Hacker News Reader

This is a common misunderstanding. The $1B clause was for if the deal was blocked by regulators, it had nothing to do with Elon just deciding to back out of the deal, so just paying that to walk away was never an option. The commenters above saying that the court was about to order specific performance have it right.

View on HN

That makes no sense. Why would anybody agree to a penalty for something they have no control over?

(Reverse) break-up fees are a tool to ensure commitment of both sides to a deal. The main target in the Twitter deal was probably the financing, not the regulatory case, making it a bit less attractive to fail the financing for the deal somehow to get out of it (although there was some debate how realistic that option was anyways). And in the other direction, Twitter was on the hook for a billion for various things it could've done to hurt the deal, e.g. the board recommending shareholders vote against it, or for a competing offer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com