[jalonso510]

The shareholder's control over Twitter is not as direct as you are suggesting. Even if 100% of shareholders were supportive of Elon's deal, they could not immediately force the board to accept the offer. If the board refused to approve the deal, the shareholders' mechanism of control would be to elect new directors. But the company's bylaws do not allow for that to be done immediately. They would have to vote at the next annual meeting. And I believe Twitter has the protection of a staggered board of directors, meaning that only a portion of the board is up for election in any year. The end result is that it would take several years for the shareholders to elect a new board in place to then vote in favor of the sale.

[adastra22]

> The shareholder's control over Twitter is not as direct as you are suggesting. Even if 100% of shareholders were supportive of Elon's deal, they could not immediately force the board to accept the offer.

Yes they could. If literally 100% of the shareholders opposed the board, the board would lose indemnification from shareholder lawsuits for any actions it took, up to the difference in value between the tanking share price and Musk's offer. No effing way they would stay obstinately opposed in that case.

[jalonso510]

The classified board structure is available for you to read about in their public filings and the Twitter investor relations site. It's not fanciful or nonsense - it's a commonly used takeover defense that Twitter put into effect several years ago. I don't know why Twitter's board accepted the deal, I'm just talking about the defenses in place and how they all worked. Apologies if that offended you somehow.