4 ms·

One thing that’s odd about that letter — not the only thing, but one thing — is that it makes a demand on the Chancery Court to adjourn the trial. That is, it’s

One thing that’s odd about that letter — not the only thing, but one thing — is that it makes a demand on the Chancery Court to adjourn the trial. That is, it’s not a notice of settlement or even a request for adjournment, but some kind of weird attempt to bargain with the Chancellor, even though the issue at trial is whether Musk already reneged on this exact same offer. Not sure I understand what they’re trying to do here.

hef19898 4y ago
I am not following the court oroceeding, and I am not a lawyer. So honest question, if one of the issues being at trial whether or not Musk reneged already, isn't an letter stating, basically, "never mind this whole trial, I'm willongbto honor the deal now", kind of not helping?
- eastbound 4y ago
  I may go down in history like Bill Gates’ interrogation in 1998, which is still taught in every law school as “what not to do” unless you want to upset the judges. So “what not to do, Elon Musk style”: Be unclear about intentions, have second thoughts, trying to play 4D chess with apparently no advisor than absolute amateurs to tame him or PR department to sway the public opinion your way, then keep being erratic with the judge.
- gojomo 4y ago
  "Not helping"... who or what? Musk is now offering to execute the signed deal – which is the only thing Twitter asked to court to enforce. So it's absolutely helping resolve the dispute faster, without further legal costs or burdens on the court – and probably with the same end state as was most-likely earlier. And perhaps by signaling a specific clear future, damage to Twitter's position from the uncertainty & acrimony will halt & start to heal... benefiting its future owner, Musk.
gojomo 4y ago
I don't find that too odd, because I believe the plaintiff, Twitter Inc, can more-or-less get a stay on request, especially if it's likely to make any further burdens on the court become moot. So wording it this way is just being clear about what Musk wants Twitter to cause to happen. Further, Twitter's complaint only asks the court to compel performance under the original agreement - it doesn't ask for extra damages from Musk's flip-flops. If Musk is offering exactly that performance, there's nothing for the court the compel, unless & until things change again. (If that happens, the stayed action can resume – and the judge would be even more disposed against Musk et al.)
- kosievdmerwe 4y ago
  I'm not sure that Twitter could really sensibly demand damages if the sale went through. If Twitter is still sold at the original fixed price, then Musk is left holding the asset he himself damaged and would have to essentially pay damages to himself. The shareholders will still get the same payout regardless of the alleged damage to the company, unless they decided to sell before the sale, but I am not a lawyer so I don't know if they'd be able to sue successfully. Of course, I don't believe Musk is the sole owner, so his co-buyers might have a case.
  - gojomo 4y ago
    I think Twitter Inc agrees with you, as they've made no request for damages. Shareholder lawsuits are weird; maybe someone who owns Twitter Inc stock could claim Musk's actions caused them to sell early, or otherwise suffer losses (margin calls?) due to his actions temporarily pushing the stock value below the deal price, even if the deal concludes. But I've not seen hints of any such stretches.
    - piva00 4y ago
      I feel that statistically speaking there would be at least one shareholder (perhaps an employee) with a stop loss order that could've been triggered after Musk's shenanigans. Someone in this position had a material loss.

hef19898 4y ago

I am not following the court oroceeding, and I am not a lawyer. So honest question, if one of the issues being at trial whether or not Musk reneged already, isn't an letter stating, basically, "never mind this whole trial, I'm willongbto honor the deal now", kind of not helping?

eastbound 4y ago
I may go down in history like Bill Gates’ interrogation in 1998, which is still taught in every law school as “what not to do” unless you want to upset the judges. So “what not to do, Elon Musk style”: Be unclear about intentions, have second thoughts, trying to play 4D chess with apparently no advisor than absolute amateurs to tame him or PR department to sway the public opinion your way, then keep being erratic with the judge.
gojomo 4y ago
"Not helping"... who or what? Musk is now offering to execute the signed deal – which is the only thing Twitter asked to court to enforce. So it's absolutely helping resolve the dispute faster, without further legal costs or burdens on the court – and probably with the same end state as was most-likely earlier. And perhaps by signaling a specific clear future, damage to Twitter's position from the uncertainty & acrimony will halt & start to heal... benefiting its future owner, Musk.

gojomo 4y ago

I don't find that too odd, because I believe the plaintiff, Twitter Inc, can more-or-less get a stay on request, especially if it's likely to make any further burdens on the court become moot. So wording it this way is just being clear about what Musk wants Twitter to cause to happen. Further, Twitter's complaint only asks the court to compel performance under the original agreement - it doesn't ask for extra damages from Musk's flip-flops. If Musk is offering exactly that performance, there's nothing for the court the compel, unless & until things change again. (If that happens, the stayed action can resume – and the judge would be even more disposed against Musk et al.)

kosievdmerwe 4y ago
I'm not sure that Twitter could really sensibly demand damages if the sale went through. If Twitter is still sold at the original fixed price, then Musk is left holding the asset he himself damaged and would have to essentially pay damages to himself. The shareholders will still get the same payout regardless of the alleged damage to the company, unless they decided to sell before the sale, but I am not a lawyer so I don't know if they'd be able to sue successfully. Of course, I don't believe Musk is the sole owner, so his co-buyers might have a case.
- gojomo 4y ago
  I think Twitter Inc agrees with you, as they've made no request for damages. Shareholder lawsuits are weird; maybe someone who owns Twitter Inc stock could claim Musk's actions caused them to sell early, or otherwise suffer losses (margin calls?) due to his actions temporarily pushing the stock value below the deal price, even if the deal concludes. But I've not seen hints of any such stretches.
  - piva00 4y ago
    I feel that statistically speaking there would be at least one shareholder (perhaps an employee) with a stop loss order that could've been triggered after Musk's shenanigans. Someone in this position had a material loss.