Makes sense. A lot of derps on WSB are saying the board has to accept or they’ll get sued to oblivion, so I started wondering if there was any truth to that.
What if the offer was 1 Trillion + pinky on lips, and they still refused?
DeSantis has already hinted at having the AG of Florida sue them if they don’t take the offer.
Maybe we check with a few Trump appointees, see if they’ve read that rule and agree with it?
Anyone can file a lawsuit over anything.
Right but I mean one that will be ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor
This is one of the stupidest things that may (supposedly) happen, ever. Twitter’s whole value is in its “celebrities” who use it and make news aka content, it isn’t Facebook and people aren’t bound to the product, only 10% of US people even use it. When TFG comes back and someone instantly creates Twitter2, I’d guess 70%+ of their audience leaves. I know I’m deleting my account the second that happens. It would kill the company.
Anyone check to see if Elon has the shorts? 
Some major MAGA red button meme happening among car dealers today.
It’s been a long time since corporate law class, but my recollection is largely consistent with Riverman’s - the business judgement rule gives the board pretty wide latitude to reject an offer. Basically the board just has to treat the offer seriously and can’t just ignore it. That’s why they hire GS to write a report that says the offer does not properly value the company. So long as you have this report, the board is pretty much never going to lose (although they might pay a settlement just to have the lawsuit go away, but then most of the money goes to plaintiff’s lawyers)
However, where the board could get in trouble is by enacting too strong of a poison-pill as that can bock shareholders from accepting an offer despite the board’s reluctance. So in your example, the board is likely free to say the huge offer isn’t enough and that they won’t recommend it. However, if they enact too draconian of a poison-pill to prevent shareholders from accepting a hostile deal that could get struck down (although still unlikely board members are personally liable). For instance, the DE court recently struck down a Williams Co. poison pill that kicked in at 5% ownership. (the current Twitter poison pill is almost certainly fine).
2 Likes
The market seems to think it’s pretty likely that TWTR gets sold to someone. If you take $40 as the standalone trading price, the current $50 price would imply something just north of a 2/3 chance of a deal at $54.20. Could be a somewhat smaller number if there’s a healthy probability of another bidder showing up for a bigger number.
Seems hard to believe that this deal blows up over a reverse termination fee, but I haven’t seen any great reporting on the details.
The only good thing about this is getting to lol at how unbelievably cucked the people who signed up for Truth Social are going to be.
Can somebody change this awful thread title?
Can’t think of anything creative, but I’m sure someone here can.
Trump back on Twitter is such a terrible thought. Elon can’t fuck off to Mars soon enough imo.
1 Like
I’m really hoping this goes the way of Parler or Trump’s platform or any of the other ones.
It really doesn’t take a whole lot to just not use Twitter.
1 Like
I actually can’t wait for all the fucking morons who think they’ve been shadow banned to try and rationalise why no one still likes their posts even though free speech jesus owns twitter now. Obviously they will do it easily but that is going to be some mind bending shit.
2 Likes
Thank you to whoever made the change.
I like it. Short and to the point.
i liked the old title, even though it was super old.
1 Like