Started By
Message

re: Twitter sues Elon Musk for violating $44 BLN merger agreement

Posted on 7/14/22 at 11:07 am to
Posted by TheLane2000
Member since Aug 2020
6 posts
Posted on 7/14/22 at 11:07 am to
It has an out if the debt financing falls through.

This is a real answer.
Posted by oogabooga68
Member since Nov 2018
27194 posts
Posted on 7/14/22 at 11:26 am to
quote:

By not including due diligence, he was fully on the hook.


Tell me you don't spend every waking hour on Reddit without telling me you spend every waking hour on Reddit.....

This is total wish-casting by a bunch of panicked Leftist puzzies.
Posted by dafif
Member since Jan 2019
5570 posts
Posted on 7/14/22 at 7:57 pm to
A other idiot that did not read the contract… cmon man - take the time to learn
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
48324 posts
Posted on 7/14/22 at 8:00 pm to
quote:

A other idiot that did not read the contract… cmon man - take the time to learn


SFP is a well respected attorney in real life. I don’t know if he read the contract, but he is certainly not an idiot. I still think the entire case comes down to what Twitter stated during negotiations. If they made any material misstatements, I think Elon wins.
This post was edited on 7/14/22 at 8:00 pm
Posted by dafif
Member since Jan 2019
5570 posts
Posted on 7/14/22 at 8:10 pm to
I make no bones about the actual case. I’ve read the contract multiple times and provided the necessary paragraphs because so many on here continue to talk about waiver of due diligence and which was not done.

None of us know what was specifically asked for and what was provided or not provided and whether that is sufficient to get out of the contract.

I don’t know why he wrote that skadden malpractice carrier is worried

They’ve got a pretty good track record
This post was edited on 7/14/22 at 8:12 pm
Posted by Turbeauxdog
Member since Aug 2004
23189 posts
Posted on 7/14/22 at 8:17 pm to
quote:

Surprised you didn’t know that.


There's not a single thing about a single topic that clown knows
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
48324 posts
Posted on 7/14/22 at 8:36 pm to
quote:

I make no bones about the actual case. I’ve read the contract multiple times and provided the necessary paragraphs because so many on here continue to talk about waiver of due diligence and which was not done.


I’ve only skimmed it so I’m not sure who wins based upon the 4 corners. However, if they allowed him to rely upon former disclosures or made any material misrepresentation in negotiations Musk will win.

Although, outside of specific performance, I doubt Musk cares at all. His net worth fluctuates by more than a billion daily. All of these people claiming musk is dumb for losing a potential billion dollars are ridiculous. We have all lost an equal percentage of net worth in our 401ks this month.
This post was edited on 7/14/22 at 8:37 pm
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
28719 posts
Posted on 7/19/22 at 12:08 pm to
Twitter’s motion to expedite granted. Trial to be set for October.
Posted by Havoc
Member since Nov 2015
28355 posts
Posted on 7/19/22 at 7:58 pm to
quote:

It has an out if the debt financing falls through. This is a real answer.

Probably not if it falls through because of an action or inaction by Musk. That’s usually not a viable out.
Posted by Havoc
Member since Nov 2015
28355 posts
Posted on 7/19/22 at 8:05 pm to
quote:

As if they swore on a stack of Bibles that was the number, here is the quote from the latest SEC filing on find on this:

If they knew or had reason to know that it was significantly higher, it doesn’t matter how they can defend the 5%.
Posted by Havoc
Member since Nov 2015
28355 posts
Posted on 7/19/22 at 8:40 pm to
quote:

It will turn on whether he made the sale conditional on that data.

I think it would be implied that the data regarding the most important financial metric to the company, the true size of it’s user base, would be a condition to a sale regardless of whether it was specifically stated.
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
28719 posts
Posted on 7/19/22 at 9:09 pm to
quote:

II. Musk offers to buy Twitter

24. On April 13 — four days after reversing course on the board seat — Musk texted Taylor that he planned to make an offer to acquire all of Twitter. His unsolicited offer, conveyed by letter later that day, was accompanied by a threat:

I am offering to buy 100% of Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash, a 54% premium over the day before I began investing in Twitter and a 38% premium over the day before my investment was publicly announced. My offer is my best and final offer and if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.

25. The following day, on April 14, Musk announced his offer publicly and noted that it was conditioned on customary business due diligence and financing. At a public event the same day, Musk — whose enormous personal wealth exceeds the capital of most public companies — boasted that he could “technically afford” to purchase Twitter outright.

26. Also on April 14, the Twitter board met to discuss Musk’s proposal. It established a transactions committee composed of independent directors Taylor, Lane Fox, and Patrick Pichette to evaluate the proposal, oversee negotiations, and explore strategic alternatives. The board was assisted in its review by Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan as financial advisors, and Simpson Thacher as independent counsel.

27. Faced with Musk’s rapid accumulation of Twitter stock and take-it-or-leave-it offer, and concerned that he might launch a hostile tender offer without notice, the board adopted a customary shareholder rights plan to protect its stockholders from “coercive or otherwise unfair takeover tactics.” The board took this action to reduce the likelihood of a takeover without payment of an appropriate control premium and to ensure that the board had sufficient time to make an informed judgment on Musk’s or any other offer. Under the rights plan’s terms, a single investor or group’s acquisition of more than 15% of the company’s outstanding common stock without board approval gives other stockholders the opportunity to acquire additional stock at a considerable discount. The plan was adopted and announced on April 15, 2022.

28. The board’s concerns proved well-grounded. Musk began making all-too-obvious public references to a hostile tender offer:

29. At the same time, Musk worked to strengthen the offer he had made and might make by tender. By April 20, he had personally committed $21 billion in equity financing and lined up $25.5 billion of committed debt financing, with $12.5 billion of that secured by his Tesla stock.

30. Having obtained these commitments, Musk announced in an April 21, 2022 securities filing that his offer was no longer conditioned on financing or subject to due diligence:

At the time of delivery, the Proposal was also subject to the completion of financing and business due diligence, but it is no longer subject to financing as a result of the Reporting Person’s receipt of the financing commitments . . . and is no longer subject to business due diligence. Musk proclaimed himself prepared to begin negotiations “immediately,” and confirmed he was “exploring whether to commence a tender offer.”
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
28719 posts
Posted on 7/19/22 at 9:09 pm to
quote:

31. On Saturday, April 23, 2022, Musk asked to speak with Twitter representatives about his offer. At the direction of the transactions committee, Taylor engaged with Musk, who reiterated that his offer was “best and final” and threatened once again to take it to Twitter’s stockholders directly if the board did not engage immediately.

32. The following day, on Sunday, April 24, 2022, Musk tried again to force Twitter’s hand. He delivered a letter to the board repeating that his $54.20 per share offer was “best and final,” threatening once more to sell all of his shares if his bid were rejected, and saying he would propose a “seller friendly” merger agreement to be signed before the market opened the next day. Musk’s counsel sent over a draft agreement, reiterated that Musk’s offer was not contingent on any due diligence, and underscored that the form of the proposed agreement was “intended to make this easy on all to get to a deal asap.”

33. The agreement was negotiated through the night and, in the process, became even more seller-friendly. Among the provisions not contained in Musk’s proposal but included at Twitter’s insistence were an undertaking by defendants, including Musk, to “take or cause to be taken . . . all actions and to do, or cause to be done, all things necessary, proper or advisable” to obtain the financing (already committed) to consummate the transaction, Ex. 1 § 6.10(a); a clear disclaimer of any financing condition to closing, id. § 6.10(f); and a right on Twitter’s part to request and promptly receive updates from Musk about his progress in obtaining financing, id. § 6.10(d). These provisions ensured that financing would be no obstacle to closing and that the company would have the right to stay informed of Musk’s progress in arranging his financing.

34. Twitter also negotiated for itself a right to hire and fire employees at all levels, including executives, without having to seek Musk’s consent. Musk’s initial draft of the merger agreement would have deemed the hiring and firing of an employee at the level of vice president or above a presumptive violation of the ordinary course covenant absent Musk’s consent. Twitter successfully struck that provision before signing.

35. Twitter further negotiated to narrow the circumstances under which defendants could escape the deal by claiming a “Company Material Adverse Effect.” In addition to excluding, for example, market-wide and industry-wide effects and circumstances and declines in stock price and financial performance, the final definition excluded matters relating to or resulting from Musk’s identity or communications, “performance” of the agreement, and any matter disclosed by Twitter in its SEC filings other than the “Risk Factors” and “Forward-Looking Statements” sections of those disclosures. Id. Art. I.

36. Finally, and critically, Twitter negotiated for itself a robust right to demand specific performance of the agreement’s terms that encompassed the right to compel defendants to close the deal, and ensured that Musk personally was bound by that provision (among others). Id. § 9.9(a)-(b), Preamble.

37. At a board meeting on April 25, 2022, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan each presented their fairness opinions, and the board discussed the agreement. The board ultimately approved the merger agreement and decided to recommend stockholder approval, both because the price was fair to stockholders and because the merger agreement promised a high level of closing certainty. Twitter had taken Musk’s claimed “seller friendly” draft agreement and secured other key concessions to make it even more so. Not only were there no financing or diligence conditions, but Musk had already secured debt commitments that together with his personal equity commitment would suffice to fund the purchase.

38. Twitter had been buffeted by Musk’s reversals before. For the benefit of stockholders and employees, the board needed assurance that this agreement would stick. It received that assurance in the terms it was able to negotiate.
Posted by DavidTheGnome
Monroe
Member since Apr 2015
29166 posts
Posted on 7/19/22 at 9:24 pm to
Good. Donald doesn’t like him now so he’s definitely a pasty white cuck in my book.
Posted by Meauxjeaux
98836 posts including my alters
Member since Jun 2005
39948 posts
Posted on 7/19/22 at 9:38 pm to
quote:

Twitter’s motion to expedite granted. Trial to be set for October.


Hopefully they can cash flow that long.
Posted by dafif
Member since Jan 2019
5570 posts
Posted on 7/19/22 at 9:47 pm to
I find it impossible that either side can be ready for this trial in October… just begging for an appeal

As for specific performance, it does not seem to gel with the 1 billion buyout language
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
28719 posts
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:09 pm to
quote:

A. Closing Conditions

41. The conditions to closing are few. The transaction is subject to a majority vote of Twitter’s stockholders and to specified regulatory approvals. Id. § 7.1. The deal is also conditioned on the non-occurrence of a Company Material Adverse Effect that is continuing at the time of closing. Id. § 7.2(c). The agreement contains various representations by Twitter, including that its SEC filings since January 1, 2022, at the time filed or at the time amended or supplemented, are complete and accurate in all material respects, fairly depict the financial condition of the company in all material respects, and were prepared in accordance with GAAP. Id. § 4.6. Any inaccuracy in these representations does not excuse closing unless it rises to the level of a Company Material Adverse Effect. Id. § 7.2(b).

42. Company Material Adverse Effect is defined as: any change, event, effect or circumstance which, individually or in the aggregate, has resulted in or would reasonably be expected to result in a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition or results of operations of the Company and its Subsidiaries, taken as a whole . . . .

Id. Art. I. As one would expect with a “seller friendly” merger agreement, the contract identifies numerous changes, events, and circumstances expressly excluded from the determination of whether a Company Material Adverse Effect has occurred:

[C]hanges, events, effects or circumstances which, directly or indirectly, to the extent they relate to or result from the following shall be excluded from, and not taken into account in, the determination of Company Material Adverse Effect:

(i) any condition, change, effect or circumstance generally affecting any of the industries or markets in which the Company or its Subsidiaries operate;
. . .
(iii) general economic, regulatory or political conditions (or changes therein) or conditions (or changes therein) in the financial, credit or securities markets (including changes in interest or currency exchange rates) in the United States or any other country or region in the world;
. . .
(iv) the negotiation, execution, announcement, performance, consummation or existence of this
Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, including (A) by reason of the identity of Elon Musk, Parent or any of their Affiliates or their respective financing sources, or any communication by Parent or any of its Affiliates or their respective financing sources, including regarding their plans or intentions with respect to the conduct of the business of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries and (B) any litigation, claim or legal proceeding threatened or initiated against Parent, Acquisition Sub, the Company or any of their respective Affiliates, officers or directors, in each case, arising out of or relating to the this Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, and including the impact of any of the foregoing on any relationships with customers, suppliers, vendors, collaboration partners, employees, unions or regulators;
. . .
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
28719 posts
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:10 pm to
quote:

(viii) any changes in the market price or trading volume of the Company Common Stock, any failure by the Company or its Subsidiaries to meet internal, analysts’ or other earnings estimates or financial projections or forecasts for any period, any changes in credit ratings and any changes in analysts’ recommendations or ratings with respect to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries (provided that the facts or occurrences giving rise to or contributing to such changes or failure that are not otherwise excluded from the definition of “Company Material Adverse Effect” may be taken into account in determining whether there has been a Company Material Adverse Effect); and (ix) any matter disclosed in the Company SEC Documents filed by the Company prior to the date of this Agreement (other than any disclosures set forth under the headings “Risk Factors” or “Forward-Looking Statements”). Id.

43. The parties thus agreed that any circumstance affecting the market generally or other social media companies would not excuse defendants from closing. Nor would any circumstance arising from the existence or performance of the agreement, or from any communication by Musk, “including the impact of any of the foregoing” on any of Twitter’s relationships with, among others, customers. Likewise, matters that Twitter disclosed in sections of its SEC filings other than the “Risk Factors” and “Forward-Looking Statements” sections cannot constitute a Company Material Adverse Effect. And Twitter’s failure to meet financial projections will not excuse closing unless that failure results from an occurrence independently qualifying as a Company Material Adverse Effect (taking into account all of the express exclusions).

44. The agreement also makes clear that financing is not a condition to closing:

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, the Equity Investor, Parent and Acquisition Sub each acknowledge and affirm that it is not a condition to the Closing or to any of its obligations under this Agreement that the Equity Investor, Parent, Acquisition Sub and/or any of their respective Affiliates obtain any financing (including the Debt Financing) for any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. Id. § 5.4; see also id. § 6.10(f).

45. Nor is there any diligence condition. Indeed, each of Parent and Acquisition Sub represents that it “conducted, to its satisfaction, its own independent investigation, review and analysis of the business, results of operations, prospects, condition (financial or otherwise) or assets of the Company and its Subsidiaries,” and that, in determining to proceed with the merger, each “relied solely on the results of its own independent review and analysis and the covenants, representations and warranties of the Company” in the merger agreement. Id. § 5.11. Parent and Acquisition Sub further acknowledge that “neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries, nor any other Person, makes or has made or is making any express or implied representation or warranty with respect to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries or their respective business or operations, in each case, other than those expressly given solely by the Company in Article IV,” and they represent that in agreeing to the merger they were not relying on “any express or implied representation or warranty, or the accuracy or the completeness of the representations and warranties” in the merger agreement about Twitter and its business and its operations “other than those expressly given solely by the Company in Article IV.” Id
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 10:11 pm
Posted by TheQuestioner
Member since Jul 2022
115 posts
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:17 pm to
Saving this comment for when the outcome occurs.
Posted by Havoc
Member since Nov 2015
28355 posts
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:30 pm to
quote:

and is no longer subject to business due diligence.

What do you think you’re proving? One party’s complaint in a lawsuit is just that.

Even if accurate, waiver of due diligence doesn’t mean waiving claims for breach or misrepresentation.
first pageprev pagePage 6 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram