Immediately after purchasing the site state “during this time of transition for Twitter, we’re going to take the service offline for a period of time while the team evaluates the best way forward.” then never turn it on again and eventually say “after extensive deliberation, we cannot determine a viable method towards profitability and will not be resuming services.”
No one looks bad and the service is totally destroyed from day one.
That’s not what was done, actions were taken with some other non-obvious goal. Although, it may be charitable to suggest that he’s got a goal.
When company is go longer public and you own it, what argument somebody would have to sue you for?
first of all, as you said he did it already and Twitter got sued, second of all the point of corporation is to isolate owner of the liability. Sure they can sue Twitter, but if company doesn’t exist anymore too bad. They could go after remaining assets, but that’s it.
they are not shareholders, they are giving him a loan. If you get a loan and lost the money, the bank (or a loan shark) doesn’t give damn if losing the money was your fault or not
The theory that he is purposefully destroying his company is just dumb, there’s no upside for him to do that.
Immediately after purchasing the site state “during this time of transition for Twitter, we’re going to take the service offline for a period of time while the team evaluates the best way forward.” then never turn it on again and eventually say “after extensive deliberation, we cannot determine a viable method towards profitability and will not be resuming services.”
No one looks bad and the service is totally destroyed from day one.
That’s not what was done, actions were taken with some other non-obvious goal. Although, it may be charitable to suggest that he’s got a goal.
deleted by creator
When company is go longer public and you own it, what argument somebody would have to sue you for?
The theory that he is purposefully destroying his company is just dumb, there’s no upside for him to do that.