The point of an acquisition agreement isn’t to give the buyer optionality to acquire another company, it’s to ensure the buyer honors its commitment to acquire another company during the period between the time the buyer agrees to acquire it, and the time is it able to close on taking ownership.
Maybe EM developed buyer’s remorse because of the decline in equity markets, or a belated realization that the CCP will have significant leverage on how he runs twitter, or just woke up the day after signing with that feeling you get when you realize you’ve knocked up Grimes not once but twice.
Just because EM wants an escape hatch, doesn’t make it so. There’s a pretty tight contract that says he needs to buy twitter, at the agreed price, using the committed financing he arranged. EM can try to retrade the price all day long, but then there’s still that pesky matter of a binding contract… to buy Twitter… at the price he agreed with the board… that doesn’t have a diligence out or an “ehhh changed my mind” termination provision.
For a variety of reasons, the board doesn’t have a tremendous number of appealing options (like none) but they have a strong contract that explicitly contains EM’s affirmative obligation to, y’know, buy Twitter. That fact has very little to do with his feeling.
Feel free to point out specific inaccuracies. I think it's pretty clear.
> Just because EM wants an escape hatch, doesn’t make it so
Yes, never suggested it's legally permissible.
> affirmative obligation
This is armchair speculation. Even if the text might seem to be clear in outsider interpretation, this is a matter solely for the courts to determine and both sides will have an opportunity to make their points across. I stand by prediction of the board ending up settling this case. It will get obviously challenged in court, but it's not "wrong" in the sense of predicting an outcome.
There is no basis to this. And even if there was it's such a grey area that they have plenty of legal wiggle room.
So it's really to comprehend how Musk has any sort of bargaining position over this issue.
>The winners at the end of the day would be the lawyers and millions of dollars dumped into fighting a case instead of settling.
I don't understand this popular hot take.
There's no rich egomaniac foil for EM, is there? There's just a corporate machine that he offered a piece of "candy" worth tens of billions and then tried to take back.
As many people have said, if EM just walks away and Twitter does nothing, the stock price is probably half of what it was supposed to be acquired for.
Ten billion dollars will fund a literal battalion of lawyers for a decade if necessary.
It's hard to be 100% sure, but there is a rather high probability that they will win and if they do, even if EM only has to pay a fine, they will have an official court statement saying that their bot statement is reasonable which is significantly better than leaving it with "we settled with EM since we don't think that we can defend this statement".
> In the end, even if they win, and Musk must buys the company at the deal price, by the time that goes through the markets may as well have rebounded to make the acquisition price reasonable again.
And that's fine. After all, Twitter agreed to the sale at that price.
> The winners at the end of the day would be the lawyers and millions of dollars dumped into fighting a case instead of settling.
There would be at least three winners:
1. The lawyers, but they probably already got millions over the whole mess.
2. The legal system, since there would be some indication that even EM has to follow the rules for once.
3. The shareholders who will get significantly more money and who are actually the people the board represents.The point is to help Twitter's shareholders.
Specifically, to help them to the massive premium over the current stock price Elon is legally obligated to pay.
One example I can think of is LVMH made an offer for Tiffany in late 2019 for like $16.2B. It appeared to be unhappy about that price a few months later for some reason, people didn't want high end jewelry or something... They settled for like 3% less, but was that worth the bitterness? That's assuming that Arnault actually did want to go through with the deal, which, there I also believe genuinely was having second thoughts.
The reason I think Musk is trying to actually walk away is that I feel the pushing the bot thing is a pretty double-edged tactic. A lot of LVMH's arguments were that Tiffany was mismanaging the business above and beyond the covid environ i.e. not necessarily that the business is flawed, but the seller stopped caring once they sold it. The bot strat is kinda riskier because it's saying, the business is actually flawed, and the seller is misrepresenting it to me.
If it gets him out great, but if not it could potentially be like buying a house and throwing a lit molotov through the kitchen window on move-in day.
The rest of my post speaks for itself in response to most of your assertions.
This is very important for me as I need to find out if I can just walk away from all the student loans, car notes, and mortgages I may have entered into, as it’s no longer convenient for me, and I would really appreciate if I could make that my counter party’s problem
This whole thing actually creates a golden bridge eventually for the twitter board to retreat on.
The board now has an obligation to sue, otherwise they are breaching their fiduciary duty. However, almost all shareholders will realise that a 2-3 year litigation at the end of which Elon might be forced to buy, is a long way away. Better to settle for a lower price now. Both shareholders and Elon will see this. The board just needs to demonstrate they are fighting for shareholders.
I predict in 3-4 months the board will offer a shareholder vote with a lower price, and shareholders will realise that it's way better to take that deal than wait for litigation.