Musk actually buys Twitter.

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
I will repeat again, this is IMHO yet another one of the guy's publicity stunts.
I think he never planned to really buy Twitter.

Yeah, I don't believe that. If he had no intention of following through, it would have been rather crazy for him to have entered into a contract where he's basically forced to by law. That isn't to say that I don't think there's some theater going on. I find it doubtful that Musk didn't already suspect that the company was poorly run, had massive security problems, and was misrepresenting the value of the business.

I think he intended to do this to them all along. Either he forces Twitter to acknowledge its lower value or he's likely to be let go of the deal. I think Twitter entered into the deal because the people who were in charge are greedy and wanted to leave someone else holding the bag, believing that Musk wouldn't disclose the company's problems after having acquired it. Most probably, this is going to go to court, the value of the company will be lowered, Musk will adjust his offer, and Twitter will probably be forced to accept it.

In which case, it's a good deal and an excellent strategy. Get a platform that could be valuable on the cheap.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Yeah, I don't believe that. If he had no intention of following through, it would have been rather crazy for him to have entered into a contract where he's basically forced to by law. That isn't to say that I don't think there's some theater going on. I find it doubtful that Musk didn't already suspect that the company was poorly run, had massive security problems, and was misrepresenting the value of the business.

I think he intended to do this to them all along. Either he forces Twitter to acknowledge its lower value or he's likely to be let go of the deal. I think Twitter entered into the deal because the people who were in charge are greedy and wanted to leave someone else holding the bag, believing that Musk wouldn't disclose the company's problems after having acquired it. Most probably, this is going to go to court, the value of the company will be lowered, Musk will adjust his offer, and Twitter will probably be forced to accept it.

In which case, it's a good deal and an excellent strategy. Get a platform that could be valuable on the cheap.

Well that and you get to publically humilate them and open them up to lawsuits for fraud and then come in with legal backing as the guy to clean it up.

Much easier to get people to work with you when the alternative is potential jail time.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Twitter's Shareholders have voted to sell the company to Musk.


Of course that's dependent on if the courts force him to buy at that price which is still a bit up in the air.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Twitter's Shareholders have voted to sell the company to Musk.


Of course that's dependent on if the courts force him to buy at that price which is still a bit up in the air.

my money is that Elon still buys it but at a greatly reduced price.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
my money is that Elon still buys it but at a greatly reduced price.

That is really beyond the court's authority to order. What the court has standing to determine is whether or not the terms of the contract are valid, yes/no, and more specifically, whether Musk is entitled to break the contract despite his choice to waive due diligence.
 

Buba

A total creep
Twitter's Shareholders have voted to sell the company to Musk.
Quite natural, as after all the interesting revelations about the company they are not likely to get a better deal evah.
Can they sue and/or fire the board for fucking up the deal? For mismanagement?
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Quite natural, as after all the interesting revelations about the company they are not likely to get a better deal evah.
Can they sue and/or fire the board for fucking up the deal? For mismanagement?
I'm not any kind of expert on corporate law so take this with a grain of salt. Shareholders can sue if they can establish that the board acted recklessly or foolishly and inflicted damage on shareholder value. That said there are some pretty significant barriers to them accomplishing anything there, CEOs have plenty of regulatory capture going on and they've made the road to the peasants shareholders doing anything a rocky one.

F'rex Universal Demand laws are a PITA.

The problem is that in theory, the board has the responsibility of suing the Managers. Shareholders can only sue if the Managers caused them personal injury or loss, but if it's just the value of their stocks, the Managers are protected by corporate personhood, the person the Managers hurt is the corporation and the corporation has to file the lawsuit, ie. the board. In practice, the board is nigh-always cronies with the Managerial class and they work together against shareholders. Enter the Derivative Lawsuit, which allows shareholders to sue directly on behalf of the company on the grounds that the company is failing to defend its own, and by derivation the stockholder's, interests.

Well of course executives don't like those uppity peasants getting to do that, so they've produced Universal Demand laws, which basically force the shareholders to instead present their demands back to the board, who can then give shareholders the finger. It moves rights away from shareholders and over to the managerial class with highly predictable results.

 

Buba

A total creep
I'm not any kind of expert on corporate law so take this with a grain of salt.
Thanks for 'splaining.
I mixed up board and management (in my language company's are run by a "managment board" under oversight of a "supervisory council")
 
Last edited:

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
That's too bad. I think it's pretty bullshit. It's like offering to buy a nice-looking car for the price of a cherry example only to find out its floor is rusted out and the engine is locked up before money has actually changed hands, but the slimy salesman has managed to convince the law that the buyers should be forced to buy it anyway, and at the inflated price.
 

Typhonis

Well-known member
He is and he could use it for tax purposes. Then, well he will own Twitter. Let the time of salt begin.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
That's too bad. I think it's pretty bullshit. It's like offering to buy a nice-looking car for the price of a cherry example only to find out its floor is rusted out and the engine is locked up before money has actually changed hands, but the slimy salesman has managed to convince the law that the buyers should be forced to buy it anyway, and at the inflated price.
>Buy a nice car.
>Twitter.

Dude, they can't make enough money to break even and have never, ever paid a dividend.
Zuck's shit at least pays something and despite his metaverse insanity other parts of it, like Instagram and even the original Facebook have a core audience.
All the e-girls and other thots flock to Instagram to rage gawk at other chicks or flaunt their photoshopped photos.
And for a place full of sluts and vacuous idiots it is surprisingly drama free, unlike some other social media platforms I know. :D

Anywaaay, here is a video I saw a while ago that made me think of Musk:




In any case, I think he will try and weasel his way out of the sale or demand a lower price so that he can keep more of the money he cashed out from TESLA so as to buy stuff that is actually profitable and diversified, maybe even buy back his own shares once they take a nosedive.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top