Anonymous wrote:NY POST: Elon Musk considering bringing in partners on Twitter bid, sources say

Betting Peter Thiel is one of them.

NY POST: Elon Musk considering bringing in partners on Twitter bid, sources say

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s an all cash offer. Read.

That just means that it won't be shares.

And I would suggest that you heed your own advice and read. But since you apparently believe you have, I will pull from the 13D. I also have bolded the area you should READ.

"The Proposal is non-binding and, once structured and agreed upon, would be conditioned upon, among other things, the (i) receipt of any required governmental approvals; (ii) confirmatory legal, business, regulatory, accounting and tax due diligence; (iii) the negotiation and execution of definitive agreements providing for the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) completion of anticipated financing."

So you can READ the rest, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000110465922045641/tm2212748d1_sc13da.htm.

Musk does not have 43 billion dollars in his pocket.

+1 As I said pages and pages ago, financing to be named later.

Anonymous wrote:It’s an all cash offer. Read.

With what, Monopoly money?

Anonymous wrote:It’s an all cash offer. Read.

That just means that it won't be shares.

And I would suggest that you heed your own advice and read. But since you apparently believe you have, I will pull from the 13D. I also have bolded the area you should READ.

"The Proposal is non-binding and, once structured and agreed upon, would be conditioned upon, among other things, the (i) receipt of any required governmental approvals; (ii) confirmatory legal, business, regulatory, accounting and tax due diligence; (iii) the negotiation and execution of definitive agreements providing for the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) completion of anticipated financing."

So you can READ the rest, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000110465922045641/tm2212748d1_sc13da.htm.

Musk does not have 43 billion dollars in his pocket.

It’s an all cash offer. Read.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition, today’s actions by the board violate their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns and if they don’t lead to a sell of the company for over $54.20 will lead to monster lawsuits costing the company billions of dollars.

Lol, calm down, Elon. Seriously, you’ve f’ed yourself on this one. You lose.

NP. Possibly, but the Board's fiduciary duty to its shareholders is taken very seriously. I have seen deals where the buyer of a close to bankrupt firm had to up the ante because the Board couldn't accept without violating their duty.

He hasn't come up with a solid offer yet. There is no financing in place and his wealth is tied to Tesla stock. Given his volatility, it is unlikely that a bunch of banks are going to pony up 43 billion dollars for Elon Musk. Second, price alone is not enough. There are a variety of factors. And I would venture a guess that Wachtell, Cravath, Sullivan, Davis Polk or some other firm of that caliber is advising the board. Very unlikely that the board is shooting from the hip.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition, today’s actions by the board violate their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns and if they don’t lead to a sell of the company for over $54.20 will lead to monster lawsuits costing the company billions of dollars.

Lol, calm down, Elon. Seriously, you’ve f’ed yourself on this one. You lose.

Won’t end well. Gloat now

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition, today’s actions by the board violate their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns and if they don’t lead to a sell of the company for over $54.20 will lead to monster lawsuits costing the company billions of dollars.

Lol, calm down, Elon. Seriously, you’ve f’ed yourself on this one. You lose.

NP. Possibly, but the Board's fiduciary duty to its shareholders is taken very seriously. I have seen deals where the buyer of a close to bankrupt firm had to up the ante because the Board couldn't accept without violating their duty.

Lots of butthurt MAGAs suddenly.

Twitter’s board would rather self-immolate than allow for free speech because Twitter does not act as a private company - it acts as a censorship and propaganda arm of the state. The current regime knows it can only survive by suppressing dissent and stifling open debate.

Anonymous wrote:In addition, today’s actions by the board violate their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns and if they don’t lead to a sell of the company for over $54.20 will lead to monster lawsuits costing the company billions of dollars.

Lol, calm down, Elon. Seriously, you’ve f’ed yourself on this one. You lose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't all Americans be free speech absolutists?

You already know free speech has limits. Why feign stupidity?

Tell us, oh Wise One - how do you define those limits?

Let me guess: “anything and everything I disagree with”, right?

Actually, the supreme court has been quite clear about those limits over the years. The current policies in place by the vast majority of tech companies grossly exceed the limits defined by the supreme court.

Because tech companies are not the government and have freedom themselves.

There is a very compelling argument to be made that these tech companies are utilities, or at the very least, common carriers. And neither of those are allowed to practice the kind of subjective discrimination in their delivery of services or power that many tech companies currently do with regard to free speech that does not meet the USSC thresholds for obscenity, libel or incitement.

Through their censorship and ideological standards for speech, these lefty tech oligarchs are setting themselves up to have their platforms taken away from their control and being operated as a public utility. Which would be hysterically funny, BTW.

If I send an Op-Ed to the Washington Post or the New York Times, they’re not obligated to publish it in their pages. And no one would argue that my free speech rights have been infringed. What’s the difference?

Freedom of speech only means that the government can’t arrest you for saying something. It doesn’t mean that private companies are required by law to allow you to use their platforms. If it makes good business sense to exclude certain people because of their actions, then private businesses should have the right to do that.

So you also therefore think 7-11 should be able to exclude groups of young black people from their stores because of the actions of flash mobs of other young black people stealing merchandise from other 7-11 stores?

You’d agree with that then, right?

Businesses often refuse specific customers based on prior bad behavior. Are you saying that Twitter is banning all registered Republicans? Last I checked there are many many conservatives with active Twitter accounts.

Republicans and conservatives should not be allowed to spread their views all over Twitter.

In addition, today’s actions by the board violate their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns and if they don’t lead to a sell of the company for over $54.20 will lead to monster lawsuits costing the company billions of dollars.

Anonymous wrote:Explain the poison pill action taken by the Twitter board.

Twitter announced that its Board of Directors has unanimously adopted a limited duration shareholder rights plan (the "Rights Plan"). The Rights Plan is intended to enable all shareholders to realize the full value of their investment in Twitter. The Rights Plan will reduce the likelihood that any entity, person or group gains control of Twitter through market accumulation without paying all shareholders an appropriate control premium or without providing the Board sufficient time to make informed judgments. It’s a poison pill plan that will trigger when Elon crosses 15%. It is designed to benefit existing shareholders and hurt Elons chances of getting to 51%. It's called a poison pill because it will ultimately hurt the company itself