Twitter refuses Elon Musk’s renewed $44B bid | Hacker News Reader

Twitter refuses Elon Musk’s renewed $44B bid

teslarati.com

13 pointsmelvinmelih3 comments

In favor of the original, which he's already legally bound to. Why would they want to let him modify the deal now?

> In a filing later on Thursday, Twitter responded by saying that Musk and his legal team are being disingenuous. Only days before a trial was to commence, Musk’s team suddenly declares “they intend to close after all,” the lawyers wrote.

> ″‘Trust us,’ they say, ‘we mean it this time,’ and so they ask to be relieved from a reckoning on the merits,” Twitter’s side said. “To justify that relief, they propose an order that allows them an indefinite time to close on the basis of a conditional withdrawal of their unlawful notices of termination coupled with an explicit reservation of all ‘claims and defenses in the event a closing does not occur.’“

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/06/musk-seeks-to-stop-oct-17-tr...

The headline is incorrect. Twitter explicitly stated that they remained committed to the deal, but they opposed a stay of the litigation over a mere promise from Musk that this time, he would actually close. They pointed out that his breaking such a promise was the very reason for the litigation in the first place, and that he could easily stop the litigation by showing up with the actual funds in hand.

In the end, Musk did get a 3 week stay, but it would probably be ill advised of him to use the opportunity for any further shenanigans, if that was his plan.

Some people who seem to be experts have suggested that it could be a sort of trap.

Not just because the judge will be really mad if he goes back on his word this time.

But because there is a legal doctrine that prevents going back on his word, once he's agreed in court on the record to complete the deal.

Until the judge agreed to a stay, that doctrine didn't come into play, because there is a strict boundary between court and things "everybody knows" in general, like that Musk is untrustworthy. Even requesting the stay didn't bind him to his claims.

But in theory, litigants can be prevented from contradicting themselves once someone has relied on their representation in court. I think it's some kind of "estoppel". Which is an archaic French term for a stopper or bung.

It sounds like the judge might have agreed because if he then goes back on his word, virtually all of the possible things he might argue can legally be ignored insofar as they contradict what he's saying now, and it saves a lot of work for the trial.

What I was reading suggested it might be a very shrewd move from the perspective of the judge avoiding spending any more resources than necessary on this nonsense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com