Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

CWallace

macrumors G5
Aug 17, 2007
12,107
10,869
Seattle, WA
I thought that $1B break up fee was if the SEC terminated the deal. He is backing out himself, there is no limit to the damages he can be sued for because of it.

The fee is between Musk and Twitter and comes into play if either party decides to cancel the deal. If Musk cancels, he owes Twitter the fee. If Twitter cancels (to accept a richer offer), then they owe Musk the fee. As Musk has signaled his intent to cancel, he owes the fee to Twitter.

What you are referring to is known as a "reverse breakup fee" and is paid by the buyer if they cannot complete the deal due to an outside reason like regulatory intermediation (the SEC or FCC, for example) or third-party financing concerns (like a major financial backer pulling out their financing commitment). I do not know if there is such a fee attached to this deal, but even if there were, it would not be in play because Musk is voluntarily intending to cancel.
 

0092762

Cancelled
May 29, 2005
273
316
The fee is between Musk and Twitter and comes into play if either party decides to cancel the deal.

If Musk cancels, he owes Twitter the fee. If Twitter cancels (to accept a richer offer), then they owe Musk the fee.

As Musk has signaled his intent to cancel, he owes the fee to Twitter.

I think this is false, the fee only comes into play if a third party (like the FTC, SEC, etc.) cancels the deal.
 

zorinlynx

macrumors G3
May 31, 2007
8,184
17,722
Florida, USA
So do people want him to lose and thus own twitter? I am confused...
I think most rational people don't want this. The guy has become unhinged in the past few years. It would be a really bad idea to give him control of one of the largest social media platforms in the world.

The Twitter board and investors want it because it's a payday. Period. They don't care about the platform, just cash in the bank.
 

Hodar1

macrumors regular
Hahah.

He'll be sued for billions. There stock dropped because of him. People quit because of him. They laid off people because of him.

Musk is the worst
Sued? Twitter said that there were only "x%" of bots, and multiple independent bodies found that Twitter mis-represented material facts in the number of bots. This is what we call "fraud". In fact, what will likely happen next is that advertisers, who were promised an engagement platform of reaching potential customers, were in fact, paying inflated prices to advertise to non-entity bots. That is fraud, against multiple advertisers, over years. Share Holders, who were told in SEC filings that Twitter engaged with some number of people on their platform, were lied to.

Yet, somehow all of Twitter's fraud is Musk's fault? If I were to sell you a car, and you found out I lied about the mileage on the car, the year of the car, the accident record of the car, the maintenance issues with the car, and even something as basic as the size of the engine in the car - because of fraud, any contract is NULL and VOID. It's not rocket science.
 

Sheepish-Lord

macrumors 68020
Oct 13, 2021
2,235
4,616
The way this man is obviously pulling all these stunts to influence stock markets and so far has just gotten away with it is astonishing.

Eat the rich
The fact that the stock market is affected by one man’s comments on multiple occasions reflects how volatile the market is and the dunces that buy/sell based on this. Similar to how people buy stock before an iPhone comes out then brag…it’s literally a scheduled yearly release the stock market doesn’t work like that and those that think it does are the losers.

Classic pump and dump like others have stated and those that pump are chumps. SEC won’t do anything about it.
 

Hodar1

macrumors regular
On what grounds? They had a fiduciary duty to accept his offer once a majority of shareholders agreed to sell the company to Musk.

The board and executives are in a much better legal position in the upcoming flurry of lawsuits than Musk is.
Ummm, Fraud? The BoD did not own a substantial amount of shares in Twitter; yet were compensated for representing the Share Holders. The number of bots in Twitter was found to be far above the amount stated by the BoD and Sr. Management - it's THEIR JOB to know how many users are real. When you make financial misstatements with the intent to commit fraud, you have broken many Federal, State and local laws. Not the least would be
 

lazyrighteye

Contributor
Jan 16, 2002
4,105
6,326
Denver, CO
Ummm, Fraud? The BoD did not own a substantial amount of shares in Twitter; yet were compensated for representing the Share Holders. The number of bots in Twitter was found to be far above the amount stated by the BoD and Sr. Management - it's THEIR JOB to know how many users are real. When you make financial misstatements with the intent to commit fraud, you have broken many Federal, State and local laws. Not the least would be
Real question: proving intent could be tricky, yes? Or no: it’s pretty black/white? Again, real question. Thnx.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.