I honestly don’t care, I’m not on either side. But this was not a house sale, and Musk wasn’t a crazy dude approaching a home owner. He had a lot of support from shareholders since day 1.
The house was appraised and you signed a contract to buy it as-is. Then you take a hammer to every window and pipe then try to use that to negotiate a lower price.
Sorry, that is not how it works. It's clear that this is a continuation of Musk's feud with Twitter's management. His goal from the onset was to damage Twitter.
Is this true? My understanding is that the "crash" is inline with other tech companies losing value in the same period. IIRC (and I might not!), it only looks like Musk caused the crash if show only the Twitter price. Once you overlay it with some other stocks, it looks pretty normal.
It spiked because of his antics and then crashed because of his antics.
Twitter stock today ($42.52) is basically where it was at the beginning of the year ($42.66 on Jan 3), on April 1 ($39.31, right before it was disclosed that Musk was the single largest shareholder), and where it was on May 16 ($37.39, after most of the fallout of him pulling out).
Please let me know if another tech stock's price has jumps that are aligned with those events.
I'm having trouble finding a shareable link but it's clear he had an effect on the price when he made the offer and when he pulled out but, to me, TWTR appears to have gained in value compared to AMZN, GOOG and AAPL YTD.
There are some exit clauses (like Musk not getting financing from his banks) but they don't apply here. Specifically, there's no exit clause for the bot percentage.
> If it was a promise it could be written on a hallmark card.
Are you just trying to change the meaning of the word promise? Most people would agree that if you break a promise you pay a price - it might be a social one in case of a promise between friends. Or it might be a financial price in case of a written & signed promise, a.k.a a contract.
Musk is actually obligated to buy the company at this point. It is unlikely the courts will fully attempt to force such a large purchase. But the penalty decided could be much higher than $1B.