3 ms·

Seems like another trick to postpone / lower the price to me.. > on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein and pending receipt of the procee

Seems like another trick to postpone / lower the price to me.. > on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein and pending receipt of the proceeds of the debt financing contemplated thereby So if the financing terms cannot be met, the deal is off. Perhaps some terms are about revenue, users, value of the collateral (TSLA perhaps?). Heck, maybe Elon found one of his Billy friends to short TSLA termporarily, which would cause the collateral to be not enough. Tricks I tell you

dragontamer 4y ago
The discussion I've seen is that this is such a strongly written contract, that the only out is Elon Musk declaring bankruptcy. At which point, the court will seize all of Elons TSLA shares and use it to pay for TWTR as best they can. Either that, or Morgan Stanley (Bank in charge of $13 billion) needs to start talking about bots and mDAU Given how well that went for Elon, I don't think Morgan Stanley will do that. It's better for them to take the billions they lost on this deal already and just write it off. (Maybe $1 or $2 billion loss so far given how much credit markets have moved between April and today)
- hef19898 4y ago
  Since Musk signed a very one sided contract with Twitter to buy the company, I have zero reason to assume the contracts with his financing partners are any different. So, a wild guess I know, as long as Musk's Tesla shares are enough to pay the 54.20 per share for Twitter, why would banks object to the deal? They will get enough collateral, one way or the other. For Musk so, it doesn't look too good.
  - jbverschoor 4y ago
    Banks can give any reason why they won't finance, and MS will do so for EM as long as the risk-reward ratio of EM as a client is high enough. Reasons could be - TSLA is volatile. The stock would fall if EM doesn't own enough share anymore, because of the risk of him leaving as CEO. Market conditions. "For reasons of their own"
    - hef19898 4y ago
      Another way of looking at it: MS has to work with institunional investors in the future, Musks wealth is coming from one company as is mostly paper value and not cash. Letting the deal fall through, if that is legally possible and doesn't expose MS to legal risks, might paint MS in a bad light. And that impression, that MS is willing to play legal shenenigans to favor one party over others at the expense of the spirit of the agreements, might something they want to avoid. Especially if they could get a chunk of Tesla or even SpaceX. In the end, we will only know if, or when, Twitter and Musk struck a deal or, ultimately, the courts issue a ruling whatever that will be.
      - jbverschoor 4y ago
        The ice thing that’s cool, is that those fillings become public (or they get leaked, I don’t know). And it’s increasing to read them.
        jbverschoor 4y ago
        Nice* Interesting*
- ksherlock 4y ago
  In bankruptcy, unfinished contracts (such as a contract to buy twitter) are voided unless the trustee assumes the obligation. The trustee only assumes the obligation if it can be used to generate immediate money to pay off debts.

dragontamer 4y ago

The discussion I've seen is that this is such a strongly written contract, that the only out is Elon Musk declaring bankruptcy. At which point, the court will seize all of Elons TSLA shares and use it to pay for TWTR as best they can. Either that, or Morgan Stanley (Bank in charge of $13 billion) needs to start talking about bots and mDAU Given how well that went for Elon, I don't think Morgan Stanley will do that. It's better for them to take the billions they lost on this deal already and just write it off. (Maybe $1 or $2 billion loss so far given how much credit markets have moved between April and today)

hef19898 4y ago
Since Musk signed a very one sided contract with Twitter to buy the company, I have zero reason to assume the contracts with his financing partners are any different. So, a wild guess I know, as long as Musk's Tesla shares are enough to pay the 54.20 per share for Twitter, why would banks object to the deal? They will get enough collateral, one way or the other. For Musk so, it doesn't look too good.
- jbverschoor 4y ago
  Banks can give any reason why they won't finance, and MS will do so for EM as long as the risk-reward ratio of EM as a client is high enough. Reasons could be - TSLA is volatile. The stock would fall if EM doesn't own enough share anymore, because of the risk of him leaving as CEO. Market conditions. "For reasons of their own"
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Another way of looking at it: MS has to work with institunional investors in the future, Musks wealth is coming from one company as is mostly paper value and not cash. Letting the deal fall through, if that is legally possible and doesn't expose MS to legal risks, might paint MS in a bad light. And that impression, that MS is willing to play legal shenenigans to favor one party over others at the expense of the spirit of the agreements, might something they want to avoid. Especially if they could get a chunk of Tesla or even SpaceX. In the end, we will only know if, or when, Twitter and Musk struck a deal or, ultimately, the courts issue a ruling whatever that will be.
    - jbverschoor 4y ago
      The ice thing that’s cool, is that those fillings become public (or they get leaked, I don’t know). And it’s increasing to read them.
      - jbverschoor 4y ago
        Nice* Interesting*
ksherlock 4y ago
In bankruptcy, unfinished contracts (such as a contract to buy twitter) are voided unless the trustee assumes the obligation. The trustee only assumes the obligation if it can be used to generate immediate money to pay off debts.