3 ms·
The amount would have to be close to the difference between the price he would pay and the current value of the company, at which point Musk might as well go th
by Cederfjard 4y ago
The amount would have to be close to the difference between the price he would pay and the current value of the company, at which point Musk might as well go through with it, if he really thinks he can run it better.
- kadoban 4y agoSeems like there's probably some number in the middle that should satisfy both sides, since Musk really seems like he doesn't want to own Twitter now, apparently. I guess we'll see. Anyway though, I personally don't see it as being that hard to defend pretty much any probable outcome, as the Twitter board.
- nocoiner 4y agoThe Twitter board agreed to sell the company, for cash, for $44 billion. Without overcomplicating things too much, it’s not actually the case that a Delaware corporation must maximize the value to the shareholders in every circumstance … except for this one, in which they - having agreed to put the company up for sale - must maximize shareholder value. So to the extent Twitter is currently worth less than $44 billion and there’s a binding merger agreement that delivers $44 billion of value to the shareholders, the board has to do something to bridge that gap. A billion-dollar break fee ain’t gonna cut it. But sure, if at the end of the day the shareholders can retain ownership of Twitter, Inc. worth $25 billion (and the value of the company hasn’t been irreversibly impaired by this circus) and extract a $20 billion settlement from the acquirer, then were I a Twitter board member, I wouldn’t feel too worried giving my deposition about that outcome. Still not a great look for anyone though.