3 ms·

You would shed $44B pretty fast if the Delaware Chancellor sets an emergency conference with you where she is about to say to you, "I am going to force you to b

You would shed $44B pretty fast if the Delaware Chancellor sets an emergency conference with you where she is about to say to you, "I am going to force you to buy this pile of garbage, and a lot more embarrassing shit is going to come out because I'm not going to let you seal the proceedings. Settle so we can all save face here."

arcticbull 4y ago
And by 'settle' they mean carry out your end of the deal as inked, no compromises :) I can't help but feel everyone is getting exactly what they deserve. Elon is buying a company he didn't want to buy as punishment for trolling that company and their leadership on that company's own platform. Twitter is getting new leadership and lord knows they need it [*]. And the shareholders are getting paid what they were told they'd be paid. [*] Twitter truly is a clown car that fell into a gold mine, and as Elon says, the most entertaining outcome is the most likely. [1] [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1347126794172948483?lang=en https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1347126794172948483?lang...
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  A settlement could have been a $20-25 billion payout to Twitter to exit the deal, or something similar (no, that is not precluded by the contract limiting damages to $1 billion, the settlment agreement [edited] overrides the contract). Twitter's lawyers likely would have been okay with that.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    The court can force performance of the contract. It can't make up a fine or damage award. Twitter, after winning performance in court, is then free to make up any price short of $44B for Musk to wiggle out of the deal.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      That's true, but if he really wanted out, it was a good chance for him and Twitter to set a price to exit the deal. I would bet that Musk had offered a settlement of a $5-10 billion payout to get out of the deal, but Twitter rejected it.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    The $1B is pretty much a red herring, it's only in play under a specific circumstances. There's no "pay $1B to get out of this no questions asked" clause in the contract. It doesn't limit damages.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      Technically, that's exactly what it does, and $1B is the damage limit (that's one reason the court can't just make up a damages award in the plural billions to compensate Twitter). Twitter is relying on their right to specific performance, not damages. I agree, though, the $1B is a red herring.
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        Thanks for clarifying!
- Bud 4y ago
  Twitter is not "getting new leadership", or at least not leadership as that term is commonly understood. Musk will be distracted and is manifestly unqualified, not to mention uninterested. Twitter "deserves" this? No they don't.
rodgerd 4y ago
> ...I'm not going to let you seal the proceedings. The Delaware Chancery email/twitter account that follows proceedings noted that Musk's defence team sued to unseal a great deal of the comms for some reason that, frankly, defies all understanding. So it's not as though this "leaked" or Musk lost a motion to have them sealed. They were sealed by default. Musk moved to have them unsealed over Twitter's objections.

arcticbull 4y ago

And by 'settle' they mean carry out your end of the deal as inked, no compromises :) I can't help but feel everyone is getting exactly what they deserve. Elon is buying a company he didn't want to buy as punishment for trolling that company and their leadership on that company's own platform. Twitter is getting new leadership and lord knows they need it [*]. And the shareholders are getting paid what they were told they'd be paid. [*] Twitter truly is a clown car that fell into a gold mine, and as Elon says, the most entertaining outcome is the most likely. [1] [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1347126794172948483?lang=en https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1347126794172948483?lang...

pclmulqdq 4y ago
A settlement could have been a $20-25 billion payout to Twitter to exit the deal, or something similar (no, that is not precluded by the contract limiting damages to $1 billion, the settlment agreement [edited] overrides the contract). Twitter's lawyers likely would have been okay with that.
- tptacek 4y ago
  The court can force performance of the contract. It can't make up a fine or damage award. Twitter, after winning performance in court, is then free to make up any price short of $44B for Musk to wiggle out of the deal.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    That's true, but if he really wanted out, it was a good chance for him and Twitter to set a price to exit the deal. I would bet that Musk had offered a settlement of a $5-10 billion payout to get out of the deal, but Twitter rejected it.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  The $1B is pretty much a red herring, it's only in play under a specific circumstances. There's no "pay $1B to get out of this no questions asked" clause in the contract. It doesn't limit damages.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Technically, that's exactly what it does, and $1B is the damage limit (that's one reason the court can't just make up a damages award in the plural billions to compensate Twitter). Twitter is relying on their right to specific performance, not damages. I agree, though, the $1B is a red herring.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      Thanks for clarifying!
Bud 4y ago
Twitter is not "getting new leadership", or at least not leadership as that term is commonly understood. Musk will be distracted and is manifestly unqualified, not to mention uninterested. Twitter "deserves" this? No they don't.

rodgerd 4y ago

> ...I'm not going to let you seal the proceedings. The Delaware Chancery email/twitter account that follows proceedings noted that Musk's defence team sued to unseal a great deal of the comms for some reason that, frankly, defies all understanding. So it's not as though this "leaked" or Musk lost a motion to have them sealed. They were sealed by default. Musk moved to have them unsealed over Twitter's objections.