3 ms·

> Also, reminder: as its largest shareholder, Musk has a greater financial stake in Twitter than the entire board combined You verbatim quoted the actual closi

> 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

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