3 ms·

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 b

by 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.

by gojomo 4y ago

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.