[agrajag]

> closing the transaction on the price and terms agreed upon

They're definitely suing for specific performance, and I'm not sure they really have any other option at this point. It would be by far in their best financial interest if they can force closing the sale, and Musk's objections seem really thin. Doing anything less than that is complete capitulation

I can see them reaching a settlement to agree to cancel the deal with Musk if he agrees to pay a significant penalty ($5B+), or maybe agree to reduce the purchase price some, but why not sue for specific performance if you think you'll win?

[elliekelly]

Is his “financing secured”? It just seems like an incredible (and incredibly risky) long shot to me: a judge actually ordering a sale to an unwilling buyer (and Musk, of all buyers!) is a long shot and the big banks going through with funding such a big deal to an _unwilling_ owner is a long shot. But _even_if_ both of those two unlikely things happen what happens when the judge orders specific performance and Musk just... doesn’t? (Not usually a risk you have to factor in but with Musk I think this is absolutely a real possibility. Maybe even the most likely possibility.) Will they issue a warrant for his arrest? A daily fine for contempt? That would be the deal of the century for Musk.

I don’t know the right answer when you’re dealing with a megalomaniac like Musk but I really don’t think specific performance is it.

I am cautiously optimistic that whatever it is Musk is up to will eventually give rise to some cool new federal securities laws. Maybe even some new federal crimes! (Who am I kidding, a crime that only the wealthiest of the wealth would even be able to commit? Not in a million years!)

[chernevik]

Not a lawyer, but I expect that given a verdict a judge can and will attach assets to force compliance. The court could order Musk to sell Tesla shares to raise the necessary funds, and seize the shares to do so itself even if he won't.

[amluto]

I’m not a lawyer, and I suspect this gets into old and bizarre traditions of equity.

But the damages for failure to perform may conceptually straightforward: the difference between TWTR’s market cap and the deal price * number of outstanding shares. Which is over $10bn.

[gene91]

But TWTR’s market cap is and will be influenced by Musk’s series of actions and announcements. Both parties would have to come up with a hypothetical number for how much TWTR is worth if Musk walks away without paying anything, and there’s no way their estimates would come close.

[carnitine]

That’s Musk’s fault. The market cap will be calculated the way it would in any other scenario. You’ve just made up some weird rule that doesn’t exist.

[humanwhosits]

> A daily fine for contempt?

Probably a large one.

But if Tesla shares tank, and the other investors bail out, perhaps he just doesn't mechanically have the funds to do so.

[lovich]

When normal people agree to spend more than they have that normally ends up in bankruptcy and liquidating most assets other than a few exceptions. Obviously that won’t happen here because the rich have a different set of laws but on the surface he either has the assets to pay it off or would have to sell everything he had and start over

[rkagerer]

What specifically would prevent this?

[lovich]

De jure? Nothing, as written the law applies equally to all.

De facto? Just observe how often the rich are convicted for their crimes. Even in the rare cases that they are jailed, the severity of the sentence is usually much lower than the common man. Look at Musk himself, he already agreed to not tweet about tesla without the boards approval in an agreement with the SEC to avoid punishment, then routinely ignored it and just fought them in court until he won. Our system allows for anyone with enough money to run out the clock until they either win, the other side gives up, or the situation no longer matters and the case is dropped.

[rot13xor]

Money lets you put weight on the scale to tip it in your favor, but it doesn't let you fully control the outcome. Especially because in this case Musk screwed over other rich people.

[listenallyall]

> until he won

He won. He prevailed. In court. Whatever you think he did that violated the SEC's order, is not correct, at least in the eyes of the judge or the jury who heard all the evidence and decided the case.

Rich people do have the benefit of hiring excellent lawyers and affording every available opportunity to appeal. But that is not being "above the law," that is the law. At the end of the day, if Musk won even on the 10th appeal or whatever, then you can't say that he committed a crime.

[brokenkebab2]

Is there are some sort of stats to observe? Genuinely curious

[edgyquant]

The rich don’t have a different set of laws they just have better lawyers.

[ModernMech]

Any law that carries a fixed fine and no jailtime is a law that rich people can break with abandon, yet would ruin a poor person. A $50 parking ticket is a major burden for a person making minimum wage (essentially a day of their life to recoup that); whereas for a rich person their money makes that amount for them in less time than it took me to write this post.

Or, from another perspective: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

[lovich]

And what provides for the rich to acquire better lawyers that can produce a better outcome but the laws? Why is everyone not provided a state defender rather than letting the rich purchase the best talent?

[hef19898]

Worst case Musks tantrum over some tweet will tank Tesla, ruin himself and maybe even impact his other ventures. Basically he might just bring over himself what every shortseller predicted years ago would happen.

[rocqua]

I believe I have seen exponentially growing daily fines for contempt.

Besides, you can jail people for contempt.

[admax88qqq]

Probably instead of arresting Musk they just sieze assets to cover the damages. His assets are mostly on paper anyways.