4 ms·
Unless Twitter has no assets of any marketable value (which obviously isn't the case, the company itself just sold for 44 billion dollars) the landlords will ge
by butlerm 4y ago
Unless Twitter has no assets of any marketable value (which obviously isn't the case, the company itself just sold for 44 billion dollars) the landlords will get paid, worst case by having Twitter issue additional stock in a debt for equity swap.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cykros 4y agoMany have been estimating it at well under a $10 billion valuation. Elon Musk just became the first person to lose $200 Billion. I'd not be so quick to assume creditors are all getting paid here.
- butlerm 4y agoIf Twitter ceased to exist as a service then I agree creditors probably would not get paid or at least not in full. Liquidation isn't all that likely though. It is more likely that creditors would end up in control of the business, and that is worth something unless a Twitter style social media network is actually unsustainable as an economic enterprise.
- rchaud 4y agoCreditors wouldn't care about controlling Twitter, as it generates no profits. They would have to find another buyer, and that would be hard going considering that Musk has chased off most of the big advertisers already.
- gamblor956 4y agoDeliberately under-capitalizing a privately-held corporation, as Elon appears to be doing, is one of the few exceptions to the corporate liability shield. (Rent costs were known at the time of acquisition, so not providing sufficient capital to pay those costs now that he owns the company can be used against him in bankruptcy court; the fact that Twitter now has ongoing loan payments of >$1 billion/annually does not help him because those liabilities were incurred as part of the acquisition). Or in other words...creditors might be able to go after Elon personally for Twitter's debts. It's rare, but it does happen, and it happens more frequently when one party tries to game the system.
- plorkyeran 4y agoNo one involved thought Twitter was worth anywhere close to $44 billion when it was sold.
- butlerm 4y agoAt least one person did, or it would not have sold for that amount.
- nickthegreek 4y agoThat one person tried not to buy it almost instantly after the ink was dry. Seems like even they didn’t think it was worth it.
- butlerm 4y agoI would say he certainly did think it was worth that, just not for very long.
- klyrs 4y agoIf you buy a $1M sports car for $5M and drive it into a wall at top speed, its value is not $5M. Source: my dad was an insurance adjuster. Your original claim is that twitter could use its $44B value to issue stock to pay down its debts. That a drug-addled edgelord briefly thought that twitter was worth that much is not strong evidence in support of your claim. Sometimes it's okay to admit that you're wrong or at least stop arguing.
- mtnGoat 4y agoHe may have thought it was when he made the offer(given it was even genuine to begin with), but not when it closed. Hence the lawsuit trying to back out. Musk has also said publicly that he over paid.
- rchaud 4y agoThat same person immediately had buyer's remorse and went to court to try to renege on the deal. It's not worth that much to even the buyer!