đť•Ź / Twitter / X, the Social Media Platform Formerly Known as Twitter / "MUSK OWNS TWITTER"

draggs said:
Musk doesn't really wanna go through with it / he's trying to sabotage the deal by disparaging the company and its employees (lolno he hasn't) in contravention of the agreement / he doesn't have the money to pull it off is the latest cope

Morgan Stanley wouldn't have given him ~$23 billion of credit if he couldn't demonstrate that his half of the funding was secured. Morgan Stanley doesn't stick its neck out that far for shits and giggles not even for Elon Musk's shits and giggles
Click to expand...
Its "Here is how Hillary can still win" all over again.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: DopeAddictKittenV2, spiritofamermaid, Allanon and 4 others
mindlessobserver said:
Just like they could be sued for rejecting a good deal, they could also be sued for accepting a bad one.
Click to expand...
Does anybody know how this actually works in practice? Does the buyer have to offer more than the projected share price at the next quarterly earnings meeting? More than the projection for the next year? The next five years?

All these shareholder fiduciary responsibility rules are confusing.
 
draggs said:
Re: Musk isn't allowed to disparage Twitter or its representatives until the deal is finalized. Since I'm now seeing dozens of stories from allegedly reputable outlets taking this line.

False. Musk's agreement with Twitter bars him from disparaging Twitter or its representatives in the context of the agreement to sell the company to him. If he says "Agrawal and Gadde are retarded streetshitter fascists who let me swindle the fuck out of them agreeing to my offer," that's a no-no. If he says "Agrawal and Gadde are retarded streetshitter fascists," that says nothing about the deal, it doesn't violate the terms of their agreement at all.
Click to expand...
Wait, fuck, no - liberal journalists are lying? No way.
 
draggs said:
Re: Musk isn't allowed to disparage Twitter or its representatives until the deal is finalized. Since I'm now seeing dozens of stories from allegedly reputable outlets taking this line.

False. Musk's agreement with Twitter bars him from disparaging Twitter or its representatives in the context of the agreement to sell the company to him. If he says "Agrawal and Gadde are retarded streetshitter fascists who let me swindle the fuck out of them agreeing to my offer," that's a no-no. If he says "Agrawal and Gadde are retarded streetshitter fascists," that says nothing about the deal, it doesn't violate the terms of their agreement at all.
Click to expand...
Elon Musk will do whatever the fuck he feels like.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Open Window Maniac, Wooo, Leaf Wage Slave and 2 others
Matt Damon said:
Does anybody know how this actually works in practice? Does the buyer have to offer more than the projected share price at the next quarterly earnings meeting? More than the projection for the next year? The next five years?

All these shareholder fiduciary responsibility rules are confusing.
Click to expand...
It's simple in theory and complex in application.

The short answer is the board of directors work for the shareholders for one reason, to make the shareholders money. The board is not the owner of the corporation. The shareholders are, and the shareholders elect them on a weighted vote system where the number of shares you hold=the number of votes in the company you have.

Generally, Boards can be made up of majority shareholders. In the case of Twitter though this is not the case. In fact evidence came out that the Twitter Board barely held any stock in the company at all.

In this scenario the Board HAS to act carefully. The fact they have nothing to lose for their decisions means they have less defense against a Shareholder lawsuit. If they take an action that instead of making the shareholders money it loses them money, then they have PERSONAL LIABILITY to the shareholders. That means Twitters board could have been sued in their personal capacity by Twitter itself, and their personal assets targeted to pay any judgements.

This is why Twitters board accepted the offer. Them accepting the offer doesn't make it a done deal, it just makes it easier for the shareholders to say yes or no. It removes their liability. Especially since Elon is buying the company at Premium.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, ChromaQuack, Autistic Joe and 5 others
Holy shit looks Ian wants to suck bill’s wang 7A485736-F65A-4C34-B6DB-ADCA65A24E32.jpeg
 
  • Informative
Reactions: make_it_so, Autistic Joe, mr.moon1488 and 2 others
mr.moon1488 said:
So I guess Shaun King came back.
View attachment 3222429
Click to expand...
Like all of his fellow-travelers, he found it impossible to do the needful and touch grass.

His fingertips brushed the dew-speckled blades, and, like a rabid animal afflicted with hydrophobia, he recoiled with a screech before fleeing to his concrete warren, his shaky hands summoning his Twitter app on his iCrap so he could go back on his commitment to petty activism and fill the bird-shaped hole in his plasticine woke-consoomer cultist heart.

Never change, Talcum X.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: DopeAddictKittenV2, spiritofamermaid, Haltmann and 16 others
mindlessobserver said:
This is why Twitters board accepted the offer. Them accepting the offer doesn't make it a done deal, it just makes it easier for the shareholders to say yes or no. It removes their liability. Especially since Elon is buying the company at Premium.
Click to expand...
Jesus, so the only defense they have in case of a lawsuit is "I swear I really thought I was acting in the shareholders' best interests"? There's no defined criteria at all?

Is there any incentive to NOT put an offer to a shareholder vote?
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, ScatmansWorld and Drain Todger
Matt Damon said:
Jesus, so the only defense they have in case of a lawsuit is "I swear I really thought I was acting in the shareholders' best interests"? There's no defined criteria at all?

Is there any incentive to NOT put an offer to a shareholder vote?
Click to expand...
The defense criteria is usually "normal business operations". It why the boards cannot be sued for losing money on a Bonehead idea like American Airlines unlimited pass. They could also claim the hostile offer undervalued the companies long term prospects.

In this case though they really had no defense. Poison pills can work, if the board takes massive losses along with everyone else. In Twitters case though they could not go through with it. How can they argue the company had strong long term viability if they held no stock in the company? The board had no skin in the game.

Which meant Musk had them dead to rights. It's why you saw a desperate scramble to try and concentrate holding after Musk revealed his 9% stake.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, ScatmansWorld, Autistic Joe and 6 others
mindlessobserver said:
The defense criteria is usually "normal business operations". It why the boards cannot be sued for losing money on a Bonehead idea like American Airlines unlimited pass. They could also claim the hostile offer undervalued the companies long term prospects.

In this case though they really had no defense. Poison pills can work, if the board takes massive losses along with everyone else. In Twitters case though they could not go through with it. How can they argue the company had strong long term viability if they held no stock in the company? The board had no skin in the game.

Which meant Musk had them dead to rights. It's why you saw a desperate scramble to try and concentrate holding after Musk revealed his 9% stake.
Click to expand...
If twitter goes below Musk's offer, the board is fucked, no?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mindlessobserver
Matt Damon said:
Jesus, so the only defense they have in case of a lawsuit is "I swear I really thought I was acting in the shareholders' best interests"? There's no defined criteria at all?
Click to expand...
There's no mathematical formula that will tell you if a company's stock will rise or fall or by how much.
 
Make Anime Illegal said:
There's no mathematical formula that will tell you if a company's stock will rise or fall or by how much.
Click to expand...
True, but if someone offers you 40% more then the stock is worth, you refuse and crash the stock to 20% less then it was before the offer, you have a pretty solid case. At a minimum the shareholders could have held the board personally liable for that 20% loss.

What is 20% of Twitter? Could the board have personally paid that in
judgement? After a legal fight?
 
Osmosis Jones said:
>Implying I don't want to live like an Amish nigger:cunningpepe:

In all seriousness, while Ted got a lot of things right and I agree with him on most of his points, his answer to the problem is completely histrionic and absurd. You don't fix a problem by destroying it. You have to learn to work with at least some of what you're given.
Click to expand...
What i never understood about uncle ted's manifesto is his description of a person alone at a stoplight. It's like he never thought that running the light is also an option, and a ton less work than dismantling society.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Homegrown Homophobia, Sperghetti and 4 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back