My back of the envelope calculation would be for Musk to pay the difference between the current market cap and the $44B he promised to pay. That influx of cash would bring the market cap up to $44B (assuming that markets are rational which is a big assumption). Or if it's distributed as a dividend I'm not seeing how the shareholders would have a case.
A perhaps naive question, but seems to me that the most likely outcome here is that the two parties reach some sort of settlement making the lawsuit moot.
But what if they don't reach a settlement prior to the ruling? Is it then too late to reach an agreement? Something like "Ok, we'll take $30B instead of $44B, but you don't get ownership, you just get to walk away."
Would this open twitter to a suit from the shareholders for not acting in their interest? Are there other legal things that would prevent a post-ruling settlement?
My expectation is that Musk will hold out for as long as possible, perhaps gambling on a positive ruling despite his legal team telling him he's not going to get one.
Primary sources are our friend. From the dissent:
"JUSTICE KAGEN would deny the application to vacate stay."
So, "lower court" would mean the 5th circuit, not the district court. Her vote was to let the law stay in effect.
Bad ambiguous reporting by the WaPo.
Per the WaPo: "Justice Elena Kagan would have let a decision from the lower court to stand for now, but did not detail her reasoning."
Not clear on why she didn't side with the majority or the dissent, but it's fairly clear she's not in the corner of the dissenters.
WaPo says "Justice Elena Kagan would have let a decision from the lower court to stand for now, but did not detail her reasoning.
So, while she didn't sign on to the majority decision, it appears she's not willing to let the law go into effect. At least not yet.
Well, providing a "Texas View" would seem to run afoul of the statute:
(a) A social media platform may not censor a user, a user’s expression, or a user’s ability to receive the expression of another person based on...
(3) a user’s geographic location in this state or any part of this state.
So, the only way out seems to be to have no business presence in Texas, and even then the company probably gets hauled into court over and over again.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by ah Clem.
The applicable term
The applicable term here is "Musking" as in "he really musked that thing up". I know it's a new coinage, but it's likely to stick.
My back of the envelope calculation would be for Musk to pay the difference between the current market cap and the $44B he promised to pay. That influx of cash would bring the market cap up to $44B (assuming that markets are rational which is a big assumption). Or if it's distributed as a dividend I'm not seeing how the shareholders would have a case.
When is it too late to settle?
A perhaps naive question, but seems to me that the most likely outcome here is that the two parties reach some sort of settlement making the lawsuit moot. But what if they don't reach a settlement prior to the ruling? Is it then too late to reach an agreement? Something like "Ok, we'll take $30B instead of $44B, but you don't get ownership, you just get to walk away." Would this open twitter to a suit from the shareholders for not acting in their interest? Are there other legal things that would prevent a post-ruling settlement? My expectation is that Musk will hold out for as long as possible, perhaps gambling on a positive ruling despite his legal team telling him he's not going to get one.
Primary sources are our friend. From the dissent: "JUSTICE KAGEN would deny the application to vacate stay." So, "lower court" would mean the 5th circuit, not the district court. Her vote was to let the law stay in effect. Bad ambiguous reporting by the WaPo.
Kagen's "dissent"
Per the WaPo: "Justice Elena Kagan would have let a decision from the lower court to stand for now, but did not detail her reasoning." Not clear on why she didn't side with the majority or the dissent, but it's fairly clear she's not in the corner of the dissenters.
Kagen "dissent"
WaPo says "Justice Elena Kagan would have let a decision from the lower court to stand for now, but did not detail her reasoning. So, while she didn't sign on to the majority decision, it appears she's not willing to let the law go into effect. At least not yet.
Well, providing a "Texas View" would seem to run afoul of the statute: (a) A social media platform may not censor a user, a user’s expression, or a user’s ability to receive the expression of another person based on... (3) a user’s geographic location in this state or any part of this state. So, the only way out seems to be to have no business presence in Texas, and even then the company probably gets hauled into court over and over again.