6 ms·

It should be a win for twitter, although Elon has done some great stuff, a person like him shouldn't be allowed to just tweet random stuff like that then cancel

It should be a win for twitter, although Elon has done some great stuff, a person like him shouldn't be allowed to just tweet random stuff like that then cancel. isn't that manipulating the market as well? I feel bad for the twitter employee and stakeholder at the same time tbh. One day out of nowhere a billionaire just talk some random stuff about buying twitter, plunging the stocks, then cancels, then drama..

dragontamer 4y ago
This is all very terrible for Twitter. Forcing someone to be the owner of a company they don't want is just bad. But this is very good for Twitter shareholders. Forcing the deal is important for US Contract law in general. When people sign documents, they must be solid with the courts enforcing the contract. We can't just let one person give up deals after the fact.
- bena 4y ago
  It's also bad for Musk. He's being forced to own a company he doesn't want. And probably can't offload for anywhere he paid for it. He can either try and make it work or just eat billions in loss.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - maccard 4y ago
    Nobody forced musk to sign a contract binding him to buy twitter. He did that of his own volition. Let's not pretend that he is caught in some red tape here
    - bena 4y ago
      I'm not saying "Woe is Musk", I'm saying this is a deal where everyone is going to lose. I don't even know what the worst/best case scenarios would be here. If he's right about Twitter, now he has essentially a toxic asset and everyone knows it. But he made a bad deal in the worst way. No one is buying it from him. And people are going to be more hesitant to deal with him in the future. Because he's obviously not doing due diligence. If he's wrong, it's not a good look for him either and while someone may eventually buy Twitter off of him, he'll likely have trouble with other deals still. Because of the diligence issue, and his conduct through this ordeal. Like, who is coming out of this deal happy?
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        > Like, who is coming out of this deal happy? TWTR shareholders are being paid $54.20 per share for a company worth probably only $30/share (maybe less, now that Elon spent months trash talking the deal) TWTR shareholders are going to be throwing parties all around the country with a big windfall. I know a bunch of online people who also put option plays on this.
        hef19898 4y ago
        Betting on being able to sell Twitter shares for 54.20 was, and is, one of the safest bets on the stock markets this year.
      - maccard 4y ago
        > I'm saying this is a deal where everyone is going to lose. I don't agree - I think there's a win for the Twitter shareholders, for example. There's also a win for precedent here, where a billionaire can't just say "j/k no I don't want it" because they've realised it's a bad idea. > Like, who is coming out of this deal happy? It doesn't really matter who is happy IMO. I'm not one for revenge justice, but nobody needs to be happy if one person makes a series of incredibly dumb decisions, signs multiple legally binding contracts along the way, and then changes their mind after the fact due to information that they claimed was the reason they were undertaking the deal in the first place.
  - gilrain 4y ago
    Is Musk really incompetent enough that he can’t be responsible for contracts he signs? Does he need a legal guardian?
    - coldpie 4y ago
      Honestly? Maybe. Unimaginably high wealth genuinely seems to be a risk factor for severe mental illness.
  - multiplegeorges 4y ago
    He can still pay the $1B to back out, can't he? But that would involve ego damage, so maybe not.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      I thought this too, initially (as did a wide swath of the news media covering it at the time). He can not. The $1B is for a different scenario; he doesn't have the option to back out of the deal voluntarily. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-away-from-twitter-deal-by-paying-1-billion.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-awa... > A reverse breakup fee paid from a buyer to a target applies when there is an outside reason a deal can’t close, such as regulatory intermediation or third-party financing concerns.
    - YawningAngel 4y ago
      No, he can't. He's on the hook for 1B if the deal falls through but he has no right to cancel
    - pliny 4y ago
      Given where the markets are today, Twitter is a ~$30B write down for him once the deal closes, so if he could pay $1B to make it go away he would have done so already.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    He signed the contract, I'd say he agreed to put himself in the position to be forced.
    - bena 4y ago
      Totally, I'm just saying I don't think anyone leaves this deal happy. Maybe the people getting the money, but that's it.
- just_boost_it 4y ago
  Nobody forced him to decide to buy it. After signing the contracts he should have to follow through.
  - pc86 4y ago
    I mean there's a $1B break-up fee in the contract. I don't know why he doesn't just pay that and end the fiasco (also tanking Twitter's stock momentarily, hell he could make back a chunk of that in the derivative market most likely). Oh, yeah I do know. Because the $55B is other people's money, and the $1B would be his money. So his choices at this point are 1) get out of the deal for approximately $0, 2) get out of the deal for approximately $1B, 3) buy Twitter for approximately $0. Pretty clear why #2 isn't being considered.
    - Hamuko 4y ago
      There was no catch-all "if you change your mind, just pay us $1B and we'll walk our separate ways" clause in the contract. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-away-from-twitter-deal-by-paying-1-billion.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-awa...
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      The $1 billion clause is only if a 3rd party halts the deal. Elon Musk can't invoke that clause. Only US government, or EU, or maybe a bank can invoke that.
    - vkou 4y ago
      The $1B is a breakup fee if the deal failed for circumstances outside of his control. No breakup fee was specified for 'the deal failed because he got cold feet'. That's one of the reasons the deal was so bizarre. He wrote it, and he wrote it in a matter that did not give him much room to maneuver.
    - kgermino 4y ago
      Because it’s not a break up fee. He can’t just say “I’m out, here’s a billion dollars for your trouble.” Twitter can (and did) sue for specific performance (forcing Musk to close the sale). If the court decides to award monetary damages instead of specific performance that’s capped to $1B but it’s not a simple break up fee. Also most of the purchase will be Musks money too. Financially he’s much better off paying $1B than buying Twitter at the contract price today.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Who is "twitter" then if the shareholders win?
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    The users, the employees, the community. Sucks for them, but crappy acquisitions are a fact of life for online communities. Much like when Tumblr changed owners a few years back and the community was devastated.
- jjulius 4y ago
  He agreed to the terms that would require the purchase. Nobody is forcing him, he agreed to be in this position.
  - make3 4y ago
    they are forcing him to stick to his agreement, thereby forcing him
    - outside1234 4y ago
      he is forcing himself by having signed the agreement - it is a contract - and that's how this works - even if you are a billionaire.
      - coldpie 4y ago
        Ehhhhh. The rules don't apply if you're a billionaire. Where Musk screwed up was engaging in a conflict where the other side is _also_ billionaires.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      ... that's what a contract is. Each party agrees to be bound by what is in the contract. If you don't like what's in a contract and don't want to be held to the terms, don't sign. He did, which is a clear endorsement of the contents therein.
    - chii 4y ago
      Those are different things. Enforcing an agreement of contract is different from forcing an agreement to the contract.
  - JamesSwift 4y ago
    He _proposed_ the terms!
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      That's a good point and one that is forgotten here. Twitter was NOT looking for a buyer before any of this happened.
- rsynnott 4y ago
  Yeah, great for Twitter shareholders, awful for Twitter itself, Twitter users and Twitter employees is about the size of it.
  - Covzire 4y ago
    Great for half the country that has had to endure at least 6 years of the DNC weaponizing the platform against them.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      Nah, everybody with an agenda has "weaponized" Twitter (read: used in any way to their advantage). Even whoever it is that you might support opposite the DNC.
      - Covzire 4y ago
        I'm referring, in part, to FOIA requests that have proven there has been direct collusion between the Biden administration and Twitter taking action to ban users who they claim "spread misinformation". The first amendment implications of not stopping this behavior are extreme.
        jjulius 4y ago
        Ah, we're heading down this conversational path. Gotcha. I'll save us both the time - like it or not, you don't have a right to free speech on a platform owned by a private entity. C'est la vie. Edit: There's also something to be said about Truth Social censoring users, and it being a platform owned by someone who's highly likely to try to be president a second time. See what I mean about how everyone weaponizes social media for their own gains?
blue_light_man 4y ago
If you think about it, you don't want Elon to not stop tweeting. Next time, Elon tweets about buying something, wait for the market to go up, short the stock and make money when Elon eventually backs off?
93po 4y ago
Elon: I'm going to try being vegetarian Internet: Elon is manipulating the beef markets!
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Lol.. did he sign a contract agreeing to not eat meat else he'd have to buy Beyond Meat for $44b?
  - 93po 4y ago
    Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be legally allowed to openly and freely discuss their thoughts on a pending purchase?
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      No, but if they are involved in litigation or expect to be they have a duty to preserve evidence.

dragontamer 4y ago

This is all very terrible for Twitter. Forcing someone to be the owner of a company they don't want is just bad. But this is very good for Twitter shareholders. Forcing the deal is important for US Contract law in general. When people sign documents, they must be solid with the courts enforcing the contract. We can't just let one person give up deals after the fact.

bena 4y ago
It's also bad for Musk. He's being forced to own a company he doesn't want. And probably can't offload for anywhere he paid for it. He can either try and make it work or just eat billions in loss.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- maccard 4y ago
  Nobody forced musk to sign a contract binding him to buy twitter. He did that of his own volition. Let's not pretend that he is caught in some red tape here
  - bena 4y ago
    I'm not saying "Woe is Musk", I'm saying this is a deal where everyone is going to lose. I don't even know what the worst/best case scenarios would be here. If he's right about Twitter, now he has essentially a toxic asset and everyone knows it. But he made a bad deal in the worst way. No one is buying it from him. And people are going to be more hesitant to deal with him in the future. Because he's obviously not doing due diligence. If he's wrong, it's not a good look for him either and while someone may eventually buy Twitter off of him, he'll likely have trouble with other deals still. Because of the diligence issue, and his conduct through this ordeal. Like, who is coming out of this deal happy?
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      > Like, who is coming out of this deal happy? TWTR shareholders are being paid $54.20 per share for a company worth probably only $30/share (maybe less, now that Elon spent months trash talking the deal) TWTR shareholders are going to be throwing parties all around the country with a big windfall. I know a bunch of online people who also put option plays on this.
      - hef19898 4y ago
        Betting on being able to sell Twitter shares for 54.20 was, and is, one of the safest bets on the stock markets this year.
    - maccard 4y ago
      > I'm saying this is a deal where everyone is going to lose. I don't agree - I think there's a win for the Twitter shareholders, for example. There's also a win for precedent here, where a billionaire can't just say "j/k no I don't want it" because they've realised it's a bad idea. > Like, who is coming out of this deal happy? It doesn't really matter who is happy IMO. I'm not one for revenge justice, but nobody needs to be happy if one person makes a series of incredibly dumb decisions, signs multiple legally binding contracts along the way, and then changes their mind after the fact due to information that they claimed was the reason they were undertaking the deal in the first place.
- gilrain 4y ago
  Is Musk really incompetent enough that he can’t be responsible for contracts he signs? Does he need a legal guardian?
  - coldpie 4y ago
    Honestly? Maybe. Unimaginably high wealth genuinely seems to be a risk factor for severe mental illness.
- multiplegeorges 4y ago
  He can still pay the $1B to back out, can't he? But that would involve ego damage, so maybe not.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    I thought this too, initially (as did a wide swath of the news media covering it at the time). He can not. The $1B is for a different scenario; he doesn't have the option to back out of the deal voluntarily. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-away-from-twitter-deal-by-paying-1-billion.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-awa... > A reverse breakup fee paid from a buyer to a target applies when there is an outside reason a deal can’t close, such as regulatory intermediation or third-party financing concerns.
  - YawningAngel 4y ago
    No, he can't. He's on the hook for 1B if the deal falls through but he has no right to cancel
  - pliny 4y ago
    Given where the markets are today, Twitter is a ~$30B write down for him once the deal closes, so if he could pay $1B to make it go away he would have done so already.
- jjulius 4y ago
  He signed the contract, I'd say he agreed to put himself in the position to be forced.
  - bena 4y ago
    Totally, I'm just saying I don't think anyone leaves this deal happy. Maybe the people getting the money, but that's it.
just_boost_it 4y ago
Nobody forced him to decide to buy it. After signing the contracts he should have to follow through.
- pc86 4y ago
  I mean there's a $1B break-up fee in the contract. I don't know why he doesn't just pay that and end the fiasco (also tanking Twitter's stock momentarily, hell he could make back a chunk of that in the derivative market most likely). Oh, yeah I do know. Because the $55B is other people's money, and the $1B would be his money. So his choices at this point are 1) get out of the deal for approximately $0, 2) get out of the deal for approximately $1B, 3) buy Twitter for approximately $0. Pretty clear why #2 isn't being considered.
  - Hamuko 4y ago
    There was no catch-all "if you change your mind, just pay us $1B and we'll walk our separate ways" clause in the contract. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-away-from-twitter-deal-by-paying-1-billion.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-awa...
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    The $1 billion clause is only if a 3rd party halts the deal. Elon Musk can't invoke that clause. Only US government, or EU, or maybe a bank can invoke that.
  - vkou 4y ago
    The $1B is a breakup fee if the deal failed for circumstances outside of his control. No breakup fee was specified for 'the deal failed because he got cold feet'. That's one of the reasons the deal was so bizarre. He wrote it, and he wrote it in a matter that did not give him much room to maneuver.
  - kgermino 4y ago
    Because it’s not a break up fee. He can’t just say “I’m out, here’s a billion dollars for your trouble.” Twitter can (and did) sue for specific performance (forcing Musk to close the sale). If the court decides to award monetary damages instead of specific performance that’s capped to $1B but it’s not a simple break up fee. Also most of the purchase will be Musks money too. Financially he’s much better off paying $1B than buying Twitter at the contract price today.
themitigating 4y ago
Who is "twitter" then if the shareholders win?
- dragontamer 4y ago
  The users, the employees, the community. Sucks for them, but crappy acquisitions are a fact of life for online communities. Much like when Tumblr changed owners a few years back and the community was devastated.
jjulius 4y ago
He agreed to the terms that would require the purchase. Nobody is forcing him, he agreed to be in this position.
- make3 4y ago
  they are forcing him to stick to his agreement, thereby forcing him
  - outside1234 4y ago
    he is forcing himself by having signed the agreement - it is a contract - and that's how this works - even if you are a billionaire.
    - coldpie 4y ago
      Ehhhhh. The rules don't apply if you're a billionaire. Where Musk screwed up was engaging in a conflict where the other side is _also_ billionaires.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    ... that's what a contract is. Each party agrees to be bound by what is in the contract. If you don't like what's in a contract and don't want to be held to the terms, don't sign. He did, which is a clear endorsement of the contents therein.
  - chii 4y ago
    Those are different things. Enforcing an agreement of contract is different from forcing an agreement to the contract.
- JamesSwift 4y ago
  He _proposed_ the terms!
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    That's a good point and one that is forgotten here. Twitter was NOT looking for a buyer before any of this happened.
rsynnott 4y ago
Yeah, great for Twitter shareholders, awful for Twitter itself, Twitter users and Twitter employees is about the size of it.
- Covzire 4y ago
  Great for half the country that has had to endure at least 6 years of the DNC weaponizing the platform against them.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    Nah, everybody with an agenda has "weaponized" Twitter (read: used in any way to their advantage). Even whoever it is that you might support opposite the DNC.
    - Covzire 4y ago
      I'm referring, in part, to FOIA requests that have proven there has been direct collusion between the Biden administration and Twitter taking action to ban users who they claim "spread misinformation". The first amendment implications of not stopping this behavior are extreme.
      - jjulius 4y ago
        Ah, we're heading down this conversational path. Gotcha. I'll save us both the time - like it or not, you don't have a right to free speech on a platform owned by a private entity. C'est la vie. Edit: There's also something to be said about Truth Social censoring users, and it being a platform owned by someone who's highly likely to try to be president a second time. See what I mean about how everyone weaponizes social media for their own gains?

blue_light_man 4y ago

If you think about it, you don't want Elon to not stop tweeting. Next time, Elon tweets about buying something, wait for the market to go up, short the stock and make money when Elon eventually backs off?

93po 4y ago

Elon: I'm going to try being vegetarian Internet: Elon is manipulating the beef markets!

encryptluks2 4y ago
Lol.. did he sign a contract agreeing to not eat meat else he'd have to buy Beyond Meat for $44b?
- 93po 4y ago
  Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be legally allowed to openly and freely discuss their thoughts on a pending purchase?
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    No, but if they are involved in litigation or expect to be they have a duty to preserve evidence.