The article describes 'his acquisition', which may be technically correct, but there's one thing that battles me - he's borrowed money to do this. Do his debto

The article describes 'his acquisition', which may be technically correct, but there's one thing that battles me - he's borrowed money to do this. Do his debtors have to sit by and watch the asset lose value because of his actions? Are they actually fine with Twitter going under because Musk has enough reserves to pay them back, and they'll actually get a return sooner? Is it all part of a plan which was pitched to them when acquiring the loan, rather than the erratic mess it appears to be from the outside (surely not)? In a standard situation, I'm sure the investors would be furiously getting involved as far as their contracts would allow them to, and probably even beyond.