RIP Twitter

#601
#601
volinbham said:
that's more of the fiduciary duty part though I think it's pretty murky to find them not acting appropriately.

what I'm asking is who has the authority to accept or decline the offer - is the Board the de facto agent of the shareholders and thus can accept or decline OR is the Board an advisory step prior to a shareholder vote (and thus the shareholders could vote opposite of the Board recommendation).
Click to expand...
I think the board is obligated to put the proposal up for a vote and give their recommendation of whether to accept it or not. I certainly don't know for sure, but I remember similar things when my company was being disrupted by a billionaire to break itself up into pieces in order to "maximize" shareholder value.
 
#602
#602
OrangeTsar said:
So is there anything that would legally prevent individual shareholders from going ahead and selling to Musk? It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing action, right (assuming Elon would be willing to continue to spend to increase his share short of a clear 50.1% stake)?
Click to expand...

I don't know that they can sell directly to him - likely have to put them up for sale publicly.
 
#604
#604
OrangeTsar said:
So is there anything that would legally prevent individual shareholders from going ahead and selling to Musk? It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing action, right (assuming Elon would be willing to continue to spend to increase his share short of a clear 50.1% stake)?
Click to expand...
Investors do not trade securities directly with one another - goes thru an exchange.
 
#605
#605
VolStrom said:
I think the board is obligated to put the proposal up for a vote and give their recommendation of whether to accept it or not. I certainly don't know for sure, but I remember similar things when my company was being disrupted by a billionaire to break itself up into pieces in order to "maximize" shareholder value.
Click to expand...

I don't know that they are obligated to do so - they certainly aren't with this one and I imagine they're allowed to not put it forward.
 
#606
#606
volinbham said:
I don't know that they are obligated to do so - they certainly aren't with this one and I imagine they're allowed to not put it forward.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that not putting it forward could open them up to lawsuits from the shareholders.
 
#611
#611
278594242_412081624251797_6666030371935408795_n.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: CABVOL, Rickyvol77, InVOLuntary and 5 others
#614
#614
OrangeTsar said:
yeah, I know VN is a massive competitor to Twitter and that the Twitter Board lies awake at night worrying about not being able to Silence that dastardly orangeTsar with his reach of DOZENS. I am really surprised Trump hasn’t moved his social media efforts here 🙄🙄🙄
Click to expand...

Oh, so it has to be the same type of business, 1:1 competitor? Guess what, nobody is a 1:1 competitor with space x. Guess what else? If twitter suppresses speech on their platform, you can click from twitter to facebook to volnation to tik tok and so on with the blink of an eye. We're talking about forcing people to switch providers (many of space x customers don't really have another option) to access twitter and you think that isn't suppression of speech?

You have not demonstrated that it's qualitatively different. Because it is not.
 
#616
#616
Vol737 said:
Good post up until the Putin reference. Are you equating Musk to Putin? Trying to put them in the same box? You do realize Musk made one of the single most important contributions to the Ukrainian cause by sending Starlink active, right?
Click to expand...

You are right, that was poorly phrased. I was making a bad reference to a man looking for ways to change his rubles into dollars. Should have been clearer. The concept was funny, the execution sucked.

I greatly appreciated Musk's support of Ukraine. I've wondered if he had those same kind of satellites over Russia. He could help get around them blocking the internet.

Plus I like the man's fixation on 4:20.

See the latest news? It seems the Twitter board is going to do a poison pill (perfectly legal). The minute his ownership in Twitter hits 15% they will sell stock at a discount to all current shareholders. It increases the numbers of shares he has to buy at the tendered offer driving up the cost. He has to participate or his percentage in the company decreases, plus he is actually paying the company rather than individual owners so it drives up the value of the company with increased capitalization, although we know it's normally a revenue based valuation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top