3 ms·
This is almost certainly going to be a lawsuit, one that I suspect he’ll lose because it’s unlikely he would have had justifiable cause within the first few day
by dagmx 4y ago
This is almost certainly going to be a lawsuit, one that I suspect he’ll lose because it’s unlikely he would have had justifiable cause within the first few days as owner.
This is all because he knows he overpaid and is trying to reduce the insane amount of debt the company has now taken on as part of the sale.
This coincides cleanly with him trying to fire most employees before their stock (now cash?) packages vest. Which I suspect will also end up in a class action lawsuit unless there was some arbitrage agreement.
He needs to reduce his self inflicted bleeding immediately to have any hope of it not being a weight around his legs.
- minimaxir 4y ago> This is all because he knows he overpaid and is trying to reduce the insane amount of debt the company has now taken on as part of the sale. Paying expensive lawyers for a lawsuit that's guaranteed to fail doesn't strike me as reducing costs.
- dagmx 4y agoHe has a large ego. Look at his whole debacle with the Twitter purchase itself. He tried to pull out when he realized he was overpaying, then eventually folded as the lawsuit came up. He also has enough money that the cost of legal fees versus the chance of lowered payments is worth the risk. If he succeeds , any legal costs incurred are a win. If he loses, he’ll brush it under the rug like his other losses (definitely with some memes) and act like he’s the winner. This has been his pattern across all previous litigations as well.
- nikau 4y agodonald trump for nerds.
- Arnt 4y agoTheir contract is with Twitter, a years-old company, so that new owner can name an old reason and say that's justifiable. Management hasn't done well in the past years, so such an argument sounds feasible, even if I don't know what their contract calls justifiable.
- microtherion 4y agoExcept that, ironically, management has done brilliantly in finding a sucker to sell the company to at an inflated valuation, so shareholders did quite well.
- dagmx 4y agoThat’s not how contracts work, especially for parachutes where you’ll have very strict rules for what allows avoiding payment. Even for regular employees, dismissal en masse will have labour boards rightfully looking deep into this. Simply becoming owner doesn’t give Elon the carte blanche ability to do whatever he wants.
- Arnt 4y agoNo, it doesn't do that. But neither does it affect existing contracts — as I said. If Elon can find an old excuse that suits the contract's language, he can use it. The lawyers are sure to fight over it when a payment of >10m is in question, but Elon isn't barred from using arguments that related to before his takeover — despite what GP said.