[divided]

Where have you been? I think you may be uninformed on this.

Here's some details: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/26/technology/twitter-musk-b.... Later when Elon sought to pull out of the deal, Twitter threatened to go to court to enforce that $1B fee, which led to the buyout proceeding.

[jsjohnst]

> Where have you been? I think you may be uninformed on this.

I think you are victim to reading headlines and not understanding what Twitter went to court over. Elon paying the $1B wouldn’t have gotten him out of having to complete the deal.

Here’s some details: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-cant-just-walk-awa...

[divided]

I was aware that Twitter went to court to complete the deal, but I admit to being misinformed as much of the analysis I read stated both avenues ($1B fee or force the acquisition) were viable.

For example, Dan Ives, who is often quoted in articles about this deal, had this to tweet: https://twitter.com/DivesTech/status/1545527442491822089?s=2...

It appears that is incorrect.

[jsnell]

As per your own link, the situations where that deal could be broken and the fee would be applicable were very limited (Musk not getting financing, Twitter finding a higher bidder). Musk changing his mind was not one of those situations, it was a binding deal.

Twitter did not sue for the $1b, but for specific perfomance, i.e. closing the deal.

[divided]

Fair enough, I'm not versed on the legal in's and out's and it appears you're correct.

I knew Twitter sought to close the deal, but most of the analysis I read claimed they could have chosen the $1B instead, as if both were viable legal paths. It appears that is incorrect.

[nickthegreek]

The $1b fine was not available to just use to back out of the deal. You are misinformed on this.

[divided]

I agree, I was misinformed. Too many articles state both acquisition or $1B fine were viable routes for Twitter, but other sources with more solid analysis look to contradict that.