[sp332]

I agree with your conclusion, but it's a natural question. Twitter management and users were not in favor of him owning the place, so why not let him back out? I think the driving answer was money. He paid way more than the company was worth, and there's no way the investors would accept the board turning down the offer.

[3cats-in-a-coat]

You're asking why the people who get to benefit from him buying Twitter with a least 100% markup over its true value would prefer that he sticks to the purchase agreement he personally signed?

Well, let's think about it.

---------------------

If the above is not coming through, imagine you have a trusty old Ford Focus. Does the job, needs repairs from time to time, but you're about break even on it. You put money in it and get the same amount of value back. Its market price is about $4,000, because there's some craze about cars at that point in time.

So here comes Elon and says "I'll buy this car for $4,400." You're like "OK, let's sign an agreement". He signs.

Few weeks pass, he's not not sending money, and not calling. More time passes. The market conditions change. Now a car like yours costs $2,200. Elon is trying to say the agreement you signed is not valid, because he missed a giant scratch on the left side of the car, despite you discussed this scratch in detail last time.

You sue him. He pays $4,400 and gets the car, and is so mad, that he drives it into a tree immediately.

[minimaxir]

Twitter's board had a fiduciary duty to ensure the completion of the transaction.

If they let Elon back out, there would have been shareholder lawsuits.

[hackerlight]

> Twitter management were not in favor of him owning the place

Management and users aren't relevant, the shareholders and the board make the decision, and they don't care what happens to the company after they've sold it because they've already got their payday.