3 ms·
If the agreement is with the company, and not him as an individual, then he could just shut the company itself down, as it probably has zero assets.
by DoesntMatter22 4y ago
If the agreement is with the company, and not him as an individual, then he could just shut the company itself down, as it probably has zero assets.
- ncallaway 4y agoWell, the agreement has Musk making personal financial guarantees. So, it’s like the thin shell company has agreed to the deal, and Elon Musk has personally guaranteed the financing. Which means the only specific performance the judge would be mandating from Elon Musk personally would be financial payments. The actual purchasing and paperwork would be done by the shell corporation. The only thing Elon Musk would be ordered to do in his personal capacity would be to write a large check (which, seems to be well within the remit of a judge’s authority over a person without raising 13a concerns). Like, I agree that ordering specific performance for painting someone’s house is a bit odd and might raise those questions. But, Elon Musk’s only requirement as an individual under this contract is to write a check. To be honest, I’m pretty skeptical of the analysis of the article you cited. The article says: “ Unfortunately for Twitter, it isn’t Elon Musk Inc. but Elon Musk the individual who offered to buy the company” which is wrong. It literally is Elon Musk Inc. which is offering to buy twitter (technically X Holdings I, Inc.). See the merger agreement here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522120474/d310843ddefa14a.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522... Since that point underlies the entire analysis, it seems… very suspect to me to get that exactly wrong.