This post is a follow up to yesterday’s Tegus sponsored TWTR deep dive. You can find more on my deep dives sponsored by Tegus series here. In this post, I’m just going to go bullet point through some questions and ideas that are lingering / that I didn’t address in the initial post (note that
here's an Occam's Razor question for you - the one I keep asking and no one can answer: If the parties wanted to agree to close the deal, why couldn't they agree to close the deal? (Back in the first week of October)... All reporting was that they were on the verge of doing so, and then, well, we know what happened... The response i always get is "Elon needed to sell more TSLA stock when the window opened" - but that's nonsense: the parties could have AGREED to that... they didn't.
Matt Levine touched briefly on the difference between the litigators (punching each other in the face) and the deal lawyers (who need time to close the deal) and how the stay gets the litigators out of the way so that the deal lawyers can close the deal. but again: the parties didn't agree to this.
the question for all the deal lawyers you talk to is: why couldn't they agree to terms to close this back when they were negotiating on Oct 5? is there some law M&A subtlety I'm missing?
here's an Occam's Razor question for you - the one I keep asking and no one can answer: If the parties wanted to agree to close the deal, why couldn't they agree to close the deal? (Back in the first week of October)... All reporting was that they were on the verge of doing so, and then, well, we know what happened... The response i always get is "Elon needed to sell more TSLA stock when the window opened" - but that's nonsense: the parties could have AGREED to that... they didn't.
Matt Levine touched briefly on the difference between the litigators (punching each other in the face) and the deal lawyers (who need time to close the deal) and how the stay gets the litigators out of the way so that the deal lawyers can close the deal. but again: the parties didn't agree to this.
the question for all the deal lawyers you talk to is: why couldn't they agree to terms to close this back when they were negotiating on Oct 5? is there some law M&A subtlety I'm missing?