A good read on the Twitter buyout.
I wonder if there was any consideration for letting Musk walk away with like a substantial breakup fee. Would that have been better than forcing Musk to pay $44B, presumably laying off substantial % of employees, and changing the culture etc.?
But the Board's first responsibility is the fiduciary duty of the shareholders and not employees or its subscribers. Twitter was already experiencing weakness so possibly it needs a disruptor to turn things around (or take it further down). This reads something like Time Warner acquisition of AOL, hopefully it'll be more successful.
“Mischief and delay”: How Musk and Twitter finally sealed the deal | Ars Technica
Quote:
|
Musk apparently believes that heunlike every other party subject to Delaware contract lawis free to change his mind, trash the company, disrupt its operations, destroy stockholder value, and walk away, Twitter said at the time.
|
Quote:
Musk has not explained his abrupt U-turn, but his legal team had gained little traction in pre-trial battles and Delaware courts have historically almost never let buyers with cold feet walk away.
Whatever the final straw, Musk realized that there was minimal chance for him to prevail in court. And by that point, Twitter had no interest in a discounted price, three people said.
|