judge? Nothing?
- nabla9 4y ago
  If he willfully disobeyed, there will be sequestration order against his assets. The court will appoint someone else to go trough his assets and find a way to pay. Selling Tesla stocks for example.
giansegato 4y ago
How could they refuse after being compelled by a court ruling? Did they appeal / sue you back? Can't see how they could simply say... "no".
- carom 4y ago
  When you have a judgement you can send it to collections, but often people just don't pay these things. It's really hard to collect for even small things like evictions.
  - dctoedt 4y ago
    > send it to collections When my now-adult son was in high school, he had a summer job working as a moving man for a friend's dad's company. The company had a contract with the local constable's office. One of my son's and his friend's assignments was to drive a truck around to the offices of a very-big shopping mall and to meet a constable to collect a seven-figure court judgment that hadn't been paid. The constable, my son, and his friend walked into the management office; the constable presented the writ of execution of the judgment, and my son and his friend started unplugging and loading up office equipment and furniture to be hauled off and sold at auction. The manager said "Wait, wait"; a hour later, a cashier's check arrived for the amount of the judgment.
    - BellLabradors 4y ago
      Video of a similar story: https://youtu.be/3ctLEGrOmf4 https://youtu.be/3ctLEGrOmf4
    - no-s 4y ago
      > The constable, my son, and his friend walked into the management office; the constable presented the writ of execution of the judgment, and my son and his friend started unplugging and loading up office equipment and furniture to be hauled off and sold at auction. yeah, that’s like totally reasonable. I’ve done similar back in the ‘80s, using a similar process seized bank accounts when the former employer ignored an order to pay a judgement over unpaid expenses. Notably they didn’t bother to appear in court in the first place; they never responded to service even though I paid extra to have the Sheriff’s Deputy serve it. Then they ignored my calls and letters for several weeks. I knew all the bank account numbers already, so: back to the judge for an order to seize the accounts. Showed up at the bank an hour later with the deputy in tow and walked out with a bank check for roughly $45k 30 minutes later. Nowadays a bank makes you wait some days for a payout but they will freeze the funds immediately. These days I prefer lawyering up, but in the late ‘70s I called on a supplier to deliver promised equipment that was being delayed because well, I was a teen-ager and even though I had paid they felt like I wasn’t a serious customer. So I paid a local motorcycle club $500 to escort me to the meeting, as well as sit there in the parking lot revving engines and scratching off whilst I met with the vendor. The MC got a hefty tip because: members helped load the product, and the MC president encouraged a 50% refund made out to me personally to ensure I would never have to be a customer again...
- stingraycharles 4y ago
  The judge ruled that the payment had to be made immediately; they could sue back, but they would have to pay first. In their words, it was a “BS ruling”, and they simply didn’t pay. I’ll tell you that I didn’t know you could just say “no”, but they did. My lawyers were at the point that they would send a (legally backed) letter to all their customers, that their payments should be redirected to some court. It would have caused a massive hellfire, though. I had the choice of going through with all this, but the outcome would still be uncertain, legal fees would increase, and take a long time regardless. It was a fully bootstrapped business, I was relatively young and in debt, and I decided to renegotiate. In the end I got the money I needed to pay off my debts, legal fees + then some, a huge learning experience, and took a 1 year sabbatical. I just wanted this whole thing to be over.
  - csomar 4y ago
    > I had the choice of going through with all this, but the outcome would still be uncertain, legal fees would increase, and take a long time regardless. So it’s just you deciding not to go with this… for some reason. I’m pretty sure if you enforced the ruling, you’d have gotten a quick response from them. It might seem like a dick move but they moved first. At $44bn, I highly doubt the dudes of Twitter will take the same stance you took.
    - lazide 4y ago
      I have a friend who got screwed by a major (top 5) US bank, won the court case against them, and they then refused to pay the settlement. He went through the paperwork, and 6 months later they wrote him a cashiers check right then and there when he showed up with the Sheriff to take possession of one of their prized historic artifacts from the lobby of their corporate headquarters during business hours. Not very many people are able and willing to deal with the shittiness of all the paperwork required, and a lot of bad actors count on that.
      - Kinrany 4y ago
        Should have taken the artifact. Magic items are always better
- pmorici 4y ago
  If a party is intent on being a bad actor it is extremely difficult to enforce judgments where the sum is too small to warrant extraordinary effort.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
martin8412 4y ago
Difference being, Twitter has deep pockets and are highly motivated to see this through.
- neilwilson 4y ago
  Not as deep as Elon Musk. When it comes to court battles, relative depth matters.
  - volkl48 4y ago
    It really doesn't here IMO. They can both afford top-tier legal teams. Delaware courts are known for dealing with these sorts of cases rapidly - there isn't likely to be any opportunity for dragging it out for years.
  - blueboo 4y ago
    Is it clear that Elon is more liquid than Twitter? Twitter has several billion in cash. Musk is reported to have only 3b cash. Tesla and SpaceX may need his capital to survive the downturn. They both have an arsenal of options to raise further cash. I realise Elon is a bigger fish but he is a highly leveraged and constrained one…if anyone has more insight into this dynamic I’d interested to hear it
    - achow 4y ago
      Twitter cash on hand for the quarter ending March 31, 2022 was $6B https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TWTR/twitter/cash-on-hand https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TWTR/twitter/cash-...
      - bsaul 4y ago
        How is twitter getting so much cash ? Are the ads on twitter earning them that much ?? Or is it cash they got from raising funds ?
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      You can see Elon sold something like $8-$12 billion in TSLA stock in the past few months. Assuming it didn't get spent on SpaceX or somewhere else (it was supposed to be used for the Twitter buyout) he has more cash than Twitter. But that doesn't really matter, at a certain point the amount they spend in legal services will reach such diminishing returns that it's not worth it.
baxtr 4y ago
Re twitter: What a waste of life time and resources that could be otherwise have been used. All for what? For the ego of a madman?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rvnx 4y ago
Why would you force someone to buy something they don't want, whatever the reason is ? If they decided not to proceed to the deal it means it was a bad deal from their perspective or that it would put them in a worse situation. Essentially you are taking advantage of them by forcing them. It's like if you sell a very expensive "brown ice cream", the buyer tells you he wants to buy it, and then when the buyer has it in hands they realize it's not chocolate and you say: "but it's brown ice cream, you are forced to buy it now"
- ehnto 4y ago
  To get their money, presumably. If Twitter stocks fall due to this situation then all the more interest in getting the previously set deal to go through.
- xmodem 4y ago
  Well, this probably doesn't come up very often in general, but one reason for Twitter to want to proceed might be if someone had signed a legally binding agreement to pay 15 billion dollars more than the market rate.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  > Why would you force someone to buy something they don't want, whatever the reason is ? Because they agreed to buy it? And because you stand to make a lot of money. Doesn't seem that complicated to me.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    Yep. It's basically "why wouldn't you accept half your wages if the company really didn't want to pay you the full amount?" or "if you lend somebody something and they decide to keep it, why would you try to get it back?"
  - rvnx 4y ago
    - 4y ago
t_mann 4y ago
Sounds like a very unpleasant experience, sorry to hear. But I'm not sure it's a good precedent for this case, for two reasons: a) You were happy to settle, which sounds understandable. But when the stakes are $44bn and most actors on Twitter's side are but agents for Twitter shareholders, their chief concern will be not breaking their fiduciary duties if they accept anything less than the maximum amount they could get. It's a bit hard to imagine how the legal bills for seeing this through could stack up to even .1% of the purchase price ($440m), and that's nowhere close to the discount that Musk will be looking for (with good reason imho, btw). b) In your case the other party might have gotten away with dodging a court order to pay (or at least made it appear like that). That's pretty much unfathomable if you are literally the richest man on earth and live in the US.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  > dodging a court order to pay I'm pretty surprised musk seems to have put himself personally on the line, rather than putting 'musk acquisition project llc' as the party making the offer. If it was the latter, then everything could be arranged so there was no money in that company to pay for any lawsuits. As the worlds richest man, dividing up your liability like that into many LLC's would seem like a very important thing to do.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > As the worlds richest man, dividing up your liability like that into many LLC's would seem like a very important thing to do Unfortunately for Musk, when an LLC is used as a proxy for the single member without real separation, the LL part stops working as anything but (on a matter this size) a small additional speedbump rather than a shield, at the same time, it's even nominal separation makes it harder to make deals than if your hoards of assets were behind them.
- watwut 4y ago
  > In your case the other party might have gotten away with dodging a court order to pay (or at least made it appear like that). That's pretty much unfathomable if you are literally the richest man on earth and live in the US. It is other way around. It is way easier for rich person to get away from dodging courts then poor one. Just the fact that rich person can pay fights and layers longer, and fact that rich has it easier to retaliate so everyone is more careful not to step on their toes or do mistake.
throwaway_2341 4y ago
< Twitter is not in a good shape It appears they will make around $6B in annual revenues, I think their financial performance is better than most social media platforms, save FB. In what way, Twitter is not in good shape?
trident5000 4y ago
The CEO has a massive parachute. Its in his best interest to just settle on a lower price rather than get tied up in courts for years with Musk. If the markets continue to decline, a lower offer is going to look more and more attractive to shareholders. Just my 2 cents.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

synu 4y ago

What happened when they ignore dthe order from the judge? Nothing?

nabla9 4y ago
If he willfully disobeyed, there will be sequestration order against his assets. The court will appoint someone else to go trough his assets and find a way to pay. Selling Tesla stocks for example.

giansegato 4y ago

How could they refuse after being compelled by a court ruling? Did they appeal / sue you back? Can't see how they could simply say... "no".

carom 4y ago
When you have a judgement you can send it to collections, but often people just don't pay these things. It's really hard to collect for even small things like evictions.
- dctoedt 4y ago
  > send it to collections When my now-adult son was in high school, he had a summer job working as a moving man for a friend's dad's company. The company had a contract with the local constable's office. One of my son's and his friend's assignments was to drive a truck around to the offices of a very-big shopping mall and to meet a constable to collect a seven-figure court judgment that hadn't been paid. The constable, my son, and his friend walked into the management office; the constable presented the writ of execution of the judgment, and my son and his friend started unplugging and loading up office equipment and furniture to be hauled off and sold at auction. The manager said "Wait, wait"; a hour later, a cashier's check arrived for the amount of the judgment.
  - BellLabradors 4y ago
    Video of a similar story: https://youtu.be/3ctLEGrOmf4 https://youtu.be/3ctLEGrOmf4
  - no-s 4y ago
    > The constable, my son, and his friend walked into the management office; the constable presented the writ of execution of the judgment, and my son and his friend started unplugging and loading up office equipment and furniture to be hauled off and sold at auction. yeah, that’s like totally reasonable. I’ve done similar back in the ‘80s, using a similar process seized bank accounts when the former employer ignored an order to pay a judgement over unpaid expenses. Notably they didn’t bother to appear in court in the first place; they never responded to service even though I paid extra to have the Sheriff’s Deputy serve it. Then they ignored my calls and letters for several weeks. I knew all the bank account numbers already, so: back to the judge for an order to seize the accounts. Showed up at the bank an hour later with the deputy in tow and walked out with a bank check for roughly $45k 30 minutes later. Nowadays a bank makes you wait some days for a payout but they will freeze the funds immediately. These days I prefer lawyering up, but in the late ‘70s I called on a supplier to deliver promised equipment that was being delayed because well, I was a teen-ager and even though I had paid they felt like I wasn’t a serious customer. So I paid a local motorcycle club $500 to escort me to the meeting, as well as sit there in the parking lot revving engines and scratching off whilst I met with the vendor. The MC got a hefty tip because: members helped load the product, and the MC president encouraged a 50% refund made out to me personally to ensure I would never have to be a customer again...
stingraycharles 4y ago
The judge ruled that the payment had to be made immediately; they could sue back, but they would have to pay first. In their words, it was a “BS ruling”, and they simply didn’t pay. I’ll tell you that I didn’t know you could just say “no”, but they did. My lawyers were at the point that they would send a (legally backed) letter to all their customers, that their payments should be redirected to some court. It would have caused a massive hellfire, though. I had the choice of going through with all this, but the outcome would still be uncertain, legal fees would increase, and take a long time regardless. It was a fully bootstrapped business, I was relatively young and in debt, and I decided to renegotiate. In the end I got the money I needed to pay off my debts, legal fees + then some, a huge learning experience, and took a 1 year sabbatical. I just wanted this whole thing to be over.
- csomar 4y ago
  > I had the choice of going through with all this, but the outcome would still be uncertain, legal fees would increase, and take a long time regardless. So it’s just you deciding not to go with this… for some reason. I’m pretty sure if you enforced the ruling, you’d have gotten a quick response from them. It might seem like a dick move but they moved first. At $44bn, I highly doubt the dudes of Twitter will take the same stance you took.
  - lazide 4y ago
    I have a friend who got screwed by a major (top 5) US bank, won the court case against them, and they then refused to pay the settlement. He went through the paperwork, and 6 months later they wrote him a cashiers check right then and there when he showed up with the Sheriff to take possession of one of their prized historic artifacts from the lobby of their corporate headquarters during business hours. Not very many people are able and willing to deal with the shittiness of all the paperwork required, and a lot of bad actors count on that.
    - Kinrany 4y ago
      Should have taken the artifact. Magic items are always better
pmorici 4y ago
If a party is intent on being a bad actor it is extremely difficult to enforce judgments where the sum is too small to warrant extraordinary effort.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

martin8412 4y ago

Difference being, Twitter has deep pockets and are highly motivated to see this through.

neilwilson 4y ago
Not as deep as Elon Musk. When it comes to court battles, relative depth matters.
- volkl48 4y ago
  It really doesn't here IMO. They can both afford top-tier legal teams. Delaware courts are known for dealing with these sorts of cases rapidly - there isn't likely to be any opportunity for dragging it out for years.
- blueboo 4y ago
  Is it clear that Elon is more liquid than Twitter? Twitter has several billion in cash. Musk is reported to have only 3b cash. Tesla and SpaceX may need his capital to survive the downturn. They both have an arsenal of options to raise further cash. I realise Elon is a bigger fish but he is a highly leveraged and constrained one…if anyone has more insight into this dynamic I’d interested to hear it
  - achow 4y ago
    Twitter cash on hand for the quarter ending March 31, 2022 was $6B https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TWTR/twitter/cash-on-hand https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TWTR/twitter/cash-...
    - bsaul 4y ago
      How is twitter getting so much cash ? Are the ads on twitter earning them that much ?? Or is it cash they got from raising funds ?
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    You can see Elon sold something like $8-$12 billion in TSLA stock in the past few months. Assuming it didn't get spent on SpaceX or somewhere else (it was supposed to be used for the Twitter buyout) he has more cash than Twitter. But that doesn't really matter, at a certain point the amount they spend in legal services will reach such diminishing returns that it's not worth it.

baxtr 4y ago

Re twitter: What a waste of life time and resources that could be otherwise have been used. All for what? For the ego of a madman?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rvnx 4y ago

Why would you force someone to buy something they don't want, whatever the reason is ? If they decided not to proceed to the deal it means it was a bad deal from their perspective or that it would put them in a worse situation. Essentially you are taking advantage of them by forcing them. It's like if you sell a very expensive "brown ice cream", the buyer tells you he wants to buy it, and then when the buyer has it in hands they realize it's not chocolate and you say: "but it's brown ice cream, you are forced to buy it now"

ehnto 4y ago
To get their money, presumably. If Twitter stocks fall due to this situation then all the more interest in getting the previously set deal to go through.
xmodem 4y ago
Well, this probably doesn't come up very often in general, but one reason for Twitter to want to proceed might be if someone had signed a legally binding agreement to pay 15 billion dollars more than the market rate.
CogitoCogito 4y ago
> Why would you force someone to buy something they don't want, whatever the reason is ? Because they agreed to buy it? And because you stand to make a lot of money. Doesn't seem that complicated to me.
- notahacker 4y ago
  Yep. It's basically "why wouldn't you accept half your wages if the company really didn't want to pay you the full amount?" or "if you lend somebody something and they decide to keep it, why would you try to get it back?"
- rvnx 4y ago
  - 4y ago

t_mann 4y ago

Sounds like a very unpleasant experience, sorry to hear. But I'm not sure it's a good precedent for this case, for two reasons: a) You were happy to settle, which sounds understandable. But when the stakes are $44bn and most actors on Twitter's side are but agents for Twitter shareholders, their chief concern will be not breaking their fiduciary duties if they accept anything less than the maximum amount they could get. It's a bit hard to imagine how the legal bills for seeing this through could stack up to even .1% of the purchase price ($440m), and that's nowhere close to the discount that Musk will be looking for (with good reason imho, btw). b) In your case the other party might have gotten away with dodging a court order to pay (or at least made it appear like that). That's pretty much unfathomable if you are literally the richest man on earth and live in the US.

londons_explore 4y ago
> dodging a court order to pay I'm pretty surprised musk seems to have put himself personally on the line, rather than putting 'musk acquisition project llc' as the party making the offer. If it was the latter, then everything could be arranged so there was no money in that company to pay for any lawsuits. As the worlds richest man, dividing up your liability like that into many LLC's would seem like a very important thing to do.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > As the worlds richest man, dividing up your liability like that into many LLC's would seem like a very important thing to do Unfortunately for Musk, when an LLC is used as a proxy for the single member without real separation, the LL part stops working as anything but (on a matter this size) a small additional speedbump rather than a shield, at the same time, it's even nominal separation makes it harder to make deals than if your hoards of assets were behind them.
watwut 4y ago
> In your case the other party might have gotten away with dodging a court order to pay (or at least made it appear like that). That's pretty much unfathomable if you are literally the richest man on earth and live in the US. It is other way around. It is way easier for rich person to get away from dodging courts then poor one. Just the fact that rich person can pay fights and layers longer, and fact that rich has it easier to retaliate so everyone is more careful not to step on their toes or do mistake.

throwaway_2341 4y ago

< Twitter is not in a good shape It appears they will make around $6B in annual revenues, I think their financial performance is better than most social media platforms, save FB. In what way, Twitter is not in good shape?

trident5000 4y ago

The CEO has a massive parachute. Its in his best interest to just settle on a lower price rather than get tied up in courts for years with Musk. If the markets continue to decline, a lower offer is going to look more and more attractive to shareholders. Just my 2 cents.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]