You might want to speak with a lawyer who is familiar with inchoate crime.
What you publicly proposed to Elon is a crime, since you intend to conceal beneficial ownership of shares.
Promising voting rights doesn't change beneficial ownership. Twitter would have precedent, however, to find "conscious parallelism" and thus "a de facto control bloc" between the commenter and Musk, and thus bundle them for purposes of the poison pill's activation [1].
Still, not a crime. Civil dispute under corporate law.
[1] https://www.yalelawjournal.org/comment/unpacking-wolf-packs
The Yale Law article you cite is just about groups of investors working together, which is within their rights.
It's not a crime to publicly finance someone else's stock purchases, or even to publicly solicit others to finance your stock purchases (it's not "solicitation" in the inchoate sense, since the inducement is not towards a crime).
Not really.
Setting aside the other issues, first and foremost this is obviously a joke. Prosecution would have to establish mens rea for this to rise to a criminal act. Do you think anyone could prove true intent for these events to unfold, based on this comment?
If you admit that he is the beneficial owner and you are just an intermediary, then the poison pill provision is not skirted.
Oh so Mr. Musk incidentally wired you billions of dollars before the share purchase?
(Assembly into blocs of financing, dpeech as the action of capital allocation)
Honestly I'd lose faith in the U.S. in it's entirety if it was the case that the answer to your question was even remotely "yes".
Keep in mind, I lump in people's behavior with normative restrictions of the First Amendment. If the Government can't do it, and the Government is us, we shouldn't be doing it. So businesses doing it because business doesn't hold for me either. Especially if it happens as a method of indirection to work around literal interpretation.
So if there is a restriction on shareholder coordination, I don't see how our legal system in this case can be taken seriously as anything but a tool utilized by those in positions of influence capable of more tightly coupling to other people of influence.
Saying “the government is the people” is much like saying “the shareholders are the managers of the company”: yes, that’s true in an oblique, ideal sense, but you’re going to run into trouble if you start trying to literally substitute the one for the other in random sentences.