4 ms·

I'll just remind everyone that Twitter's management team sued Elon to make this happen. They had full knowledge of the details of the offer and its financing.

mjmsmith 4y ago
Did they have any choice, given the massive payday it represented for shareholders?
- danielmarkbruce 4y ago
  Of course they didn't have a choice. It was the board, not management, and they had a fiduciary obligation to sue. They'd have been sued had they not, and they morally have an obligation to represent shareholders so they'd be awful people if they didn't.
  - bink 4y ago
    "fiduciary obligation" (fiduciary duty) doesn't mean that if someone offers you above current value for your company that you are compelled to sell.
    - kgwgk 4y ago
      The shareholders voted.
    - danielmarkbruce 4y ago
      Nobody suggested they did. They have an obligation to act in shareholder's best interest. In this case, they'd have a very difficult time explaining that not suing would be in shareholder's best interest.
thefreeman 4y ago
They would have definitely been sued by shareholders if they didn’t.
akmarinov 4y ago
Well yeah, he offered to buy Twitter at above stock price, then the stock prices crashed a whole bunch and that’s even before last week when Meta, Snapchat, Amazon got destroyed. They sold Twitter at the perfect overvalued moment, for more than it was overvalued at. They’d be idiots not to do their best to close the deal. It’s like if you sell a house last year at sky high prices, you shake on it with someone offering you a million more than the house is worth and the house is leveled by Godzilla in the meantime.
- politician 4y ago
  > They sold Twitter at the perfect overvalued moment. I agree. Yet, if the argument in these comments is that Elon Musk is the Bad Guy(tm) because he overpaid for Twitter just as the Federal Reserve decided to start cranking up rates and as the world descends into recession, that argument ignores the elephant in the room.
watwut 4y ago
The shareholders earned a lot on it. It was very profitable business for them. Not following through could even be seen as failing fiduciary duty. And also, they did not knew Must will be so boneheaded about it all. He could have actually tried to make it look like he means to make twitter work.
stevehawk 4y ago
They had a fiduciary duty to do it.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Especially a fiduciary duty to themselves. Agrawal had 2.3% of the company, and cashes out over a billion on the sale. Edit: this is incorrect. Dorsey had ~2.3%, not Agrawal.
  - kgwgk 4y ago
    He had 0.06% of the company and cashes out less than thirty millions on the sale. (Wrong number of shares and wrong calculation before: He had 0.002% of the company and cashes out less than ten million on the sale.)
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Of course. It was a huge cash payout to everyone involved, Shareholders and management alike. Agrawal himself had 2.3% of the company, and gets a billion+ dollar cut of the sale. Imagine how you would feel if you passed on the deal and twitter stock followed Facebook and other tech down the drain. Edit: this is incorrect. Dorsey had ~2.3%, not Agrawal.
- kgwgk 4y ago
  > Agrawal himself had 2.3% of the company, and gets a billion+ dollar cut of the sale. ~500'000 out of ~765'000'000 outsanding shares = 0.065% https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/insiders/agrawal-parag-1190365 https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/insiders/agrawal-para... (I previous gave a wrong number calculated using a different source - removed to avoid confusion)
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Thanks for the correction and link. Not sure how I got that number from my search Dorsey has ~2.3%, not Agrawal.

mjmsmith 4y ago

Did they have any choice, given the massive payday it represented for shareholders?

danielmarkbruce 4y ago
Of course they didn't have a choice. It was the board, not management, and they had a fiduciary obligation to sue. They'd have been sued had they not, and they morally have an obligation to represent shareholders so they'd be awful people if they didn't.
- bink 4y ago
  "fiduciary obligation" (fiduciary duty) doesn't mean that if someone offers you above current value for your company that you are compelled to sell.
  - kgwgk 4y ago
    The shareholders voted.
  - danielmarkbruce 4y ago
    Nobody suggested they did. They have an obligation to act in shareholder's best interest. In this case, they'd have a very difficult time explaining that not suing would be in shareholder's best interest.

thefreeman 4y ago

They would have definitely been sued by shareholders if they didn’t.

akmarinov 4y ago

Well yeah, he offered to buy Twitter at above stock price, then the stock prices crashed a whole bunch and that’s even before last week when Meta, Snapchat, Amazon got destroyed. They sold Twitter at the perfect overvalued moment, for more than it was overvalued at. They’d be idiots not to do their best to close the deal. It’s like if you sell a house last year at sky high prices, you shake on it with someone offering you a million more than the house is worth and the house is leveled by Godzilla in the meantime.

politician 4y ago
> They sold Twitter at the perfect overvalued moment. I agree. Yet, if the argument in these comments is that Elon Musk is the Bad Guy(tm) because he overpaid for Twitter just as the Federal Reserve decided to start cranking up rates and as the world descends into recession, that argument ignores the elephant in the room.

watwut 4y ago

The shareholders earned a lot on it. It was very profitable business for them. Not following through could even be seen as failing fiduciary duty. And also, they did not knew Must will be so boneheaded about it all. He could have actually tried to make it look like he means to make twitter work.

stevehawk 4y ago

They had a fiduciary duty to do it.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Especially a fiduciary duty to themselves. Agrawal had 2.3% of the company, and cashes out over a billion on the sale. Edit: this is incorrect. Dorsey had ~2.3%, not Agrawal.
- kgwgk 4y ago
  He had 0.06% of the company and cashes out less than thirty millions on the sale. (Wrong number of shares and wrong calculation before: He had 0.002% of the company and cashes out less than ten million on the sale.)

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Of course. It was a huge cash payout to everyone involved, Shareholders and management alike. Agrawal himself had 2.3% of the company, and gets a billion+ dollar cut of the sale. Imagine how you would feel if you passed on the deal and twitter stock followed Facebook and other tech down the drain. Edit: this is incorrect. Dorsey had ~2.3%, not Agrawal.

kgwgk 4y ago
> Agrawal himself had 2.3% of the company, and gets a billion+ dollar cut of the sale. ~500'000 out of ~765'000'000 outsanding shares = 0.065% https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/insiders/agrawal-parag-1190365 https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/insiders/agrawal-para... (I previous gave a wrong number calculated using a different source - removed to avoid confusion)
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Thanks for the correction and link. Not sure how I got that number from my search Dorsey has ~2.3%, not Agrawal.