3 ms·

I’m not sure what lesson there is to be learned here. Wasn’t it Musk who sent this to the courts by letting it go there? Why does everyone assume he’s not in co

I’m not sure what lesson there is to be learned here. Wasn’t it Musk who sent this to the courts by letting it go there? Why does everyone assume he’s not in control of this situation? Many favorable outcomes remain available to him. He’s certainly improved his position since a few months ago, when the Twitter board was discussing “poison pills” to stop his purchase of the company. Now, the same board is begging him to complete the purchase. Also, there was a recent reminder from Musk’s legal team: as its largest shareholder, Musk has a greater financial stake in Twitter than the entire board combined.

srvmshr 4y ago
> Also, reminder: as its largest shareholder, Musk has a greater financial stake in Twitter than the entire board combined You verbatim quoted the actual closing arguments of Rossman (representing Musk in the trial).
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  How do you know I’m not Rossman? Just kidding. Yes, I wasn’t sure which document that was from and I didn’t want to use exact quotes without knowing. But I should have cited it (not that he’d mind), so I edited my post. It was a smooth turn of phrase if you ask me. It helps that it’s the truth.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    It'd be much more rhetorically satisfying if it had anything to do with the matter at hand.
    - TechBro8615 4y ago
      It’s relevant because it means Musk can credibly make all the same arguments the board claims to make in the interest of Twitter. It changes the dynamic of the trial compared to one against an outside acquirer. Twitter is suing its largest shareholder, Musk, who can (somewhat) credibly refute any argument that Twitter claims to be “in the interest of the shareholders.”
      - kadoban 4y ago
        The lawsuit is about a contract though. I don't see where the interests of the shareholders come in to any actual courtroom arguments. There's nothing in the contract about "oh Musk must do blah blah unless it's not in the interests of the shareholders".
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        musk can't credibly refute such an argument as you describe unless he owns a majority of shares or can convincingly make the case that the holders of a majority of shares agree with him
        TechBro8615 4y ago
        Yes, I admit that “somewhat” I included in my comment was doing a lot of heavy lifting. But it’s still true it changes the dynamic of the trial. And it’s still true that the same board suing him to buy their company is the same board that months earlier tried to sabotage their company to stop him from buying it.
        ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        it literally does not change the dynamics at all, not one iota, unless he owns a majority of shares or can convincingly make the case that the holders of a majority of shares agree with him neither is the case the same goes for your opinions you shared about "sabotage": unless you or he can prove that a majority of shareholders believe in such silly-sounding narratives, we can proceed as if they are untrue at best, and irrelevant to the contract elon signed at worst
parkingrift 4y ago
>Why does everyone assume he’s not in control of this situation? Many favorable outcomes remain available to him. Well for starters he didn’t want a Delaware venue and didn’t want an expedited trial. Lost on both. Doesn’t sound like someone who is in control of the situation. >Now, the same board is begging him to complete the purchase. A very interesting way of phrasing reality. “Asking a court to force Musk to adhere to the contract he signed an executed.” If you don’t work in PR, you definitely should. You have a gift for it.
srvmshr 4y ago
> when the Twitter board was discussing “poison pills” to stop his purchase of the company. Now, the same board is begging him to complete the purchase. These are two separate incidents although commonly conflated. Poison pill is used to block a hostile takeover where the board has been taken by surprise, by diluting stake - which happened because Musk didnt disclose to SEC for long time he owned 14.4% of the Twitter. After the things were in the light of the day, he didn't take up the position on Twitter board & instead offered to purchase controlling stake in Twitter (something which was not possible as a board member). The negotiations hence followed for purchase Then, he has famously backed out of the Twitter deal in bad faith & disparaged it publicly. Twitter is also beholden to its investors. They have every right not to tank their market cap because a rich guy got whimsical
jjulius 4y ago
>Now, the same board is begging him to complete the purchase. "Begging" is definitely not the best word choice here. This is a lot less, "Oh, please, please, pleeeeeease Mr. Musk, please pay us, pretty please?" and a lot more, "Alright, we're tired of you fucking around. It's time for you climb out of your sandbox and hold up your end of the deal."
- nocoiner 4y ago
  “And get your shinebox while you’re at it.”
rurp 4y ago
> as its largest shareholder, Musk has a greater financial stake in Twitter than the entire board combined. How is that relevant to the contract Elon signed and now wants to renege on?

srvmshr 4y ago

> Also, reminder: as its largest shareholder, Musk has a greater financial stake in Twitter than the entire board combined You verbatim quoted the actual closing arguments of Rossman (representing Musk in the trial).

TechBro8615 4y ago
How do you know I’m not Rossman? Just kidding. Yes, I wasn’t sure which document that was from and I didn’t want to use exact quotes without knowing. But I should have cited it (not that he’d mind), so I edited my post. It was a smooth turn of phrase if you ask me. It helps that it’s the truth.
- kadoban 4y ago
  It'd be much more rhetorically satisfying if it had anything to do with the matter at hand.
  - TechBro8615 4y ago
    It’s relevant because it means Musk can credibly make all the same arguments the board claims to make in the interest of Twitter. It changes the dynamic of the trial compared to one against an outside acquirer. Twitter is suing its largest shareholder, Musk, who can (somewhat) credibly refute any argument that Twitter claims to be “in the interest of the shareholders.”
    - kadoban 4y ago
      The lawsuit is about a contract though. I don't see where the interests of the shareholders come in to any actual courtroom arguments. There's nothing in the contract about "oh Musk must do blah blah unless it's not in the interests of the shareholders".
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      musk can't credibly refute such an argument as you describe unless he owns a majority of shares or can convincingly make the case that the holders of a majority of shares agree with him
      - TechBro8615 4y ago
        Yes, I admit that “somewhat” I included in my comment was doing a lot of heavy lifting. But it’s still true it changes the dynamic of the trial. And it’s still true that the same board suing him to buy their company is the same board that months earlier tried to sabotage their company to stop him from buying it.
        ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        it literally does not change the dynamics at all, not one iota, unless he owns a majority of shares or can convincingly make the case that the holders of a majority of shares agree with him neither is the case the same goes for your opinions you shared about "sabotage": unless you or he can prove that a majority of shareholders believe in such silly-sounding narratives, we can proceed as if they are untrue at best, and irrelevant to the contract elon signed at worst

parkingrift 4y ago

>Why does everyone assume he’s not in control of this situation? Many favorable outcomes remain available to him. Well for starters he didn’t want a Delaware venue and didn’t want an expedited trial. Lost on both. Doesn’t sound like someone who is in control of the situation. >Now, the same board is begging him to complete the purchase. A very interesting way of phrasing reality. “Asking a court to force Musk to adhere to the contract he signed an executed.” If you don’t work in PR, you definitely should. You have a gift for it.

srvmshr 4y ago

> when the Twitter board was discussing “poison pills” to stop his purchase of the company. Now, the same board is begging him to complete the purchase. These are two separate incidents although commonly conflated. Poison pill is used to block a hostile takeover where the board has been taken by surprise, by diluting stake - which happened because Musk didnt disclose to SEC for long time he owned 14.4% of the Twitter. After the things were in the light of the day, he didn't take up the position on Twitter board & instead offered to purchase controlling stake in Twitter (something which was not possible as a board member). The negotiations hence followed for purchase Then, he has famously backed out of the Twitter deal in bad faith & disparaged it publicly. Twitter is also beholden to its investors. They have every right not to tank their market cap because a rich guy got whimsical

jjulius 4y ago

>Now, the same board is begging him to complete the purchase. "Begging" is definitely not the best word choice here. This is a lot less, "Oh, please, please, pleeeeeease Mr. Musk, please pay us, pretty please?" and a lot more, "Alright, we're tired of you fucking around. It's time for you climb out of your sandbox and hold up your end of the deal."

nocoiner 4y ago
“And get your shinebox while you’re at it.”

rurp 4y ago

> as its largest shareholder, Musk has a greater financial stake in Twitter than the entire board combined. How is that relevant to the contract Elon signed and now wants to renege on?