Parag Agrawal, Twitter’s chief executive, said that the company refuses to be “held hostage” by the world’s richest man in a call with staff, pledging that “we as employees control what happens”.
This is capitalism – owners determine.
Something one of you lot might know. If a poison pill is launched after the bid is already made then does it still stand up in court? Seems something of a swizz if they are allowed to change the rules mid-game really.
I think a big part of the problem with all these companies is exactly that…..the employees DO control what happens, because certain types of people with variations of the same mindset infest those companies*, no matter what the owners think…….
*ditto for academia.
Addolff is correct. That’s the whole point of that Long March, isn’t it?
Doubtful if Musk has actually launched a bid in any meaningful sense, apart from shooting his mouth off on, er, Twitter.
Anyway, if owners determine, then shareholders can vote any damn way they like.
If the don’t like it they could all resign, working there isn’t compulsory. They could even go and set up their own version of Twitter, it should be a slam dunk if they believe they are the true path.
So they want investors who share their world view so strongly that they don’t mind losing money?
Good luck with that!
They might get an investor who wants to promote his own worldview so strongly that he doesn’t mind losing money, but that’s another thing.
I was once involved in a hostile takeover in which a poison pill was activated. Basically whether it stands up in the long run or not doesn’t really matter. While it’s presumed to be valid it buggers up the takeover in ways that make it horribly expensive (and thus not profitable) for the buyer. It can be taken to court, but that potentially takes years which means circumstances can change and opportunity costs bite. In the case I was involved in it caused a renegotiation and much better terms for the target at which point the poison pill measures were cancelled. In this case, which seems to be more about principles/egos than profit, it’s probably going to boil down to who blinks or runs out of money first.
Aren’t poison pills seen as an act of desperation by the target and cause share price crashes or shareholder revolts ?
If a company is properly robust, it can ride out a bid, because its shareholders have faith in it.
What surprises me is that the directors can do this on their own, so it really is the employees controlling the company.
Is this just a Yankeeland thing? It’s decades since I did company law, but in England I’d have thought this would need shareholder approval, which they wouldn’t give if they were thinking of selling.
I’m wondering if this is a shrewd prelude by Musk to his floating a competitor to Twatter. He could guess this’d be the reaction by the Twats to his supposed attempt to get control. The publicity around it won’t have done Twatter any good with users who don’t share the woke mindset. The problem with creating a rival is always the network effect. The rival’s likely to go bust before it kicks in. Musk’s got the dosh to ride it & a $600m profit on his Twat shares would make a nice starter.
Everything has its day & maybe the Twats have had theirs if we’re over peak woke.
Somebody can correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t twatter already have the poison share process in place? If so, Musk will have known it was there and that it “could” easily be activated?
I get the feeling Musk knows Twitter is irredeemable and just wants to destroy it.
Bloody expensive way to ‘destroy’ something!
It’s only very expensive if he buys it and tries to fix it.
Dunno PJF… As a platform the thing is fixable. The platform isn’t Woke, the people that operate it and have purloined it for their own purposes are.
And those can be replaced… Preferably with Prejudice.
As some point you’d think a sufficient premium would mean fiduciary duty kicks in and shareholders have to be given option, the board can recommend for or against the bid but would have to put it to vote.
As the offer was over 50% above the current share price that would seem to be enough to allow a few disgruntled shareholders to launch court action against the board if they reject the offer without going to the shareholders. Publicly telling employees they are in control is just the sort of rhetoric that will bit you in the arse in such a case.
It could all just be a case of Musk trolling them on an epic scale of course
As I understand it (poorly) it is essentially an anti-dilution clause. To prevent a takeover by someone buying shares on the open market. If they get more than 15 pc shareholders are invited to show their confidence in management by buying more shares. They can still vote with their wallet.