Ownership contest for Twitter has devolved into a chess game after the company’s board last week adopted a poison pill to thwart an unwelcome takeover attempt by the world’s richest man, Elon Musk.
Many people around the world, including the company’s stockholders, are now eagerly awaiting the billionaire’s next move.
The messages fueled speculation that Musk may launch a tender offer to acquire the firm, meaning he would approach Twitter shareholders directly and offer to buy their shares for a certain price within a specific time frame.
It’s uncertain whether Musk will be able to secure enough shareholder support to persuade the board to remove its poison pill and opposition to the offer.
Silver Lake declined to comment, and Apollo did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.
Musk should be targeting big shareholders, according to a senior executive at an investment management firm who requested anonymity.
“What is more likely is probably Musk doing a proxy contest and try to meet with the big shareholders to convince them of his plan and get them to his side either by taking his tender offer or kick out the existing board,” he said.
“Jack Dorsey already seems to be angry at the board,” he noted.
‘Chess Game’
The board of Twitter has employed the poison pill, also known as a shareholder rights plan, as a defense strategy to make Musk’s takeover more expensive and difficult.If Musk reaches 15 percent ownership, the poison pill will be triggered. This will allow other stockholders to purchase additional shares at a discounted price, thus diluting Musk’s ownership stake.
“What we’re witnessing is a bit of a chess game in public,” says Dale Saran, an attorney, who helped fitness company CrossFit avoid corporate takeover as company’s general counsel in 2012.
Musk’s public prominence and ability to influence shareholders, Saran said, should be putting a lot of pressure on Twitter and its legal counsel.
“It’s a high price and your shareholders will love it,” Musk said, adding that if the deal falls through, he will reconsider his position as a shareholder.
Some have speculated that the billionaire businessman lacks sufficient cash for the acquisition, and thus he is not a serious bidder.
But, if Musk has other investors, Saran said, who are willing to get on board with his stated goals, then it could make it harder for the board to claim that he was not a serious bidder.
“It would remove one piece of what would be their defense, if this winds up in a lawsuit.”
Time to Get off Twitter?
Twitter’s board is under pressure since the stock’s upside potential is currently limited. Goldman Sachs, for example, has a “sell” rating on the stock with a price target of $30 per share. Ironically, the bank is advising Twitter’s board on Musk’s offer.It’s unlikely that the board will find any buyer willing to pay much higher than Musk’s offer price, according to some market commentators.
Barron’s senior writer Bill Alpert says under its present management and business model, Twitter stock is unlikely to revisit last year’s $80 peak.
The company’s stock is currently trading at $46. Shares were up nearly 20 percent since April 4 when Twitter confirmed that Musk had acquired a significant stake in the company.
“Unless you’re like Musk and want to own Twitter for idealistic reasons, you should let him have it. He won’t ruin it, so you can do so with a clear conscience,” Alpert wrote in a recent article.
Steve Forbes, chairman and CEO of Forbes Media, says if Musk withdraws his bid, Twitter’s stock “would collapse.”
“The stock has stuck since it went public eight years ago, and has not been a good performer,” he told Fox Business on April 15.
“So, people are counting on [Musk],” he added. “What gives the stock value is the prospect that he’s going to give it value by making needed changes, starting with free speech.”
On Tuesday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis also weighed in on Musk’s Twitter buyout saga, saying that his state would look into holding Twitter’s board accountable for breaching its fiduciary duty by adopting a poison pill.
DeSantis said, during a press conference, that the state and its pension fund own some Twitter shares and the fund was likely harmed.
According to Bebchuk and his colleagues’ findings, boards that reject premium bids fail to generate optimal long-term returns for their shareholders.