In his attempt to purchase Twitter, Elon Musk continues to fight the Twitter board. In an attempt to stop Elon Musk from buying Twitter, the board tried to impose a poison-pill defense. This makes it difficult for him to purchase more than 15% of the shares. As we mentioned, Musk is apparently looking for partners in order to possibly get around the effort. That sounds like the “Plan B” that he promised.
Musk has also pointed out that putting out a poison pill effort rather than the board accepting his offer, which would be very beneficial to the shareholders, is not acting in the shareholders’ best interests. The board could face serious legal consequences if this happens.
Musk also dunked on the board and asserted that it would be “rigged” if he wasn’t able to buy it. Musk noted that Jack Dosey’s departure from the board meant that the board members have virtually no shares and their interests do not align with the shareholders. The site was not even accessible to one board member.
“Wow, with Jack departing, the Twitter board collectively owns almost no shares!” Musk tweeted. “Objectively, their economic interests are simply not aligned with shareholders.”
Musk noted also that Robert Zoellick (one of the board’s members) has not even tried Twitter.
So it would appear that the board doesn’t have a lot of skin in the game.
Musk, however, observed Monday that the board might be opposed to the deal as they may have much to lose, specifically the large payouts they receive for doing a part-time job.
Board salary will be $0 if my bid succeeds, so that’s ~$3M/year saved right there
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 18, 2022
“Board salary will be $0 if my bid succeeds, so that’s ~$3M/year saved right there,” Musk tweeted. Right now they’re paying out about $2.9 million in cash and stock to the board members.
So there’s your answer right there — the board may be willing to throw their shareholders under the bus not just for political reasons but also for their benefit. If I were a shareholder, I’d certainly be upset with them that this is how they handled my interests, if their personal interests took priority over their board obligations. Are we seeing shareholder revolt and litigations? I wouldn’t be surprised.
Elon appears to be an ally of Jack Dorsey. Dorsey said the board has consistently been the “dysfunction of the company.” He even admitted he likely wasn’t allowed to say that.
Meanwhile, Elon criticized Facebook’s moderation and he made it clear that he’s not a fan of banning — something he saw as an extreme measure. Elon said his offer is “not a way to make money” but an effort to protect free speech.
Musk is believed to favor allowing dissemination of information, as long it’s legal in the country where the platform works.
“I’m not saying that I have all the answers here, but I do think that we want to be just very reluctant to delete things,” Musk said. “And just be very cautious with permanent bans. Timeouts, I think, are better than permanent bans.”
Looks like, under Elon, it’s a safe bet you never would have had a ban on the president of the United States or a lot of the political bannings that you have from the present Twitter oligarchs. That’s a great thing right there: free speech.