The counter point here is that the Twitter board is not poor, and the incentives to force the buyout (or at least extract more money from Musk) are huge.
Yes, and they are the side I'm cheering for in this match. Even if Musk is forced to pay, I doubt it will slow his twitter tirades down. In fact, I'd expect him to come out harder to prove whatever his little ego thinks needs to be proven.
Applying unrelated leverage between two parties is usually not looked at favorably by court. And court is likely where the musk/twitter thing will be settled.
There is no option 2. That was a proviso in case Elon was unable to secure financing. He secured financing, so now he has to buy Twitter. Or they can sue him.
The clause about the $1B penalty says nothing about separation. That clause only activates if the deal is stopped by some outside entity, such as the SEC, or if the two parties mutually agree to stop the process.
In all other cases, Elon has committed to give them $44B in exchange for the company.
What reads like simple English to you or I does not get read the same way by lawyers. Once lawyers are involved, all reasonable logic goes out the window in my perspective.
Ever since what "the definition of 'is' is", my whole outlook on lawyers was just obliterated.
Not for sure why you're downvoted, because you're right. Lawyers do not operate on logical basis. They operate on interpretations of logic. I found this out when buying my house. Interacting with the lawyers was completely miserable because they live in their own little world. They expected me to just know things that they would poorly specify, requiring several emails to clarify, and then when I would point out mistakes, logical inconsistencies, or poorly defined things in the contract, they would just shrug it off or sort of grudgingly fix them, seemingly just to appease me. Then they would just dig their heels in the ground about what the contract "says" because the contract "says so", even though it made no logical sense. Because the contracts aren't what they say logically. They say what they say based upon a sort of colloquially agreed upon interpretation of them. Lawsuits then center around this colloquial agreement and not around the contractual logic. It's an excruciatingly frustrating world to be introduced to. I wish to never have to deal with lawyers.
> Ever since what "the definition of 'is' is", my whole outlook on lawyers was just obliterated.
Is that in reference to something? Got a link or an article or something?
>Is that in reference to something? Got a link or an article or something?
Very much yes[0]. It was one of the defensive lines from Bill Clinton. I was still in high school during this, and it set me on a very bad path of thinking how to twist anything and everything anyone ever said. After all, if the pres can do it, then we should all be able to do it.
