OhOver the past two months, several labels have been applied to Elon Musk’s proposed $ 44 billion Twitter acquisition. Purchasing, in various ways, has been called a story, a drama, a conflict, a war and “capitalism has become a villain.” When a story involves someone as colorful as musk, and when the narrative moves in the same way, it is easier to generalize increasingly colorful terms to describe the event.
Why stop there? Musk certainly did not. What Musk has been saying over the past few weeks has changed the story again with Monday: he will cancel the deal and leave unless Twitter lets him see the data used to calculate his guesses about bots and spam accounts. Site traffic estimates may be inflating. Twitter says he can’t, and won’t.
At the moment, the Musk-Twitter deal is less about what is being called a story or a drama. The deal now looks a lot like a chicken game. Musk on one wheel, and the Twitter board piled on the other, sending two cars crashing into each other.
The game’s dynamics begin with Musk’s claim that Twitter has more bots than the company admits. Twitter CEO Parag Agarwal maintains that spammers create less than 5% of daily active accounts. Musk suggested that the number could be five times higher.
On Monday, Musk said Twitter’s failure to provide him with bots’ data constituted a “material breach” of the consolidation agreement, a sufficient violation for him to cancel the agreement. He had earlier argued an alternative point, suggesting that Inconsistency This could be enough to invalidate the agreement between his number and Twitter, perhaps because a discrepancy between his number and Twitter could constitute a fraud on the part of Twitter অথবা or, if not direct fraud, the discovery of inconsistencies could fall into a category – “Material Adverse Change.” “It simply came to our notice then. If advertisers find that the place is, in fact, a ghost town full of fake profiles য়া fake people they will probably be less interested in paying for advertising there. This is a very bad situation for any company that relies on advertising revenue. You could even say that it was very materially negative.
Can you argue that the mask is capable of proving every case in court? This is where lawyers and legal professionals tend to be. They usually answer that it is impossible. Experts say the recent bit about Twitter’s refusal to share bot data is particularly thin. George Gayes, a professor of corporate law at the University of Virginia, explained, “There is no specific word in the merger agreement that forces Twitter to do what Mask says, and so Twitter is not violating the agreement if they refuse.” “In most consolidation agreements, sellers have an obligation to assist the buyer with due diligence. But Kasturi has abandoned it. ” Yes, he did relinquish his right to persevere when he first struck a deal with Twitter’s board in April.
But what if Mask doesn’t look for a convincing legal case? What if he just wants to: “Lift up,” Gayes says. “My guess is that at some point a week or two ago, he asked her to look at his lawyers more closely and said, ‘Get me the real leverage of the transaction.'”
This is why it is not really important to consider whether Mask Bot is correct or Twitter. Musk doesn’t have to be right and win a trial. He needs to find something to start a lawsuit and end Twitter without wasting time on litigation. And he’s probably already found enough to do it, says the same expert. Musk can wait and bear the million-dollar fee that his Scaden, Arps lawyers will collect; Publicly traded Twitter does not have the same luxury of unlimited time. Twitter’s board once saw the company sell $ 54.20 worth of shares to Musk as a wise complement to its fiduciary duty to investors.–Considering the stock market sinking, especially after the approval of this agreement. But does forcing the business into a dangerous situation year after year যেমন as the court examines the Mask case পালন does the same thing? Shareholders may disagree, even if the board agrees. Investors still have to vote on the deal and it will happen later this year.
Predicting how the chicken game will end – a competition that has already proved so unpredictable – seems to be begging for the chance to get an egg-filled mouth. For a full discussion, though, here’s an educated guess about the outcome: if markets are disappointed, the Twitter car first slams its proverbial brakes and the board reconsiders. There is much more to losing the mask in this long Delaware court process.
This conclusion is supported by two additional points. Musk removed a margin loan from his 45 billion package and restructured the funds needed to finance his bid. You do not want to change the terms of financing that you do not need. Then there is the simple, time-tested fact that most fine-print M&A disputes almost always end with the creation and completion of two-way transactions. One lawyer or more than one lawyer will be able to point out a few examples of transactions through all the courts. As is happening, in the most recent case of 2018, a court allowed German healthcare company Fresenius to withdraw from purchasing a generic drug manufacturer Acorn, although the scale of Acorn’s problem seems to be far more deadly than even the most fluffy – create images about bots on Twitter.
Fresnius Acorn is an exception. Not often, things usually come to the same conclusion as they did for LVMH when it came to Tiffany & Co. Who bought Citing the impact of the epidemic on LVMH Jewelers’ business, the two luxury companies sued each other in 2020 after trying to cancel a deal to buy Tiffany. After Tiffany agreed to pay less than 3 percent, the two luxury companies settled out of court.
“If you want a discount, don’t go and say, ‘I want a discount,'” said Andrew Verstein, co-director of UCLA’s Lowell Milken Institute for Business Law and Policy. “You just have to have some excuse for a seller to go over their components and say, ‘Look, this guy has a tough bargain, and he’s got some issues, and we’re willing to cut a new deal.'”