Musk owns 80-90% of Twitter. A few high-profile investors own the other 10-20%. The group of bankers have a huge lien on the company ($13 billion) but assuming that they are paid on time have no equity.
The distinction between "having a lien" and "owning the company" is a false dichotomy. "Owning the company" and "controlling the company" are different, though.
> The distinction between "having a lien" and "owning the company" is a false dichotomy.
It's 100% not. It's secured debt, that's it. If Twitter becomes worth $17 billion, they get - $15 billion. If Twitter becomes worth $170 billion, they get - $15 billion.
To say nothing of if Musk misses a payment, are they really going to foreclose? Or would they renegotiate?
What if the shareholders do not agree to sell their shares? How does he justify his current power over Twitter? Did he buy his 80-90% outside of the free float market?
