A letter from his banks offering to lend $13 billion to Twitter, if he buys it, with $7 billion of that coming in the form of senior secured bank loans and $6 billion coming in the form of junk bonds.
A letter from his banks offering to lend him $12.5 billion personally, secured by $62.5 billion worth of his Tesla Inc. stock. At yesterday’s closing price, that comes to about 64 million shares, or about one-third of his Tesla stake.
An agreement with himself to put up the other $21 billion, give or take.
* Trump will be replatformed and this will materially push the 2022 and the 2024 elections in the GOP's favor
Friendly reminder that Elon Musk told the UN that if they gave him a budgeted breakdown of how $6Bil could end world hunger, he would do it. They gave him the budget and then he decided not to do it, and instead decided he would buy Twitter for $45Bil.
If you are still on Twitter in April 2022, do not try to pretend you don’t love to eat shit all day. I get it, I’m just like you. We crave the bad tweets, the bad takes, the ratios, the pile-ons, the quote tweet dunks. To pretend otherwise is a farce.
The deal is expected to close in 2022, subject to the approval of Twitter shareholders. Twitter hasn’t announced the timing of a shareholder vote, though the company’s annual meeting is set for May 25, which could offer a convenient time to poll shareholders.
A company can elect to hold a shareholder vote at any time, even before regulators have finished reviewing a proposed takeover.
Here’s a juxtaposition that many American observers may have missed in the hubbub over Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter: just last Friday the European Union provisionally agreed to the most far-reaching internet regulation in a generation. The Digital Services Act, or DSA, will force the largest online platforms to be transparent about their activities and assess and mitigate the harms their products may cause. And it’s just the start. Governments around the world have their sights set on regulating big tech...
Musk told the banks he also plans to develop features to grow business revenue, including new ways to make money out of tweets that contain important information or go viral, the sources said.
Ideas he brought up included charging a fee when a third-party website wants to quote or embed a tweet from verified individuals or organizations.
Here’s an idea, Ezra - have you considered that Elon Musk has 88 million followers? Have you considered that Twitter does not inherently reward people who act indecently but has rewarded Elon Musk for doing literally anything using such a big platform?
What is going on here? My initial reaction was that Musk was joking, that this was just a way to troll people online. It is, after all, Friday the 13th. “Still committed to acquisition,” he tweeted two hours later. Obviously this would be a bad joke, insofar as it “sent Twitter stock tumbling as much as 25% in premarket trading.” You are not supposed to say things that aren’t true and that will affect the stock of a public company that you are trying to buy. That is what is usually called “securities fraud,” or what I sometimes like to call “lite securities fraud.” Musk has a long history of lite securities fraud: He used to make jokes about Tesla Inc. introducing new products or going bankrupt, and he notably settled a fraud lawsuit with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission because he tweeted that he had secured funding to take Tesla private but had not. If he just woke up feeling frisky and tweeted a joke about Twitter’s bot accounts, a joke that wiped billions of dollars off Twitter’s market capitalization, that would be totally unsurprising. Bad! Not really allowed! But very much in character.
On the other hand, what if he does it anyway? What if he just says “no, I’d rather not close”? What is Twitter going to do? Sue him? It is easy for me, sitting here and looking at the contract, to say that Twitter would win that lawsuit and a court would order Musk to pay the money and close the deal. I do think that! But actually making that happen requires filing a lawsuit and going to court and asking a judge to make him pay billions of dollars to buy a company he doesn’t want. It requires his banks to fund $13 billion of debt for a risky leveraged buyout whose whimsical buyer is no longer interested.
Contractually this is all pretty buttoned-up, and I think a Delaware court would have a ton of sympathy for Twitter and none at all for Musk, who is acting in the most transparent and smirking bad faith. But there is a lot that could still go wrong. Suing would take time, and would cause bad publicity, and would create uncertainty among employees and users and advertisers. Letting him walk, focusing on the business, and taking the $1 billion — or negotiating a slightly higher breakup fee to save face — might be a better, though terrible, outcome for Twitter.
Elon Musk has made it very clear that the rule of law simply does not apply to him, and this has worked well for him. If he wants to ignore the merger agreement that he signed, he will. If you take him to court, he will put up a brutal fight and make things as unpleasant as possible for you. This puts his counterparties, like Twitter, in a tough position. They have a contract. But so what?
So how do advertisers know what they’re getting for their money? This is fundamental to the financial health of Twitter.
« Older “I’m not convinced that it’s my place to exhibit... | Gonna go down to Black Mesa and get myself a... Newer »