Although I'm heavily invested in Tsla, I don't hold back against Musk when I think criticism is due. He is an ego driven guy whose need for attention leads him to make questionable decisions, like building a factory in the middle of Germany's auto manufacturing mecca, where union labor and governments have been sleeping with each other for many decades (figuratively and literally). Buying and privatizing Twitter will be a double edge sword, as demonstrated by Tsla’s deep drop reflecting uncertainty about the purchase. The complexity of managing the global public square is froth with all sorts of risks, the first of which will be the inability to satisfy all, and by consequence affect Tsla stock price and his other businesses when they go public. That is inescapable. Surely, forcing real identity to tweet (like required in Europe) will be a major improvement. Many on all sides of the political spectrum will cancel their accounts rather than be outed. That's fine and maybe some civility will return to the square. Anyone should be able to express their opinion, however distasteful, as long as they own up to it. But Musk will face greater complexities, such as government mandated oversight and/or curbs on speech, as seen in dictatorships around the world. When his decisions about Twitter begin to affect his other businesses negatively, he will have stockholders to answer to and may find that he chewed more than expected.
Elon could expire before the deal is consumated. He's made a good number of enemies. Numerous entities, e.g. Democratic National Committee, etc. are comfy in the current ecosystem provided by the woke drones that inhabit the cancel culture hoipaloi that monitor communications of Twit. Without the deathgrip on narritive and assumed cloak of invincibility provided by said narritive, many assumptions and commonly 'accepted facts' would fall. A lot can happen in 60 days. Musker's getting fit for kevlar undies and staying out of small airplanes. It's a looong way to the top if you wanna rock and roll.
Sorry in advance, couldn't help it. Elon Musk Admits He's Homeless... https://100percentfedup.com/elon-mu...ng-at-friends-homes-when-working-at-tesla-hq/
You need to understand selling a house and selling a company are different. We just use it as an example. There are similarities but also major differences. Even a deal is agreed on selling a company other bidders can still make hostile bids, for example. This of course won’t happen to selling a house.
Shareholders are under no obligation to take a deal unless a really high percentage of them tender their shares. I know in Canada I think if 90% ( or 95% ? ) agree the remainder can be forced to sell. Often if the company has legit value it pays to wait and see if a better offer shows up, but if it's a shit company there are risks the buyer could walk or regulatory issues. You seem to be confused about stock and company ownership. Twitter isn't a private company; how much of the company does mgmt own ? If Twitter agreed to a break fee then they'll pay it if shareholders balk.
There you go, this answers the OP's question, hopefully and my question, in a way. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/e...ion-experts-say-11651070763?mod=mw_latestnews I need to look at the agreements signed in the corporate filing. The article mentioned that "The filing sets an Oct. 24 deadline for the acquisition, but allows for another six-month extension if regulators are slowing the process." So this could potentially stretch all the way to next April if the regulators feel "more study is needed".
Shareholders own the company. They have not agreed to any deal yet. Management can recommend they take the offer but they are under no obligation to do so. Most arbitrage opportunities are priced to reflect the risks.
Or, Elon just being Elon https://www.engadget.com/elon-musk-disparage-twitter-employees-224616582.html