BMX Bandit said:Premium said:
So what kind of legal trouble could the board be in for not selling?
If Goldman report says value is at or above that, none really.
But doesn't Goldman have Twitter listed at a value in the low 30's and a sell?
BMX Bandit said:Premium said:
So what kind of legal trouble could the board be in for not selling?
If Goldman report says value is at or above that, none really.
FTAG 2000 said:
They'd rather burn it down than sell.
And Elon just handed them a flamethrower.
Next step will be a class action filed by shareholders seeing the value of their stocks decreased by a lack of fiduciary duty by the Board.
Goldman is in deep **** with this too.BMX Bandit said:Premium said:
So what kind of legal trouble could the board be in for not selling?
If Goldman report says value is at or above that, none really.
Quote:
Goldman is in deep **** with this too.
They recently issued a report saying Twitter stock should be $30. If they come back higher to help save Twitter, then what? Did they issue an inaccurate report to manipulate the stock price (enter the SEC, shareholders), or are they lying now on price?
Twitter is not like a RJR Nabisco with all sorts of divisions and different revenue streams. There's no break-up value there, AFAIK.BMX Bandit said:
Thats a different report. Recommending buy/sell is not same as company valuation
But at least they'll still have their culture!javajaws said:
This is Twitter throwing a temper tantrum. At this point there's no going back - either Musk or someone else will buy them IMO. If the board refuses the lawsuits will be flying and force them to sell regardless. They are up s**t creek without a paddle and someone will come in and scoop up the remains.
Liberal ideas and people are like the Premier cigarettes...aggiehawg said:Twitter is not like a RJR Nabisco with all sorts of divisions and different revenue streams. There's no break-up value there, AFAIK.BMX Bandit said:
Thats a different report. Recommending buy/sell is not same as company valuation
And their goodwill value just went out of the window.
Yeah, he's not playing checkers here. He either takes over twitter, or removes it from the space and starts his own. Ready to launch within days, if not hours.FTAG 2000 said:
I can't wait to see Elon's plan B.
He's already wargamed this thing.
Would this also kick in retroactively? Let's say Elon thought about this and made a huge buy earlier this week to take him beyond the 15%.will25u said:
Can someone explain in common terms? I read the link BMX posted, but am not 100% sure I know what it means.
If someone buys more than 15% of the total stock, this kicks in. But how does that affect the offer to buy 100% at $54.20?
And what options does this give/take away from the BOD or EM?
Maybe two or three silent allies who buy up to 14.9% and then replaces the board, removing the poison pill and then $$$FTAG 2000 said:
I can't wait to see Elon's plan B.
He's already wargamed this thing.
Yesterday he was talking about however many shareholders the law allows. Mentioned 2,000 and still could be privately held, IIRC.Demosthenes81 said:Maybe two or three silent allies who buy up to 14.9% and then replaces the board, removing the poison pill and then $$$FTAG 2000 said:
I can't wait to see Elon's plan B.
He's already wargamed this thing.
It does not kick in retroactively.aTm2004 said:Would this also kick in retroactively? Let's say Elon thought about this and made a huge buy earlier this week to take him beyond the 15%.will25u said:
Can someone explain in common terms? I read the link BMX posted, but am not 100% sure I know what it means.
If someone buys more than 15% of the total stock, this kicks in. But how does that affect the offer to buy 100% at $54.20?
And what options does this give/take away from the BOD or EM?
It won't even have to go that far.Bockaneer said:
I'm probably not understanding this whole thing, but wouldn't this poison pill, which would lower share price, also lead to a lower valuation of the company thus forcing Goldman to give a report favorable to Musk?
Sea Speed said:
These people are sick. So addicted to controlling the narrative and information that they would rather burn down the institutions than allow people to have the free flow of information.
This is lingo that I can understand. All those FINRA certifications.aggiehawg said:Uhm? Been a long time since I was up to date on securities laws, but that white knight issue could be problematical.Quote:
The Rights Plan is similar to other plans adopted by publicly held companies in comparable circumstances. Under the Rights Plan, the rights will become exercisable if an entity, person or group acquires beneficial ownership of 15% or more of Twitter's outstanding common stock in a transaction not approved by the Board. In the event that the rights become exercisable due to the triggering ownership threshold being crossed, each right will entitle its holder (other than the person, entity or group triggering the Rights Plan, whose rights will become void and will not be exercisable) to purchase, at the then-current exercise price, additional shares of common stock having a then-current market value of twice the exercise price of the right.
The Rights Plan will expire on April 14, 2023.
Quote:
Under Delaware law, board actions are typically subject to scrutiny under the business judgment rule. In the case of a dispute over a Delaware company's adoption of a poison pill, however, the decision of the board to adopt such a plan will be subject to the heightened standard of review set forth in the Delaware Supreme Court's 1985 decision Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum. Unocal requires that a board show the following to substantiate the use of a stockholder rights plan: (i) in adopting a stockholder rights plan, the board had reasonable grounds for concluding that a threat to the corporate enterprise existed; and (ii) any defensive measures taken were reasonable in relation to the threat posed.
hph6203 said:
In short, no one with options gets diluted and anyone without options gets diluted, correct? I imagine if the options are non-transferable the stock price will take a minor hit based upon the unlikely scenario that Elon actually purposely steps in the trap for the giggles. I don't see how it causes a major reduction of the stock other than the perception that Elon won't be buying Twitter or that the company is more concerned with control than profits.
Yeah, lets just throw out some round numbers for an example. Again, most of this is speculation until I read the rights agreement, but this will give a better idea of what is going on.hph6203 said:
In short, no one with options gets diluted and anyone without options gets diluted, correct? I imagine if the options are non-transferable the stock price will take a minor hit based upon the unlikely scenario that Elon actually purposely steps in the trap for the giggles. I don't see how it causes a major reduction of the stock other than the perception that Elon won't be buying Twitter or that the company is more concerned with control than profits.
What does this mean?BMX Bandit said:
I don't think that would make for a successful lawsuit.
Quick google search:Quote:
Under Delaware law, board actions are typically subject to scrutiny under the business judgment rule. In the case of a dispute over a Delaware company's adoption of a poison pill, however, the decision of the board to adopt such a plan will be subject to the heightened standard of review set forth in the Delaware Supreme Court's 1985 decision Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum. Unocal requires that a board show the following to substantiate the use of a stockholder rights plan: (i) in adopting a stockholder rights plan, the board had reasonable grounds for concluding that a threat to the corporate enterprise existed; and (ii) any defensive measures taken were reasonable in relation to the threat posed.
Any lawsuit's viability is going to depend on what happens next.
First off, it has risen and now fallen back below 15% since he notified he bought the shares. Second of all, he is currently offering 20% above where the stock ended yesterday.FTAG 2000 said:hph6203 said:
In short, no one with options gets diluted and anyone without options gets diluted, correct? I imagine if the options are non-transferable the stock price will take a minor hit based upon the unlikely scenario that Elon actually purposely steps in the trap for the giggles. I don't see how it causes a major reduction of the stock other than the perception that Elon won't be buying Twitter or that the company is more concerned with control than profits.
Minor hit? The stock price has risen 20% in the past two weeks with Elon disclosing his position, with people anticipating he'd buy more or buy the company. Musk's offer represents a 10% premium on where it closed yesterday.
There's going to be a drop and stockholders will be able to hold the Board accountable.
BuffsAg47 said:
Social media is cancer no matter who owns it.