I'm starting to believe he decided it made more sense to mark down the investment to 0 and use the losses against his income for the next few years instead to pay the fine for pulling out of the deal.
Here's some details: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/26/technology/twitter-musk-b.... Later when Elon sought to pull out of the deal, Twitter threatened to go to court to enforce that $1B fee, which led to the buyout proceeding.
Twitter did not sue for the $1b, but for specific perfomance, i.e. closing the deal.
I knew Twitter sought to close the deal, but most of the analysis I read claimed they could have chosen the $1B instead, as if both were viable legal paths. It appears that is incorrect.
I think you are victim to reading headlines and not understanding what Twitter went to court over. Elon paying the $1B wouldn’t have gotten him out of having to complete the deal.
Here’s some details: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-awa...
For example, Dan Ives, who is often quoted in articles about this deal, had this to tweet: https://twitter.com/DivesTech/status/1545527442491822089?s=2...
It appears that is incorrect.
Thank you for replying earnestly and humbly. I wish more did that!
AFAICT, it was very nebulous at the time that it ever would be a common holding company for those (and Musk’s other companies), and very good reasons were cited for being skeptical that that would be workable. And, to my knowledge, none of the other companies has been put under X Holdings.