4 ms·

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/twitter-employee-lawsuit-v/e5d27a60a7b7d51e/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/twitter-employee-laws... > "

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/twitter-employee-lawsuit-v/e5d27a60a7b7d51e/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/twitter-employee-laws... > "Elon doesn't pay rent" Among the many absolutely bonkers things in there, Elon appears to believe he just doesn't need to pay for things.

Quarrel 3y ago
I've seen this several times and just not really understood the end game. Surely they'll be pursued for the rent (plus costs) & evicted along the way. The landlords aren't individual employees he can just shit on and assume they won't sue.
- theanti9 3y ago
  For me this was the final nail in the coffin for the "Elon's just playing 4D chess we don't understand" argument and really just shows that he's a dude that thinks he can do whatever he wants with no consequences, because so far there haven't really been any. If there were a logic to it, I'd guess that it's more important he make the interest payments on the billions of dollars in loans he took out for the purchase than it is to not get sued for non-payment of a lease.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > he's a dude that thinks he can do whatever he wants with no consequences That's been clear to me for many years, but for me, the nail in that coffin was the whole "pedo guy" thing. It was a great demonstration of what a despicable person he is.
  - 1270018080 3y ago
    Being sort of forced to buy Twitter for 3x what it was worth was a consequence.
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      I assume the "4D chess magical supergenius" people have rationalised that as... having been the plan all along or something?
      - TillE 3y ago
        The rationale at the time was that Musk was refusing to pay so that he could cut a better deal with Twitter, which might even be true, but it was still a stupid waste of time (and money paid to lawyers). The punchline of all this is that his main argument was that bots devalued Twitter, and the bot problem has become so much worse in recent months, to the extent that it's become a meme to mess with the bots that sell t-shirts.
    - noSyncCloud 3y ago
      I mean I get what you're saying. But nobody forced him to sign his name on a piece of paper with that number on it.
    - rnk 3y ago
      He wasn't really forced to buy it. There was a $1 billion buyout option of the contract apparently. I believe he paid 44 billion it, when it was clearly worth half that after the stock lost value, so he chose to waste 20 billion instead of 1 billion to save his ego. But instead he's destroyed whatever part of his reputation was left.
      - anotherman554 3y ago
        There was not a 1 billion dollar buyout option, the 1 billion dollar penalty was if he could not obtain financing, which he was perfectly capable of doing, or if a regulator blocked the deal, it wasn't something he had the right to use, just a penalty he would be forced to pay if he couldn't close the deal.
        rnk 3y ago
        Oh I thank you for the extra information. I think he could have sabotaged the financing if you tried hard. So he agreed to pay for 44 billion odd dollars for Twitter no matter what? That's a very questionable deal.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Maybe the end game is just to drive it to bankruptcy... And then get someone to swoop in with some marginal value. But paying for things would make it happen faster... So maybe it is to burn it all down.
- pempem 3y ago
  They can sue but do you know what the return of the suit is? Do you get your cash or do you spend cash + get less than what you were owed? Most things settle and they settle for far less than the original amount. "It's just not worth it" the individual says. That's what Musk and others bank on.
  - blibble 3y ago
    does the US not have something like the UKs functioning county court system? upto about $250,000, you pay a nominal fee, both sides represent themselves, you get whatever's owed + they pay your fees if you win you have to pay their nominal fee and your own if you lose and if they don't pay what's owed at that point you can send in the bayliff or begin winding up the company with something like an unpaid lease for an office it would be over and done more or less instantly
    - flutas 3y ago
      It sounds like you're describing small claims court in the US. Basically no lawyers, only you and only up to a certain amount (varies by state, usually ~5-10k$).
      - rsynnott 3y ago
        In some countries it really is a lot easier to force a company to pay a debt; it can proceed to winding-up/bankruptcy/whatever pretty quickly if the debtor company is uncooperative. As I understand it, US small claims court is _not_ like this; practical enforcement powers are usually fairly limited.
        pempem 3y ago
        Also any commercial lease of this size would easily and immediately outstrip small claims' needs. In general the attitude of big business or HNI is pay a lawyer, reduce the cost you actually pay to the vendor. Get a bulk pricing on lawyer hours (Retainer, tons of active issues anyway, etc) It looks bad to us because we spend a lifetime being upfront and on it with obligations. We literally never want to be evicted but like any crime that has a fine, it is not really a crime. It is a price of doing business a certain way and the question is simply whether you can afford it.
Ameo 3y ago
Page 26 line 188 has notes on this specifically
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  "When informed of the risks of termination fees during a meeting on November 3, 2022, Steve Davis said "Well, we just won't pay those. We just won't pay landlords." Davis also told Hawkins, "We just won't pay rent." Twitter specifically directed Hawkins to breach its leases, whether by terminating without any good faith justification under the terms of the applicable lease, or by simply stealing from the landlords by intentionally remaining on the premises without any intention of paying amounts Twitter knew and believed were its legal obligation to pay. (good reference Ameo)
dylan604 3y ago
That's how rich people stay rich. I've many a personal anecdote where I've been part of the staff working events for 1%ers where they are squabbling over prices just for the kicks of convincing someone else to take less money or the sense of getting something someone else wouldn't get. Then they joke about it with the friends. This is not unique to Elon by any stretch. He just does it in a much more public manner than I have ever seen. Even more blatant than Trump which is infamous for this business tactic.
- KerrAvon 3y ago
  What's insane is that it's not actually how they stay rich. They'd be rich anyway. Most humans could live very comfortably with only the interest from one of their cash holding accounts. It's just arbitrary cruelty to other people because it makes them feel superior and salves their nouveau riche insecurities.
FireBeyond 3y ago
Damn, that filing doesn't mince words: > Led by Musk and the cadres of sycophants > Musk proceeded in line with the principle on which he generally operates: that keeping his contractual promises is optional. and that's just in the first couple of pages, many more.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Elon appears to believe he just doesn't need to pay for things He's the equity anchor for the last cycle's top-tick LBO. He's trying to get to unlevered cash-flow positivity so he can renegotiate the debt from a position of relative strength. (That or wait until a regulator fines Twitter out of existence so he can blame them.) Either way, he's–perhaps rationally–hyperbolically discounting. Cash today is worth more than that cash tomorrow plus court fees and reputation.
thefz 3y ago
> Among the many absolutely bonkers things in there, Elon appears to believe he just doesn't need to pay for things. I just really really hope his hubris drives him into the ground.

Quarrel 3y ago

I've seen this several times and just not really understood the end game. Surely they'll be pursued for the rent (plus costs) & evicted along the way. The landlords aren't individual employees he can just shit on and assume they won't sue.

theanti9 3y ago
For me this was the final nail in the coffin for the "Elon's just playing 4D chess we don't understand" argument and really just shows that he's a dude that thinks he can do whatever he wants with no consequences, because so far there haven't really been any. If there were a logic to it, I'd guess that it's more important he make the interest payments on the billions of dollars in loans he took out for the purchase than it is to not get sued for non-payment of a lease.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > he's a dude that thinks he can do whatever he wants with no consequences That's been clear to me for many years, but for me, the nail in that coffin was the whole "pedo guy" thing. It was a great demonstration of what a despicable person he is.
- 1270018080 3y ago
  Being sort of forced to buy Twitter for 3x what it was worth was a consequence.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    I assume the "4D chess magical supergenius" people have rationalised that as... having been the plan all along or something?
    - TillE 3y ago
      The rationale at the time was that Musk was refusing to pay so that he could cut a better deal with Twitter, which might even be true, but it was still a stupid waste of time (and money paid to lawyers). The punchline of all this is that his main argument was that bots devalued Twitter, and the bot problem has become so much worse in recent months, to the extent that it's become a meme to mess with the bots that sell t-shirts.
  - noSyncCloud 3y ago
    I mean I get what you're saying. But nobody forced him to sign his name on a piece of paper with that number on it.
  - rnk 3y ago
    He wasn't really forced to buy it. There was a $1 billion buyout option of the contract apparently. I believe he paid 44 billion it, when it was clearly worth half that after the stock lost value, so he chose to waste 20 billion instead of 1 billion to save his ego. But instead he's destroyed whatever part of his reputation was left.
    - anotherman554 3y ago
      There was not a 1 billion dollar buyout option, the 1 billion dollar penalty was if he could not obtain financing, which he was perfectly capable of doing, or if a regulator blocked the deal, it wasn't something he had the right to use, just a penalty he would be forced to pay if he couldn't close the deal.
      - rnk 3y ago
        Oh I thank you for the extra information. I think he could have sabotaged the financing if you tried hard. So he agreed to pay for 44 billion odd dollars for Twitter no matter what? That's a very questionable deal.
Ekaros 3y ago
Maybe the end game is just to drive it to bankruptcy... And then get someone to swoop in with some marginal value. But paying for things would make it happen faster... So maybe it is to burn it all down.
pempem 3y ago
They can sue but do you know what the return of the suit is? Do you get your cash or do you spend cash + get less than what you were owed? Most things settle and they settle for far less than the original amount. "It's just not worth it" the individual says. That's what Musk and others bank on.
- blibble 3y ago
  does the US not have something like the UKs functioning county court system? upto about $250,000, you pay a nominal fee, both sides represent themselves, you get whatever's owed + they pay your fees if you win you have to pay their nominal fee and your own if you lose and if they don't pay what's owed at that point you can send in the bayliff or begin winding up the company with something like an unpaid lease for an office it would be over and done more or less instantly
  - flutas 3y ago
    It sounds like you're describing small claims court in the US. Basically no lawyers, only you and only up to a certain amount (varies by state, usually ~5-10k$).
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      In some countries it really is a lot easier to force a company to pay a debt; it can proceed to winding-up/bankruptcy/whatever pretty quickly if the debtor company is uncooperative. As I understand it, US small claims court is _not_ like this; practical enforcement powers are usually fairly limited.
      - pempem 3y ago
        Also any commercial lease of this size would easily and immediately outstrip small claims' needs. In general the attitude of big business or HNI is pay a lawyer, reduce the cost you actually pay to the vendor. Get a bulk pricing on lawyer hours (Retainer, tons of active issues anyway, etc) It looks bad to us because we spend a lifetime being upfront and on it with obligations. We literally never want to be evicted but like any crime that has a fine, it is not really a crime. It is a price of doing business a certain way and the question is simply whether you can afford it.

Ameo 3y ago

Page 26 line 188 has notes on this specifically

toomuchtodo 3y ago
"When informed of the risks of termination fees during a meeting on November 3, 2022, Steve Davis said "Well, we just won't pay those. We just won't pay landlords." Davis also told Hawkins, "We just won't pay rent." Twitter specifically directed Hawkins to breach its leases, whether by terminating without any good faith justification under the terms of the applicable lease, or by simply stealing from the landlords by intentionally remaining on the premises without any intention of paying amounts Twitter knew and believed were its legal obligation to pay. (good reference Ameo)

dylan604 3y ago

That's how rich people stay rich. I've many a personal anecdote where I've been part of the staff working events for 1%ers where they are squabbling over prices just for the kicks of convincing someone else to take less money or the sense of getting something someone else wouldn't get. Then they joke about it with the friends. This is not unique to Elon by any stretch. He just does it in a much more public manner than I have ever seen. Even more blatant than Trump which is infamous for this business tactic.

KerrAvon 3y ago
What's insane is that it's not actually how they stay rich. They'd be rich anyway. Most humans could live very comfortably with only the interest from one of their cash holding accounts. It's just arbitrary cruelty to other people because it makes them feel superior and salves their nouveau riche insecurities.

FireBeyond 3y ago

Damn, that filing doesn't mince words: > Led by Musk and the cadres of sycophants > Musk proceeded in line with the principle on which he generally operates: that keeping his contractual promises is optional. and that's just in the first couple of pages, many more.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Elon appears to believe he just doesn't need to pay for things He's the equity anchor for the last cycle's top-tick LBO. He's trying to get to unlevered cash-flow positivity so he can renegotiate the debt from a position of relative strength. (That or wait until a regulator fines Twitter out of existence so he can blame them.) Either way, he's–perhaps rationally–hyperbolically discounting. Cash today is worth more than that cash tomorrow plus court fees and reputation.

thefz 3y ago

> Among the many absolutely bonkers things in there, Elon appears to believe he just doesn't need to pay for things. I just really really hope his hubris drives him into the ground.