5 ms·

>"one expects that someone will prevail upon Musk to settle before that happens" My question is "Settle how?" Pay a penalty and still not own Twitter? That s

>"one expects that someone will prevail upon Musk to settle before that happens" My question is "Settle how?" Pay a penalty and still not own Twitter? That seems like an unlikely outcome to me. Why would he do that? Why would he not simply complete the transaction instead?

abracadaniel 4y ago
If the options are to pay $50b for something worth $20b, or pay $1b and walk away, then walking away is the better choice by far.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Yeah, but I don't think those are his choices. Pay $1b and walk away is his best outcome. That's if he wins. If he loses, he may have to pay $50b for something worth $20b. Settling will be somewhere in between - maybe paying $10-15b to walk away. Of course, if he settles, it will be with a sealed agreement. And then he can publicly claim victory...
  - pengaru 4y ago
    > Pay $1b and walk away is his best outcome. That's if he wins. No, his best out come if he wins is he pays nothing because Twitter lied about what they're selling.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      Except Elon Musk went to Twitter with a seller-friendly request and signed away his right to due diligence. Twitter never "lied" about anything. Heck, they barely negotiated anything at all. Elon Musk arrived, bought 9% of the company (and had a number of SEC violations while doing so since he didn't file various forms in time), and then threatened to enter into a hostile takeover of Twitter.
      - pengaru 4y ago
        Aren't you stating the very thing that will be argued in court?
        dragontamer 4y ago
        Do you have evidence to the contrary? Or is your viewpoint fully driven by blind-faith alone? We all saw the public moves Elon did upon approaching Twitter on this subject. Or have you already forgotten his major announcements just 3 months ago and the drama about being a "Free Speech Absolutionist" or whatever he was calling himself? Twitter wasn't looking for a buyout. Period. Elon went to them. That's obviously what happened here.
        AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        Well, Proverbs says (paraphrasing) "When one party speaks, it sounds convincing, but when the other party examines them, then it doesn't sound so convincing." That is, the evidence we have in support is Twitter's filing. Taking that as authoritative, or even unbiased, is a mistake. And, it's not going to matter who approached who. What's going to matter is the words of the signed agreement. Everything else is irrelevant. Mind you, you're not necessarily wrong. But... back in the day, I spent a lot of time following SCO v. IBM. Public announcements of a deal don't always give a good idea of what the deal actually looks like.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > That is, the evidence we have in support is Twitter’s filing. That’s not entirely true. The evidence referenced in Twitter’s filing is largely the already public merger agreement and independently verifiable public statements by Musk. > Public announcements of a deal don’t always give a good idea of what the deal actually looks like. On the other hand, the text of the merger agreement filed with the SEC for the acquisition of a public company better give a good idea of what the deal actually looks like; there are, after all, laws about that. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522120474/d310843ddefa14a.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522...
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > No, his best out come if he wins is he pays nothing because Twitter lied about what they’re selling. His best case is he countersues Twitter for defamation and wins, and ends up not buying Twitter and getting a huge pay day. Realistic? No, but if we aren’t constrained by realistically likely outcomes and only “best cases”...
    - kareemsabri 4y ago
      The guy bought 10% of the company in secret after being a power Twitter user for 11 years and deciding he could unlock its languishing potential, and then gave them a take-it-or-leave-it, no diligence offer. I don't think Twitter was "selling" anything.
  - Jabbles 4y ago
    It's not going to be that secret though, Twitter's next quarterly financial report may suddenly contain $10B in cash and reveal it quite directly.
  - rasz 4y ago
    There are plenty more less scrupulous options, like $x00mil in shitcoins to buy an amicable judgment. You could even go extreme budged and start popping Twitter lawyers at $1mil a head, nobody would want to represent them after aa couple of weeks.

abracadaniel 4y ago

If the options are to pay $50b for something worth $20b, or pay $1b and walk away, then walking away is the better choice by far.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Yeah, but I don't think those are his choices. Pay $1b and walk away is his best outcome. That's if he wins. If he loses, he may have to pay $50b for something worth $20b. Settling will be somewhere in between - maybe paying $10-15b to walk away. Of course, if he settles, it will be with a sealed agreement. And then he can publicly claim victory...
- pengaru 4y ago
  > Pay $1b and walk away is his best outcome. That's if he wins. No, his best out come if he wins is he pays nothing because Twitter lied about what they're selling.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    Except Elon Musk went to Twitter with a seller-friendly request and signed away his right to due diligence. Twitter never "lied" about anything. Heck, they barely negotiated anything at all. Elon Musk arrived, bought 9% of the company (and had a number of SEC violations while doing so since he didn't file various forms in time), and then threatened to enter into a hostile takeover of Twitter.
    - pengaru 4y ago
      Aren't you stating the very thing that will be argued in court?
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        Do you have evidence to the contrary? Or is your viewpoint fully driven by blind-faith alone? We all saw the public moves Elon did upon approaching Twitter on this subject. Or have you already forgotten his major announcements just 3 months ago and the drama about being a "Free Speech Absolutionist" or whatever he was calling himself? Twitter wasn't looking for a buyout. Period. Elon went to them. That's obviously what happened here.
        AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        Well, Proverbs says (paraphrasing) "When one party speaks, it sounds convincing, but when the other party examines them, then it doesn't sound so convincing." That is, the evidence we have in support is Twitter's filing. Taking that as authoritative, or even unbiased, is a mistake. And, it's not going to matter who approached who. What's going to matter is the words of the signed agreement. Everything else is irrelevant. Mind you, you're not necessarily wrong. But... back in the day, I spent a lot of time following SCO v. IBM. Public announcements of a deal don't always give a good idea of what the deal actually looks like.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > That is, the evidence we have in support is Twitter’s filing. That’s not entirely true. The evidence referenced in Twitter’s filing is largely the already public merger agreement and independently verifiable public statements by Musk. > Public announcements of a deal don’t always give a good idea of what the deal actually looks like. On the other hand, the text of the merger agreement filed with the SEC for the acquisition of a public company better give a good idea of what the deal actually looks like; there are, after all, laws about that. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522120474/d310843ddefa14a.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522...
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > No, his best out come if he wins is he pays nothing because Twitter lied about what they’re selling. His best case is he countersues Twitter for defamation and wins, and ends up not buying Twitter and getting a huge pay day. Realistic? No, but if we aren’t constrained by realistically likely outcomes and only “best cases”...
  - kareemsabri 4y ago
    The guy bought 10% of the company in secret after being a power Twitter user for 11 years and deciding he could unlock its languishing potential, and then gave them a take-it-or-leave-it, no diligence offer. I don't think Twitter was "selling" anything.
- Jabbles 4y ago
  It's not going to be that secret though, Twitter's next quarterly financial report may suddenly contain $10B in cash and reveal it quite directly.
- rasz 4y ago
  There are plenty more less scrupulous options, like $x00mil in shitcoins to buy an amicable judgment. You could even go extreme budged and start popping Twitter lawyers at $1mil a head, nobody would want to represent them after aa couple of weeks.