https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/twitter-employee-laws...
> "Elon doesn't pay rent"
Among the many absolutely bonkers things in there, Elon appears to believe he just doesn't need to pay for things.
> "Elon doesn't pay rent"
Among the many absolutely bonkers things in there, Elon appears to believe he just doesn't need to pay for things.
Surely they'll be pursued for the rent (plus costs) & evicted along the way. The landlords aren't individual employees he can just shit on and assume they won't sue.
If there were a logic to it, I'd guess that it's more important he make the interest payments on the billions of dollars in loans he took out for the purchase than it is to not get sued for non-payment of a lease.
That's been clear to me for many years, but for me, the nail in that coffin was the whole "pedo guy" thing. It was a great demonstration of what a despicable person he is.
The punchline of all this is that his main argument was that bots devalued Twitter, and the bot problem has become so much worse in recent months, to the extent that it's become a meme to mess with the bots that sell t-shirts.
On it being a questionable deal, it’s not a consumer contract. It is assumed that both sides know what they’re doing in commercial deals; there’s little protection for incompetent participants. It might be questionable, but the participants have largely signed away the right to question it.
If Musk lost in court, was ordered to go through with the deal, and then sabotaged the financing to try to get out of the deal, potentially a court could have thrown him in jail and said, "You are lying about not being able to go through with the financing, we find you in contempt of court and you are staying in jail until you obtain financing and close the deal." It's not very plausible that the world's richest man can't find financing on the deal.
Potentially a court could have also instead said, "Since you sabotaged the financing, you are in breach of contract. Twitter is worth 22 billion dollars today. You offered 44 billion dollars to buy it. You are hereby ordered to pay Twitter 22 billion dollars to make them whole." Presumably the court could have forced him to sell assets to pay up.
I don't think anyone knows for sure what would have happened in court but it seems he had a very weak case.
He can’t cry if he made a bad business decision. Or well he can, but it has no legal bearing.
So maybe it is to burn it all down.
Most things settle and they settle for far less than the original amount. "It's just not worth it" the individual says. That's what Musk and others bank on.
upto about $250,000, you pay a nominal fee, both sides represent themselves, you get whatever's owed + they pay your fees if you win
you have to pay their nominal fee and your own if you lose
and if they don't pay what's owed at that point you can send in the bayliff or begin winding up the company
with something like an unpaid lease for an office it would be over and done more or less instantly
Basically no lawyers, only you and only up to a certain amount (varies by state, usually ~5-10k$).
As I understand it, US small claims court is _not_ like this; practical enforcement powers are usually fairly limited.
In general the attitude of big business or HNI is pay a lawyer, reduce the cost you actually pay to the vendor. Get a bulk pricing on lawyer hours (Retainer, tons of active issues anyway, etc)
It looks bad to us because we spend a lifetime being upfront and on it with obligations. We literally never want to be evicted but like any crime that has a fine, it is not really a crime. It is a price of doing business a certain way and the question is simply whether you can afford it.
> Led by Musk and the cadres of sycophants
> Musk proceeded in line with the principle on which he generally operates: that keeping his contractual promises is optional.
and that's just in the first couple of pages, many more.
He's the equity anchor for the last cycle's top-tick LBO. He's trying to get to unlevered cash-flow positivity so he can renegotiate the debt from a position of relative strength. (That or wait until a regulator fines Twitter out of existence so he can blame them.)
Either way, he's–perhaps rationally–hyperbolically discounting. Cash today is worth more than that cash tomorrow plus court fees and reputation.
(good reference Ameo)
I just really really hope his hubris drives him into the ground.