This type of argument needs to die. He has never done anything "to make a quick buck" so the use of "another" here implies facts that are utterly false. Musk has no history of "pumping and dumping" what so ever.
He got an excuse to sell lots of Tesla stock at a price 40% higher than today. Selling the stock without this charade would have sent a negative message about how little he believes in Tesla’s stock price and sunk the price further.
Even accounting for the breakup fee he comes ahead financially by many billions in cash, while also building his image as the free speech edgelord. Win-win.
I remember reading on here that the breakup fee is only applicable in very narrow cases, basically only if the US govt blocks the deal. If it's not applicable then he's on the hook for the whole ~40billy. Does he still come out ahead financially in that case if, for instance, the Twitter board take him to court? Genuine question.
I read someone else's analysis of the agreement: it bizarrely sets the cap for any damages that can be sued in court to $1B - same as the breakup fee. This obviously gives Elon an incentive to not pay breakup fee, but go to court first instead. At worst, he'd pay a billion, and best, whatever the court says thats less than a billion + legal fees
> He got an excuse to sell lots of Tesla stock at a price 40% higher than today.
Ironically, Twitter deal plus related announcements hammered the stock more than the overall market downturn. Besides that, I believe no one wants this deal to go through including US government. Earlier, The board could not legally decline the deal
Musk has a history of making public, bad-faith declarations to pump assets he later sells at profit.
More than one person has pointed out that Musk likely wanted to sell his Twitter stock, and was using the official-looking, low-ball buy offer to pump it. Twitter board smartly called his bluff, and now Musk is trying to weasel his way out of paying anything.
> Musk has a history of making public, bad-faith declarations to pump assets he later sells at profit.
Could you point me to those instances?
His offer wasn't a lowball offer at all considering the tech stock bloodbath we have seen as of late, and especially so because the offer was made just right before the massive downturn we have witnessed. I think it's quite the contrary; 44 billion is way higher than its worth imo.
> Musk is trying to weasel his way out of paying anything.
He would need to pay a $1 billion break up fee. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.
The Twitter offer came before the stock market drop, making it both a low-ball offer and making the Twitter board smart to call his bluff.
Musk only needs to pay the $1B breakup fee if he can't procure enough financing, among other strings. Musk has definitely has enough financing, he just doesn't want to pay it, so he's trying to weasel out of it by laying the ground work for a settlement to walk away.
Either way, Twitter's board is getting Musk's money, either selling at a now-premium or settling for wanting to break, due to Musk's errors.
You mean the instance where he did have a verbal agreement with an able buyer? A buyer who admitted to such in private text messages that came to light in court proceedings, and who later bought a different electric car startup?
"Verbal agreement" that has no stipulations about price or anything concrete that a U.S. Judge could find.
You asked for an example, and received one. No True Scotsman'ing the violation doesn't change the fact that Musk pumped the stock on Twitter with false and misleading statements.
