3 ms·
Their 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 pas
by Arnt 4y ago
Their 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.