Twitter unlikely to prevail against Elon Musk
wsj.com
wsj.com
Not one word there about Elon Musk's personality. Instead the artictle contains text such as: «It isn’t clear how Twitter is made worse off by Mr. Musk’s walking away. Twitter shareholders are surely worse off because the merger agreement would have cashed them out at $54.20 a share. But the shareholders aren’t party to the agreement. Only Twitter Inc. is a party, and it is a separate and distinct legal entity. Twitter would have to prove harm, such as lost profits, and that’s an uphill battle.»
I'll quote the last paragraph too:
«This case highlights an important risk to shareholders in mergers and acquisitions: The corporation that negotiates the deal may not have much of a case against a breaching counterparty because the corporation, unlike its shareholders, usually isn’t harmed when the counterparty walks away. The easy fix is to give shareholders the right to sue for their losses. But either Mr. Musk’s lawyers were too smart for that or Twitter’s weren’t smart enough.»
Why would there be? The article is a legal analysis of the likely outcomes of Twitter's suit, a topic of obvious interest to any WSJ readers thinking about buying/selling Twitter stock, as well as any who are interested in the broader implications of Musk taking control of Twitter, or not. It's not so clear that WSJ readers are interested in Musk's personality, and even if they are, there's no reason to think that a writer qualified to comment on legal issues will also be a qualified psychologist.