4 ms·

I don't think that's quite right, or rather you're presenting it incorrectly. When musk proposed the twitter deal he was already in the state where any acquisit

I don't think that's quite right, or rather you're presenting it incorrectly. When musk proposed the twitter deal he was already in the state where any acquisition that he proposed would necessarily be under exceptionally seller-friendly terms, that's why the twitter deal was such. If he already had had to present such terms at that time, what more terms could his proposals possibly provide now after this bullshit?

tptacek 4y ago
He had to buy Twitter under exceptionally seller-friendly terms, because Twitter didn't want to change hands or be taken over by Musk; that's the month of drama leading up to the M&A debacle. What I'm saying is that he'll be getting exceptionally seller-friendly terms from everybody, for years to come, because in the course of this supposed "negotiation" he repeatedly breached the terms of the acquisition agreement, publicly slagged the target over and over again, reneged on the deal, and brought a horseshit case to the Delaware Chancery Court to try to avoid performance when the target held him to the deal he agreed to. Every other company is going to notice that (it's one of the most noticeable things to happen in business in 50 years!), and nobody is going to trust him. I don't believe he did all of that as a negotiating ploy. If he wanted to get the price down, all he had to do was wait before agreeing to an ironclad, overpriced deal. In fact: "waiting" is what he ended up trying to make happen anyways! This wasn't a negotiating strategy.