Levine is being disingenuous, as usual. Obviously he would have banks and investors fighting to finance the deal. Wouldn't a breakup penalty address the breakup problem?
> Wouldn't a breakup penalty address the breakup problem?
No. If you’re at a table negotiating a break-up penalty, you’ve already crossed the Rubicon. You have indicated that the price was at the very least worth considering.
If that buyer then walks before agreeing to the break-up penalty, the damage has been done. Board seats have been lost for less.
Not to mention he is being disingenuous by implying there was no material change between getting offered a seat at the board, and hearing what accepting that seat would entail.
It sounds like Musk received the offer, accepted it and changed his mind afterwards. That is, after accepting the terms, not after receiving them. If that’s the sequence of events, I don’t think Levine is being disingenuous.
