Elon Musk buys $3 billion stake (9.2%) in Twitter and is now the platform's largest shareholder

[Anonymous]

Why doesn’t Musk simply cut a check for the billion he agreed to and move on? He could probably pull that money out of his pocket this very minute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Musk simply cut a check for the billion he agreed to and move on? He could probably pull that money out of his pocket this very minute.

Because he signed a contract to buy Twitter for $44B and Twitter intends to hold him to it; there is no option to just walk away for $1B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Musk simply cut a check for the billion he agreed to and move on? He could probably pull that money out of his pocket this very minute.

That’s half of his cash and cash equivalents.

[Anonymous]

It would be telling if Twitter is just fake bots, maybe tritter but the bots themselves, no surprise

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be telling if Twitter is just fake bots, maybe tritter but the bots themselves, no surprise

You sound like a bot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Musk simply cut a check for the billion he agreed to and move on? He could probably pull that money out of his pocket this very minute.

His reasons for walking away aren’t ones that triggers the break clause. Twitter will be be suing for specific performance (i.e., to force Musk to complete the merger). Realistically courts tend to disfavor specific performance, but it could result in a judgment or settlement for far more than $1 billion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Musk simply cut a check for the billion he agreed to and move on? He could probably pull that money out of his pocket this very minute.

His reasons for walking away aren’t ones that triggers the break clause. Twitter will be be suing for specific performance (i.e., to force Musk to complete the merger). Realistically courts tend to disfavor specific performance, but it could result in a judgment or settlement for far more than $1 billion.

They don't disfavor it in M&A deals where the contract has a specific performance clause, as it does in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Musk should be investigated by SEC for market manipulation.

2 birds one stone would be fine with me. Twitter and Musk. Would be happy to have them both under scrutiny.

Agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Musk simply cut a check for the billion he agreed to and move on? He could probably pull that money out of his pocket this very minute.

His reasons for walking away aren’t ones that triggers the break clause. Twitter will be be suing for specific performance (i.e., to force Musk to complete the merger). Realistically courts tend to disfavor specific performance, but it could result in a judgment or settlement for far more than $1 billion.

They don't disfavor it in M&A deals where the contract has a specific performance clause, as it does in this case.

Yes, they often do, especially when it’s a company the size and significance of Twitter. It’s one thing to put a small mom-and-pop in which no one else has a stake into the hands of someone who doesn’t want to own it and may just run it into the ground. It’s another thing to do that with a $30 billion company that employs over 7,000 people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Musk simply cut a check for the billion he agreed to and move on? He could probably pull that money out of his pocket this very minute.

His reasons for walking away aren’t ones that triggers the break clause. Twitter will be be suing for specific performance (i.e., to force Musk to complete the merger). Realistically courts tend to disfavor specific performance, but it could result in a judgment or settlement for far more than $1 billion.

They don't disfavor it in M&A deals where the contract has a specific performance clause, as it does in this case.

Yes, they often do, especially when it’s a company the size and significance of Twitter. It’s one thing to put a small mom-and-pop in which no one else has a stake into the hands of someone who doesn’t want to own it and may just run it into the ground. It’s another thing to do that with a $30 billion company that employs over 7,000 people.

Fortunately, the damages are also obvious- offer price minus current share price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Musk simply cut a check for the billion he agreed to and move on? He could probably pull that money out of his pocket this very minute.

His reasons for walking away aren’t ones that triggers the break clause. Twitter will be be suing for specific performance (i.e., to force Musk to complete the merger). Realistically courts tend to disfavor specific performance, but it could result in a judgment or settlement for far more than $1 billion.

They don't disfavor it in M&A deals where the contract has a specific performance clause, as it does in this case.

Yes, they often do, especially when it’s a company the size and significance of Twitter. It’s one thing to put a small mom-and-pop in which no one else has a stake into the hands of someone who doesn’t want to own it and may just run it into the ground. It’s another thing to do that with a $30 billion company that employs over 7,000 people.

The Delaware Chancery Court has granted specific performance in multi-billion dollar deals before. Can you name one case where it has found a breach of an M&A contract with a specific performance clause and yet declined to grant specific performance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Musk simply cut a check for the billion he agreed to and move on? He could probably pull that money out of his pocket this very minute.

His reasons for walking away aren’t ones that triggers the break clause. Twitter will be be suing for specific performance (i.e., to force Musk to complete the merger). Realistically courts tend to disfavor specific performance, but it could result in a judgment or settlement for far more than $1 billion.

They don't disfavor it in M&A deals where the contract has a specific performance clause, as it does in this case.

Yes, they often do, especially when it’s a company the size and significance of Twitter. It’s one thing to put a small mom-and-pop in which no one else has a stake into the hands of someone who doesn’t want to own it and may just run it into the ground. It’s another thing to do that with a $30 billion company that employs over 7,000 people.

Why would Musk destroy a $45B investment just to spite a court? He can settle for $15B or buy the whole thing. He will settle for a pretty penny, Twitter had his number all along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Musk simply cut a check for the billion he agreed to and move on? He could probably pull that money out of his pocket this very minute.

That’s half of his cash and cash equivalents.

The billion is for specific circumstances which do not apply here. If he were normal he would end up having to pay Twitter 1-3 billion to get out of this. He will not. So he will push it to the end -- trial --- he could win. More likely he will be ordered to close the deal. At that point he will have to pay 5-10 billion just to get out in a deal. At that point he might as well take it over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Musk simply cut a check for the billion he agreed to and move on? He could probably pull that money out of his pocket this very minute.

His reasons for walking away aren’t ones that triggers the break clause. Twitter will be be suing for specific performance (i.e., to force Musk to complete the merger). Realistically courts tend to disfavor specific performance, but it could result in a judgment or settlement for far more than $1 billion.

Here though he agreed to the specific performance. Yes it is disfavored as a remedy but not when the parties agree to it in advance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Musk simply cut a check for the billion he agreed to and move on? He could probably pull that money out of his pocket this very minute.

That’s half of his cash and cash equivalents.

The billion is for specific circumstances which do not apply here. If he were normal he would end up having to pay Twitter 1-3 billion to get out of this. He will not. So he will push it to the end -- trial --- he could win. More likely he will be ordered to close the deal. At that point he will have to pay 5-10 billion just to get out in a deal. At that point he might as well take it over again.

He would settle for 1-3 in a heartbeat, but why would Twitter take that deal? His unsubstantiated claims have damaged the brand and market value.