Conversation

Notices

1. LinuxWalt (@lnxw48a1) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864} (lnxw48a1)'s status on Friday, 18-Nov-2022 04:56:16 UTC LinuxWalt (@lnxw48a1) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864}

   Remote profile options...

   • simsa04
   @simsa04 One thing that stood out to me as a former business major is that ... once #Musk followed up his presumably drunk purchase offer with a serious purchase offer, #Twitter management was legally obligated to sell the company and to pursue any and all legal remedies to cause that to be accomplished. They could sell it to him or they could find someone offering a higher price, but they had to sell the company.
   
   If Elon Musk wasn't so sure of his own superiority, he could have said "I was drunk / stoned and not thinking clearly, so the offer I made is rescinded", but instead he followed through (probably because he secretly bought 9% of the company before any of this happened, so making that sort of offer and not carrying it out could have subjected him to civil and criminal penalties).
   
   It really is sad that they had to do so regardless of their belief that he was overpaying and that he would not be able to make the payments on his loans, but present US securities laws require this.
   
   See also: https://nu.federati.net/notice/3414551
   • LinuxWalt (@lnxw48a1) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864} (lnxw48a1)'s status on Friday, 18-Nov-2022 15:29:13 UTC LinuxWalt (@lnxw48a1) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864}

     Remote profile options...

     • simsa04
     @simsa04 Once Musk made a serious offer, even before the purchase contract, Dorsey and the company management had no choice. They had to sell or face shareholder lawsuits. My memory is that they resisted until some shareholders threatened to lawyer-up.