Tag Archives: Acquisitions/Mergers

Business

DOJ Sues Google, Seeking to Break Up Online Advertising Business

Leave a comment

The Justice Department is seeking the breakup of Google’s business brokering digital advertising across much of the internet, a major expansion of the legal challenges the company faces to its business in the U.S. and abroad.

A lawsuit filed Tuesday, the Justice Department’s second against the

Alphabet Inc.

GOOG -1.98%

unit following one filed in 2020, alleges that Google abuses its role as one of the largest brokers, suppliers and online auctioneers of ads placed on websites and mobile applications. The filing promises a protracted court battle with wide-ranging implications for the digital-advertising industry.

Filed in federal court in Virginia, the case alleges that Google abuses monopoly power in the ad-tech industry, hurting web publishers and advertisers that try to use competing products. Eight states, including California and New York, joined the Justice Department’s lawsuit.

The lawsuit asks the court to unwind Google’s “anticompetitive acquisitions,” such as its 2008 purchase of ad-serving company DoubleClick, and calls for the divestiture of its ad exchange.

“For 15 years Google has pursued a course of anticompetitive conduct that has allowed it to halt the rise of rival technologies, manipulate auction mechanics, insulate itself from competition, and forced advertisers and publishers to use its tools,” Attorney General

Merrick Garland

said at a press conference Tuesday. “Google has engaged in exclusionary conduct that has severely weakened if not destroyed competition in the ad-tech industry.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Tuesday that the digital-advertising industry was harmed by Google’s allegedly monopolistic conduct.



Photo:

Al Drago/Bloomberg News

A Google spokesman said the lawsuit “attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector.”

“DOJ is doubling down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow,” the spokesman said.

By calling for specific divestitures from Google’s ad-tech business, the Justice Department lawsuit went further in seeking a breakup than some antitrust experts had expected. Shares of Alphabet fell by about 2% in trading on Tuesday.

Though largely invisible to internet users, the ad-tech tools controlled by Google facilitate much of the buying and selling of digital ads that helps fund online publishers. Google’s business includes a tool publishers can use to offer ad space, a product for advertisers to buy those slots and an exchange that automatically links bidders with webpages as they are being loaded for individual users.

Big tech companies such as Google are under a barrage from lawmakers and regulators across multiple continents who have targeted the companies’ dominance in online markets. Justice Department officials also are investigating

Apple Inc.

The Federal Trade Commission has sued

Meta Platforms Inc.’s

Facebook unit over antitrust allegations and

Microsoft Corp.

to block its planned $75 billion acquisition of

Activision Blizzard Inc.

President Biden recently urged lawmakers from both parties to unite behind legislation seeking to rein in tech giants. The European Union also has opened cases looking at alleged anticompetitive conduct by Google, Meta and other companies.

The Justice Department’s 2020 lawsuit against Google targeted its position in online search markets, including an agreement to make Google search the default in Apple’s Safari web browser. Google is fighting the case, which is expected to go to trial this year.

Alphabet gets about 80% of its business from advertising. The Justice Department’s new suit targets the subset of that ad business that brokers the buying and selling of ads on other websites and apps. Google reported $31.7 billion in revenue in 2021 from that ad-brokering activity, or about 12% of Alphabet’s total revenue. Google distributes about 70% of that revenue to web publishers and developers.

Last year, Google offered to split off parts of its ad-tech business into a separate company under the Alphabet umbrella to fend off the most recent Justice Department investigation. DOJ officials rejected the offer and decided to pursue the lawsuit instead.

For years, Google has faced allegations from advertising- and media-industry executives, lawmakers and regulators that its presence at multiple points of the online ad-buying process harms publishers and gives it an unfair advantage over rivals. Google also operates the most popular search engine and the largest online video-streaming site, YouTube, giving rise to allegations it has tilted the market in its own favor.

Rivals say that Google’s power in digital advertising stems from a series of acquisitions Google used to build its ad-tech business, beginning with the company’s $3.1 billion purchase of DoubleClick. The FTC approved the merger in a controversial decision. Google went on to purchase a host of other startups including the mobile-advertising company AdMob.

“Having inserted itself into all aspects of the digital advertising marketplace, Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful means to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies,” the complaint read.

Google has said it has no plans to sell or exit the ad-tech business. It has also strongly contested claims in a lawsuit filed by state attorneys general, led by Texas, containing allegations similar to the Justice Department complaint. A federal judge denied the bulk of Google’s motion to dismiss the case last year, allowing it to proceed to the discovery stage and ultimately toward trial.

Google’s Android operating system is the most popular in the world—you can find Android code on everything from Peloton bikes to kitchen appliances and even NASA satellites. WSJ’s Dalvin Brown explains why it is the world’s most-used OS. Illustration: Rami Abukalam

Any divestiture of parts of Google’s ad-tech business would cause big ripple effects across the online advertising industry, which has recently shown signs of weakness as consumers dial back purchases in response to worsening economic conditions.

Breaking off parts of Google’s ad-tech business from the rest of the company could take years of litigation to resolve. Depending on the outcome of the case, ad-tech executives have said the results could range from a higher share of ad dollars flowing to publishers to lower overall spending because digital ads would be less efficient without Google brokering them.

The 149-page complaint makes detailed allegations about the internal workings of Google’s ad-tech operations. The suit alleges, for instance, that Google used anticompetitive tactics to build up the market share of its own ad server, which issues requests for advertisements on behalf of websites, and then used that market power to effectively push publishers into sending their ad inventory only to Google’s in-house ad exchange, AdX.

The Justice Department argues, in part, that this conduct locked out rival ad-tech providers, increasing prices for advertisers and costs of publishers.

“Google keeps at least thirty cents—and sometimes far more—of each advertising dollar flowing from advertisers to website publishers through Google’s ad tech tools,” the lawsuit alleges. “Google’s own internal documents concede that Google would earn far less in a competitive market.”

The lawsuit also alleges that Google executives worked to kill a rival online-bidding technology called “header bidding,” which the lawsuit says the company referred to internally as an “existential threat.” As part of a plan dubbed Project Poirot, the company allegedly changed its own ad-buying tools to underbid on behalf of advertisers when they turned to outside ad exchanges that used header bidding, so those rivals would lose more auctions and “dry out,” the complaint says.

At one point, Google also approached

Amazon.com Inc.,

to ask “what it would take for Amazon to stop investing in its header bidding product,” the complaint alleges, adding that Amazon rebuffed those requests.

“Google uses its dominion over digital advertising technology to funnel more transactions to its own ad tech products where it extracts inflated fees to line its own pockets at the expense of the advertisers and publishers it purportedly serves,” the complaint read.

The Justice Department case overlaps in some ways with the late 2020 lawsuit from the group of U.S. states led by Texas.

In Tuesday’s complaint, the Justice Department quotes some of the same internal communications as the Texas-led lawsuit, including how one Google executive compared the company’s control over ad-tech to the financial sector: “The analogy would be if Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE,” referring to the New York Stock Exchange.

The case also shares similarities with an investigation that the EU’s top antitrust enforcer, the European Commission, opened in 2021, as well as one by the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority. Those probes are exploring allegations that Google favors its own ad-buying tools in the advertising auctions it runs, but also look at other elements of Google’s ad-tech business. The EU, for instance, is also looking at Google’s alleged exclusion of competitors from brokering ad-buys on its video site YouTube.

Mr. Garland said Tuesday that the Justice Department filed its own lawsuit because the federal government was harmed by Google’s allegedly monopolistic conduct. Federal agencies have since 2019 spent over $100 million on display ads, the complaint says. The government paid inflated fees and was harmed by manipulated advertising prices because of Google’s anticompetitive conduct, the lawsuit alleges.

Microsoft is deepening its partnership with OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and Dall-E. That has investors and analysts speculating whether Microsoft could challenge Google’s dominance in search. WSJ Heard on the Street columnist Dan Gallagher joins host Zoe Thomas to discuss how AI could affect search and at what cost.

Jonathan Kanter,

the assistant attorney general for antitrust, said while there are similarities with other lawsuits against Google, the Justice Department’s complaint is based on its own investigation that yielded “meticulous detail” about Google’s ad-tech business.

“We detail many facts, many episodes that in the individual and in the aggregate have maintained numerous monopolies,” Mr. Kanter said.

Google has attempted to settle the claims against its ad-tech business. In addition to offering to split off parts of its ad-tech business to avoid the Justice Department suit, the company last year discussed with the EU an offer to allow competitors to broker the sale of ads directly on the video service.

In 2021, the company agreed to give U.K. antitrust regulators effective veto power over elements of its plans to remove a technology called third-party cookies from its Chrome browser to settle an investigation there into the plan.

In France, Google agreed to pay a fine of 220 million euros, equivalent to about $239 million, and to improve data access to competing ad-tech companies, to not use its data in ways rivals couldn’t reproduce to settle a similar antitrust investigation in the country.

—Keach Hagey contributed to this article.

Write to Miles Kruppa at miles.kruppa@wsj.com and Sam Schechner at Sam.Schechner@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Business

Emerson Electric Bids to Buy National Instruments for Nearly $7 Billion

Leave a comment

Emerson Electric Co.

EMR -6.82%

has disclosed a nearly $7 billion offer to acquire

National Instruments Corp.

NATI 10.79%

, which it said it has been trying to buy for more than eight months.

Emerson, a St. Louis-based technology and engineering company, said it was offering $53 a share in cash for National Instruments, which it said represents an enterprise value of $7.6 billion. The offer represents a 32% premium over National Instruments’ closing price from last Thursday, the day before the Texas-based equipment and instrumentation company said its board was evaluating strategic alternatives and had already been approached by potential acquirers.

Emerson’s public proposal comes eight months after National Instruments rejected its offer for an acquisition at $48 a share, the company said. Emerson upped its bid to $53 a share in November, but now claims National Instruments has continued to spurn its advances.

National Instruments confirmed Tuesday that it had received Emerson’s offer but said it remains committed to the strategic review process it announced on Friday.

By making the offer public, Emerson is hoping to win over shareholders who until now “have been unaware of this opportunity to realize an immediate cash premium,” Chief Executive

Lal Karsanbhai

said Tuesday in a conference call.

“Emerson urges NI shareholders to engage with their board to ensure this public strategic review process is not merely another delay tactic,” he said.

National Instruments’ shares jumped more than 10% to $52.04 by the close of the Tuesday market. Emerson’s shares meanwhile fell almost 7% to a low of nearly $91 in one of their steepest drops since June 2020, according to Dow Jones Market Data.

Emerson said that picking up National Instruments’ portfolio of electronic test and measurement offerings would bolster its automation business while also adding to its adjusted earnings within the first year. The company isn’t putting any financing conditions on the deal, saying it can fund the transaction with cash on hand and existing lines of credit.

On a call with analysts, the company detailed eight months of snubs from the National Instruments board that started in May, when Emerson said it reached out for an in-person meeting about a potential deal and was instead offered a phone call with management. Emerson sent a formal letter soon after with its all-cash $48-per-share offer, but National Instruments turned it down, the company said.

National Instruments continued to rebuff offers to negotiate privately in the months that followed, Emerson said.

Emerson also noted that National Instruments purchased more than two million of its own shares at an average weighted price of $40.25 during that time. Mr. Karsanbhai criticized the company on Tuesday for launching one of its largest-ever buybacks for a per-share price that was well below Emerson’s offer.

Emerson reached out with its improved offer on Nov. 3 to buy National Instruments for $53 a share, which marked a 45% premium to the company’s share price at market close that day. The National Instruments board responded at the time that it had formed a working group to evaluate the proposal and weigh its strategic options, but otherwise refused to engage with Emerson, Emerson said.

National Instruments said Tuesday that it welcomes Emerson’s participation in its strategic review process but also thinks that negotiating exclusively with the company “would be detrimental to shareholders.”

“NI notes Emerson’s expressed disappointment in this effort to maximize NI shareholder value,” the company said.

Write to Dean Seal at dean.seal@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Technology

Microsoft Prepares to Go to Battle With FTC Over Activision Deal

Leave a comment

Microsoft Corp.

MSFT -1.73%

has signaled it plans to challenge the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit to block its $75 billion deal for

Activision

ATVI -0.38%

Blizzard Inc., and is expected to argue that it is an underdog in videogame developing.

The personal-computing company has been publicizing its position for months, saying the acquisition wouldn’t threaten competition in the industry because Microsoft trails rivals in videogame consoles and has a limited presence in mobile-game development. The company has also said it expects the industry to get more competitive in the future with the rise of cloud gaming.

Legal experts say Microsoft will likely build its case around those talking points as well as the fact that it is pursuing what is called a vertical merger, meaning it is buying a company in its supply chain as opposed to a direct competitor.

The deal “is fundamentally good for gamers, good for consumers, good for game developers and good for competition,” said

Brad Smith,

Microsoft’s president and vice chair, at the company’s annual shareholders meeting Tuesday. “We will have to present this case to a judge in a court because this is a case in which I have great confidence.”

Microsoft has until Thursday to respond to the FTC’s suit, which was filed Dec. 8 in the agency’s administrative court.

In its complaint, the FTC alleged the deal is illegal because it would give Microsoft the ability to control how consumers access Activision’s games beyond the Redmond, Wash., company’s own Xbox consoles and subscription services. The company could raise prices or degrade Activision’s content for people who don’t use its hardware to access the developer’s games, or even cut off access to the games entirely, the FTC said.

“If you can control an important source of content like Activision Blizzard, you have a variety of tools to leverage at your disposal,” which could stifle competition, an agency official said earlier this month.

At the shareholder meeting, Mr. Smith challenged the FTC’s concerns that Microsoft’s chief rival, PlayStation maker

Sony Group Corp.

, would be harmed by the deal, saying Sony has too big a lead in the high-performance console space to warrant protection.

Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer discusses growth in cloud gaming, gaming subscriptions and the planned acquisition of Activision Blizzard.

He further argued that the FTC’s case largely hinges on a worry that Microsoft could one day make games from Activision’s “Call of Duty”—which has been a hit among PlayStation users—exclusive to its Xbox system. Mr. Smith said Sony has about four times as many exclusive games on its consoles today as Microsoft has on its gaming machines.

Sony didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Microsoft said it made a last-minute offer to keep “Call of Duty” games accessible to others through a legally binding consent decree, augmenting an offer that the company had made months earlier to keep it accessible for at least 10 years.

A hearing would take place in the FTC’s administrative court in August, unless a resolution is reached before then. After the case is heard, legal experts say it could take months before a decision is handed down, and the losing side can then appeal it with the full commission. If an appeal is filed, the commission reviews the entire record anew and hears oral arguments, before deciding to uphold or overturn the administrative law judge’s order. At that point, if Microsoft loses, the company can appeal the commission’s decision to a federal appeals court.

“This is no way a slam-dunk case for the FTC,” said

Eric Talley,

a professor at Columbia Law School. “Even if the odds are a little bit long, they’re showing they’re willing to kick the tires to budge legal precedent a little bit more in their favor.”

Microsoft recently made a last-minute move to augment its offer to keep Activision’s ‘Call of Duty’ games accessible to others.



Photo:

Martin Meissner/Associated Press

Some analysts said Microsoft might want to drop the acquisition, which the company values at $68.7 billion after adjusting for Activision’s net cash, to avoid executive distraction and expensive regulatory concessions. Microsoft has said it is committed to addressing regulators’ concerns.

While the litigation is continuing, Microsoft could offer the FTC additional commitments or implement them itself, said

Benjamin Sirota,

an antitrust attorney with the law firm Kobre & Kim LLP in New York. But to be satisfied, the government would have to enforce those commitments, which “takes resources and circumstances often change,” he said. The agency might also consider how “commitments that solve a competition problem now might not work in the future,” he added.

The FTC faces hurdles in its case because of the deal’s vertical-merger status, according to

David Hoppe,

mergers and acquisitions, tech and media attorney with Gamma Law in San Francisco.

“With these cases, it’s hard to prove consumer harm,” he said. “It’s not two competitors combining, in which case the harm to consumers is typically self-evident.”

The FTC has been clear about its intention to expand the scope of harm beyond a merger’s likely impact on consumer prices, Mr. Hoppe said. The agency might be concerned about actions that could indirectly put consumers at risk, he said, such as the misuse of sensitive competitor information by the combined enterprise. That information could give Microsoft a way to keep newcomers in videogame distribution from succeeding, which could result in fewer options for consumers, he said.

“It’s all about the network effect,” Mr. Hoppe said.

Write to Sarah E. Needleman at Sarah.Needleman@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Business

Amgen in Advanced Talks to Buy Horizon Therapeutics

Leave a comment

Amgen Inc.

AMGN -2.42%

is in advanced talks to buy drug company

Horizon Therapeutics

HZNP 0.39%

PLC, according to people familiar with the matter, in a takeover likely to be valued at well over $20 billion and mark the largest healthcare merger of the year.

The U.S. biotechnology company was the last of three suitors standing in an auction for Horizon, the people said, after French drugmaker

Sanofi SA

said Sunday it was out of the running.

A deal could be finalized by Monday assuming the talks with Amgen don’t fall apart, the people said.

Horizon develops medicines to treat rare autoimmune and severe inflammatory diseases that are currently sold mostly in the U.S. Its biggest drug, Tepezza, is used to treat thyroid eye disease, an affliction characterized by progressive inflammation and damage to tissues around the eyes.

The company is Nasdaq-listed, but based in Ireland and has operations in Dublin, Deerfield, Ill., and a new facility in Rockville, Md.

Horizon said last month it was fielding takeover interest from Amgen, Sanofi and

Johnson & Johnson,

a disclosure prompted by a Wall Street Journal report.

Johnson & Johnson later said it had dropped out.

Last year, revenue from Tepezza more than doubled, driving Horizon’s overall net sales 47% higher to $3.23 billion. Horizon has said that annual global net sales of the drug are targeted to eventually peak at more than $4 billion as the company aims to win approval to sell it in Europe and Japan.

That type of growth is attractive to big drug companies—with many sitting on big piles of cash—that rely on acquisitions as a key strategy to expand sales. Many big drugmakers are looking for new sources of revenue to offset losses when some of their main products lose patent protection.

Analysts expect Amgen will lose sales when patents begin expiring on its big-selling osteoporosis drugs Prolia and Xgeva later this decade. The pair of drugs accounted for nearly $5.3 billion of Amgen’s $26 billion in revenue last year.

In October, Amgen completed a $3.7 billion deal for ChemoCentryx and its drug to treat a rare immune-system disease.

Adding Horizon would provide more rare immune-disease drugs to Amgen’s lineup, which also includes the biotech’s Enbrel and Otezla immune-disease therapies. Amgen could help sell more of Horizon’s products overseas, according to analysts.

Acquiring Horizon could add about $4 billion in new revenue for Amgen by 2024, according to Jefferies & Co.

Other big life-sciences companies have been inking deals in recent months.

Johnson & Johnson recently struck a $16.6 billion deal to acquire heart device maker Abiomed Inc. to bolster sales of its medical-gear division, which had been lagging behind those of its pharmaceutical unit.

Merck

& Co. followed with a deal of its own, agreeing to buy blood-cancer biotech

Imago BioSciences Inc.

for $1.35 billion, ahead of the patent expiration of its cancer immunotherapy Keytruda.

Pfizer Inc.,

meanwhile, agreed in August to buy Global Blood Therapeutics Inc. for $5.4 billion, in a deal that would give the big drugmaker a foothold in the treatment of sickle-cell disease.

A deal for Horizon would likely rank as the largest healthcare acquisition globally in 2022, ahead of the Johnson & Johnson-Abiomed tie-up. The selloff in stocks this year amid rising interest rates, while putting a damper on deal activity, has also made some companies more attractive targets. At the stock’s peak about a year ago, Horizon was valued at roughly $27 billion.

The shares, which fell sharply earlier this year, have surged since the possibility of a takeover surfaced, and the company now has a market value of about $22 billion.

Horizon’s other drugs include Krystexxa for treating gout, a form of inflammatory arthritis, and Ravicti for a rare, potentially life-threatening genetic disease known as urea cycle disorder that raises ammonia levels in the blood.

Drugs treating rare diseases have emerged as a large source of pharmaceutical sales because they can command high prices that health insurers have been willing to pay.

Write to Ben Dummett at ben.dummett@wsj.com, Dana Cimilluca at dana.cimilluca@wsj.com and Laura Cooper at laura.cooper@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Technology

FTC’s Move to Block Microsoft’s Deal for Activision Blizzard Came Despite Charm Offensive

Leave a comment

Microsoft Corp.

MSFT -0.80%

had been working for close to a year to calm regulators’ concerns about its acquisition of videogame developer

Activision Blizzard Inc.,

ATVI 0.54%

but the Federal Trade Commission’s suit to block the deal raised doubts about the company’s pledge not to shut out rivals. 

The FTC this week took one of its biggest swings ever against a big technology company and sued to stop the planned $75 billion acquisition, setting the stage for a court challenge over a deal the antitrust agency said would harm competition.

The commission’s complaint said the deal is illegal because it would give Microsoft the ability to control how consumers beyond users of its own Xbox consoles and subscription services access Activision’s games. Microsoft has repeatedly said it wouldn’t engage in such actions. The FTC’s complaint accused Microsoft of reneging on a similar pledge to a European regulator in the past, a criticism the company disputes.

Earlier this week, as the possibility of a lawsuit grew, Microsoft touted the deal’s benefits to gamers through an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal and announced an agreement to give a competitor access to one of Activision’s most popular games. The FTC filed its lawsuit on Thursday.

“The Proposed Acquisition, if consummated, may lessen competition substantially or tend to create a monopoly,” the FTC said in its complaint against Microsoft.

Executives at the Redmond, Wash., company have said it would take a long time to get all the approvals needed from regulators around the world, and it had given itself close to 18 months for the process. The deal could now miss Microsoft’s mid-2023 deadline, and some analysts said Microsoft might want to drop the acquisition.

Microsoft should “take the hint and give up the deal that, if completed, might end up a Pyrrhic victory of executive distraction and expensive regulatory concessions,” John Freeman, vice president at investment-research firm CFRA Research, wrote in a note to investors.

Competitors had expressed concerns the deal would block them from access to Activision games such as the popular ‘Call of Duty’ franchise.



Photo:

Allison Dinner/Associated Press

At stake is Microsoft’s big ambitions for its videogaming business, which had revenue of $16 billion in the company’s last fiscal year. That total represents less than 10% of Microsoft’s overall revenue. The business is a crucial part of Microsoft’s plans to diversify to attract more noncorporate customers.

The FTC’s move came after the company had avoided the brunt of the anti-tech backlash of recent years.

The suit represents a “somewhat meaningful setback” for Microsoft because of the company’s longtime lobbying efforts, said Stifel Nicolaus analyst Brad Reback. “They’ve worked very hard to stay on the right side of government agencies.”

Microsoft’s representative in Washington—its vice chairman and president,

Brad Smith

—has been building relationships in the capital for decades. He had helped cultivate an image of the software giant as one of the friendly technology leaders, an enviable position in a regulatory environment that has been increasingly hostile toward tech titans.

One of the longest-serving leaders inside Microsoft, Mr. Smith joined the company in 1993 and was a legal adviser through its bitter antitrust disputes with regulators worldwide in the 1990s.

“We have been committed since Day One to addressing competition concerns, including by offering earlier this week proposed concessions to the FTC,” Mr. Smith said after the lawsuit was filed. “While we believed in giving peace a chance, we have complete confidence in our case and welcome the opportunity to present our case in court.”

In its complaint, the FTC accused Microsoft of previously suppressing competition from rivals through its 2021 acquisition of ZeniMax Media Inc., parent of “Doom” developer Bethesda Softworks, despite giving assurances to European antitrust authorities that it would do otherwise. Microsoft said the FTC’s ZeniMax allegation is misinformed.

Brad Smith, Microsoft’s vice chairman and president, has been building relationships in Washington for decades.



Photo:

Zed Jameson/Bloomberg News

Microsoft officials have expressed confidence in closing the Activision deal, which it has valued at $68.7 billion after adjusting for Activision’s net cash. Lawmakers and industry representatives have said it would be hard for any of the biggest U.S. tech companies—including

Apple Inc.,

Amazon.com Inc.,

Google parent

Alphabet Inc.

or

Facebook

owner Meta Platforms Inc.—to win approval for a large acquisition in the current political environment.

In recent years, as government scrutiny and competition between the biggest tech companies have been increasing, Microsoft has tried to appease regulators.

For example, in May, Microsoft announced a set of principles it would abide by when dealing with cloud-service providers in Europe, hoping to assuage concerns its cloud business was hurting European cloud companies. The principles included pledges to work with European cloud providers and support the success of software vendors running on Microsoft’s cloud.

Amid concern the deal could hurt attempts to unionize at Activision or elsewhere in the gaming industry, Microsoft in June said it was open to working with any labor unions that want to organize.

As PlayStation maker

Sony Group Corp.

and others said they were concerned the acquisition could leave competitors locked out of Activision’s popular “Call of Duty” franchise, Microsoft this week said it would make it available for the first time on Nintendo Co.’s Switch gaming consoles for at least 10 years.

Microsoft this week also made its case to the public. “Blocking our acquisition would make the gaming industry less competitive and gamers worse off,” Mr. Smith, wrote in the Monday op-ed article in the Journal. “Think about how much better it is to stream a movie from your couch than drive to Blockbuster. We want to bring the same sort of innovation to the videogame industry.”

It is too soon to tell whether the FTC can succeed in blocking the acquisition. The agency likely will have to go before a federal judge, a process that could take months to unfold, said Eric Talley, a professor at Columbia Law School.

The case could be difficult for the regulator to win because courts have traditionally not seen deals among companies that specialize in different phases of the same industry’s production process—so-called vertical mergers—as competitive dangers, he said.

“It may require the commission to convince a judge to change the law somewhat,” he said. “That makes it a difficult case for the FTC to win, though they presumably knew this going in.”

Write to Sarah E. Needleman at Sarah.Needleman@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Business

Opinion: Tesla investors have been the biggest losers in Elon Musk’s Twitter deal, and those losses continue

Leave a comment

Twitter users have complained a lot about Elon Musk’s early moves after taking control of the social network, but their complaints seem tiny compared with what Tesla Inc. investors have had to suffer.

As the U.S. focused on election returns Tuesday evening, Tesla
TSLA,
-7.17%
Chief Executive Musk tried to slip through disclosure of his long-awaited stock sales, revealing that he had sold nearly $4 billion of Tesla stock in the previous three trading sessions. Musk did not publicly address the stock sales nor his intentions to sell more within 24 hours of the disclosure, even while tweeting roughly 20 times in that period.

[MarketWatch asked him on Twitter to address the sales twice, and did not receive a reply; Tesla disbanded its media-relations department years ago.]

The sales fueled a further downturn in shares of the electric-vehicle maker on Wednesday, when the stock fell 7.2% to $177.59, its lowest closing price since November 2020. Tesla is currently down 49.6% on the year, which would be far and away the worst year yet for the stock — the previous record annual decline was 2016, when it fell 11%.

The problems for Tesla investors go far beyond Musk selling its stock so that he could overpay for a company with limited growth prospects and a host of other problems, but the poor optics certainly start there.

“He sold caviar to buy a $2 slice of pizza,” said Dan Ives, a Wedbush Securities analyst.

Ives was one of several on Wall Street to predict Musk would need to sell more shares to either close a gap in his financing of the $44 billion deal to buy the social-media company, or provide additional operating funds. In a telephone conversation Wednesday, he said the Twitter move is “a nightmare that just won’t end for Tesla investors.”

One reason it isn’t ending is that Musk’s need for cash in relation to Twitter is not done with the recent sales, portending more in the future. Musk said in a tweet late last week that Twitter had a “massive drop in revenue” due to activists pressuring advertisers to pull their ads, and he will have to continue paying the employees he did not lay off while servicing a debt load that analysts have estimated will cost him $1 billion a year, much more than Twitter has cleared in profit in the past two years. Twitter reported a net loss of $221 million in 2021, and a net loss of $1.13 billion for 2020.

Read more about Elon Musk potentially pumping Tesla stock ahead of a sale

“The first two weeks of ownership have been a ‘Friday the 13th‘ horror show,” Ives said, adding that the verification plan and mass layoffs of 50% of employees — and then trying to rehire some of the engineers, developers and cybersecurity experts — was “really stupid.” And, according to CNBC, Musk has also pulled more than 50 Tesla engineers, many from the Autopilot team, to work at Twitter.

“But it’s consistent with how this thing has been handled,” Ives said, adding that Musk is “way over his skis” with the Twitter acquisition.

Amid all the chaos of his first two weeks running Twitter, how much time has Musk had to run his other companies? Musk was already splitting his Tesla time with SpaceX, The Boring Company, Neuralink and many other endeavors, and now he has taken on the gargantuan task of turning a social-media company that has never been highly profitable, nor valuable, into something worth the $44 billion he paid.

The effort, Ives said, has “tarnished his brand,” which in turn has a big risk of hurting Tesla. Many investors have bought into the Tesla story because they believe Musk is a genius and they back his vision of electrifying the automotive industry. Twitter does not meld into that vision, except as a platform to spout his opinions, vitriol and promote more wacky concepts.

Since Musk began his quest to buy the company, he has endured more criticism than ever before, with even some fans starting to throw shade or question his decisions. Investor Gary Black, managing partner of the Future Fund LLC, for example, pointed out that Tesla’s top engineers should not be running Twitter, where the news was getting worse.

Tesla is not a company that can just run itself at this point. Musk has claimed he did not want to be chief executive but that there was no one else to take over the car company, which is why he has served as CEO for years. It’s not clear, though, how much effort he actually has made at trying to recruit someone. Now, as Tesla faces its usual multitude of issues, he is off spending his time trying to turn Twitter into a payments company, or maybe a subscription company, or maybe an “everything app,” or whatever he comes up with tomorrow.

“Musk needs to look in the mirror and end this constant merry-go-round of Twitter overhang on the Tesla story, with his focus back on the golden child Tesla, which needs his time more than ever given the soft macro, production/delivery issues in China, and EV competition increasing from all corners of the globe,” Ives wrote in a note Wednesday, in which he reiterated an outperform rating on Tesla stock.

For Twitter to reach anywhere close to the valuation Musk paid for it, it’s going to need a ton of attention from a focused leader, but how can Musk be that leader and give Tesla the attention it deserves? The answer is he cannot, and is very likely to give the attention that Tesla needs to Twitter instead after committing $44 billion (not all of it his) to that endeavor. Tesla investors will be left staring at the sea of red that this year has wrought, and wondering if its leader is about to sell more shares to fund his other effort.



Read original article here

Business

Walgreens Unit Close to Roughly $9 Billion Deal With Summit Health

Leave a comment

A unit of

Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc.

WBA 3.78%

is nearing a deal to combine with a big owner of medical practices and urgent-care centers in a transaction worth roughly $9 billion including debt, according to people familiar with the matter, the latest in a string of acquisitions by big consumer-focused companies aiming to delve deeper into medical care.

The drugstore giant’s primary-care-center subsidiary, Village Practice Management, would combine with Summit Health, the parent company of CityMD urgent-care centers, in an agreement that could be reached as early as Monday, the people said.

Health insurer

Cigna Corp.

CI 0.73%

is expected to invest in the combined company, the people said.

There is no guarantee the parties will reach a deal, the people cautioned, noting that they are still hammering out details of an agreement.

Summit Health, which is backed by private-equity firm Warburg Pincus LLC, has more than 370 locations in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Central Oregon, according to the company’s website. Current and former physicians also own a large interest in the business.

Village Practice Management, which does business as VillageMD, provides care for patients at free-standing practices as well as at Walgreens locations, virtually and in the home. In 2021, Walgreens announced it had made a $5.2 billion investment in VillageMD, boosting its stake to 63%. At the time, Walgreens said the investment would help accelerate the opening of at least 600 Village Medical at Walgreens primary-care practices across the country by 2025 and 1,000 by 2027.

The expected deal follows a string of mergers involving companies like VillageMD and CityMD as big healthcare providers seek more direct connections with patients.

Amazon.com Inc.

in July agreed to purchase primary-care operator

1Life Healthcare Inc.,

which operates under the name One Medical, for about $4 billion. In September,

CVS Health Corp.

struck a deal to acquire home-healthcare company Signify Healthcare Inc. for $8 billion.

Cano Health Inc.,

which operates primary-care centers, has attracted interest from both CVS and insurer

Humana Inc.

in recent months, The Wall Street Journal has reported.

Bloomberg a week ago reported VillageMD’s interest in Summit Health.

Walgreens appears to have pre-empted a sale process for Summit Health that was set to kick off next year, according to the people, who said the company was about to interview banks before it received interest from VillageMD.

Summit Health has been backed by Warburg Pincus since 2017, when it took a stake in CityMD, a large chain of New York City urgent-care centers.

Since that time, Warburg has helped the company complete multiple transformative acquisitions, including the 2019 merger of CityMD and multi-speciality medical-practice group, Summit Medical Group.

New York-based Warburg, which has more than $85 billion in assets under management, is no stranger to healthcare. The firm counts healthcare-IT business Modernizing Medicine Inc. and Ensemble Health Partners, a revenue-cycle management business for hospitals, among its portfolio companies.

—Anna Wilde Mathews contributed to this article.

Write to Laura Cooper at laura.cooper@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Appeared in the November 7, 2022, print edition as ‘Walgreens Nears Deal For Urgent Care Firm.’

Read original article here

Business

Elon Musk Buys Twitter, Immediately Fires CEO and CFO

Leave a comment

Elon Musk

fired several Twitter Inc. executives after completing his takeover of the company, according to people familiar with the matter, capping an unusual corporate battle and setting up one of the world’s most influential social-media platforms for potentially broad change.

Mr. Musk fired Chief Executive Parag Agrawal and Chief Financial Officer Ned Segal after the deal closed, the people said. Mr. Musk also fired Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s top legal and policy executive, and Sean Edgett, general counsel. Spokespeople for Twitter didn’t comment.

Ask WSJ

The Musk-Twitter Deal

WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle sits down with Alexa Corse, WSJ reporter covering Twitter, at 1 p.m. ET Oct. 28 to discuss Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter. What does the future hold for the platform? And what does this deal mean for Mr. Musk’s business empire?

Hours after those actions, Mr. Musk tweeted: “the bird is freed” in a seeming reference to Twitter, which has a blue bird as its logo.

Mr. Musk first agreed to buy Twitter in April for $44 billion, then threatened to walk away from the deal, before reversing course this month and committing to see through the acquisition. He previously indicated unhappiness with some of the top ranks at Twitter, at one point responding to a tweet from Mr. Agrawal with a poop emoji. He also used the site to mock Ms. Gadde, the top legal boss, tweeting an image overlaid with text that repeated allegations Twitter had a left-wing political bias.

It wasn’t immediately clear who would step into the top positions left vacant by Thursday’s exits. CNBC earlier reported the departures of Mr. Agrawal and Mr. Segal.

The deal, in which Twitter will again become a private company, adds to Mr. Musk’s expansive business reach, which includes running

Tesla Inc.,

the world’s most-valuable car company, and rocket company Space Exploration Technologies Corp., or SpaceX, among other endeavors. Mr. Musk, who had become Twitter’s largest individual shareholder, previously said he would pay for the acquisition mostly with cash, some contributed by co-investors, and $13 billion in debt.

There were signs this week indicating that Mr. Musk was moving closer to acquiring the social-media platform by Friday’s 5 p.m. deadline. Banks started sending money backing the deal, The Wall Street Journal reported. Mr. Musk also has changed his Twitter bio to “Chief Twit,” showed himself walking into the San Francisco headquarters of the social-media platform, and issued a statement on Twitter explaining his vision for the site to advertisers.

Closing the deal ends a monthslong saga of whether Mr. Musk would or wouldn’t purchase the company. The acquisition also puts one of the world’s most prominent social-media platforms under the control of the world’s richest person, with implications for the future of online discourse.

A self-described free-speech absolutist, Mr. Musk has pledged to limit content moderation in favor of emphasizing free speech. However, that approach risks causing conflicts with some advertisers, politicians and users who would prefer a more-moderated platform.

Elon Musk completed the deal for Twitter a day before a court-imposed deadline.



Photo:

Carina Johansen/NTB/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

In a message to advertisers on Twitter on Thursday, Mr. Musk said he was buying the company to “have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner.” He said Twitter “cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences!”

Mr. Musk said the platform must be “warm and welcoming to all” and suggested Twitter could let people “choose your desired experience according to your preferences, just as you can choose, for example, to see movies or play videogames ranging from all ages to mature.”

Mr. Musk’s decision to go through with the Twitter takeover came two weeks before a trial in Delaware was set to begin over the stalled deal. The judge presiding over the legal clash agreed to pause the litigation, granting a request by Mr. Musk for more time to complete the takeover. The judge gave Mr. Musk until Oct. 28 to follow through with his offer, or said she would schedule a November trial.

Mr. Musk offered in April to buy Twitter for $54.20 a share—higher than the company was valued at the time. In the months since the deal was struck, Twitter has faced efforts by Mr. Musk to abandon the deal, a whistleblower complaint in which Twitter’s former head of security accused the company of security and privacy problems, and unsuccessful talks to negotiate a lower price with Mr. Musk.

The New York Stock Exchange has suspended Twitter shares from trading, starting Friday. The stock closed Thursday at $53.70.

Mr. Musk’s takeover leaves big questions over the future of the platform, including how he might revamp its business model and how he might implement changes he has proposed for the way it polices content.

Like other social-media companies, Twitter heavily relies on digital advertising and has faced headwinds in recent months due to broad economic uncertainty. It will also be saddled with billions in debt as a result of the deal, and payments on those loans will add costs for a company that has posted a loss in eight of its past 10 fiscal years.

Twitter will be saddled with billions of dollars in debt as a result of the deal.



Photo:

Godofredo A. Vásquez/Associated Press

The deal turned into a wild business drama with little precedent. Mr. Musk moved to buy Twitter in April. After signing a merger agreement, however, he accused the company of misrepresenting the prevalence of fake and spam accounts on its platform, which Twitter denied.

He formally tried to abandon the deal in July, prompting Twitter to sue him to enforce the original merger agreement. Mr. Musk countersued.

In early October, Mr. Musk suddenly abandoned his legal battle with Twitter, with little public explanation. After his reversal, he tweeted that “Buying Twitter is an accelerant to creating X, the everything app.” He previously suggested he could create a social-media platform named X.com if he didn’t buy Twitter.

Eric Talley, a law professor at Columbia University, said after the most recent about-face that several factors were piling up against Mr. Musk, including rulings from the court denying some of Mr. Musk’s discovery requests. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick, who was overseeing the case in Delaware, had called some of his data requests “absurdly broad.”

“He has spent months with various attempts to figure out ways out of this deal,” Mr. Talley said. “All those windows had started to close and some of them closed completely.”

Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s top legal executive, whom Elon Musk mocked on the site, is among the ousted executives.



Photo:

Martina Albertazzi/Bloomberg News

Mr. Musk’s specific plans for the company remain unclear. He could return Twitter to public ownership after just a few years, the Journal previously reported.

By taking Twitter private, the billionaire entrepreneur likely can take more risks to jump-start the company’s business. “It’s going to be bumpy,” said Youssef Squali, lead internet analyst at Truist Securities. “He can take it away for a couple of years, really kind of re-engineer the whole thing,” Mr. Squali said.

Mr. Musk has suggested he wants to shift Twitter away from its advertising-heavy business model to other forms of revenue, including a greater emphasis on subscriptions. Advertising accounted for more than 90% of Twitter’s revenue in the second quarter of this year.

He said he would allow former President Donald Trump back on the platform, though Mr. Trump has said he doesn’t intend to return to it. Twitter banned Mr. Trump in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, citing what the company called the risk of further incitement of violence.

“Twitter is obviously not going to be turned into some right wing nuthouse. Aiming to be as broadly inclusive as possible,” Mr. Musk said in a message that was among a trove released as part of the legal battle.

The prospect of Mr. Musk taking over Twitter, as well as the subsequent uncertainty over the deal, roiled many Twitter employees. Twitter has told employees that they will hear from Mr. Musk on Friday, according to an internal note reviewed by the Journal.

—Erin Mulvaney contributed to this article.

Write to Alexa Corse at alexa.corse@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Read original article here

Business

Elon Musk Says Twitter Won’t Be ‘Free-for-All Hellscape,’ Addressing Advertisers’ Concerns

Leave a comment

Advertisers are concerned about the billionaire’s plans to soften content moderation and what they say are potential conflicts of interest in auto advertising, given that he is chief executive of

Tesla Inc.,

say people familiar with the situation.

Mr. Musk said this spring that as owner of Twitter he would reinstate former President

Donald Trump’s

account, which the platform suspended indefinitely after linking Mr. Trump’s comments to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. That would be a red line for some brands, said Kieley Taylor, global head of partnerships at GroupM, a leading ad-buying agency that represents blue-chip brands.

About a dozen of GroupM’s clients, which own an array of well-known consumer brands, have told the agency to pause all their ads on Twitter if Mr. Trump’s account is reinstated, Ms. Taylor said. Others are in wait-and-see mode. Ms. Taylor said she expects to hear from many more clients if Mr. Trump’s account returns.

“That doesn’t mean that we won’t be entertaining lots of emails and phone calls as soon as a transaction goes through,” Ms. Taylor said. “I anticipate we’ll be busy.”

In a message to advertisers on Twitter on Thursday, Mr. Musk said he was buying the company to “have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner.” He said Twitter “cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences!” Mr. Musk said in addition to following laws, Twitter must be “warm and welcoming to all.”

He said Twitter aims to be a platform that “strengthens your brand and grows your enterprise.”

Twitter’s chief customer officer, Sarah Personette, tweeted that she had a discussion with Mr. Musk on Wednesday evening. “Our continued commitment to brand safety for advertisers remains unchanged,” she wrote. “Looking forward to the future!”

Mr. Trump has said he wouldn’t rejoin Twitter even if allowed. Representatives for Tesla and Mr. Trump didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Musk has completed the acquisition of Twitter, according to people familiar with the matter, after a monthslong legal battle in which he tried to back out of the $44 billion deal he agreed to in April. The judge overseeing the legal fight had said if the deal didn’t close by Friday she would schedule a November trial.

Twitter sent an email to some ad buyers earlier this week letting them know that the company is working with “the buyer” to close the acquisition by Friday and to acknowledge that Twitter is aware that advertisers have a lot of questions, according to the email, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The email, which didn’t name Mr. Musk, said Twitter would work “with the potential buyer to answer quickly.”

Advertising provided 89% of Twitter’s $5.08 billion revenue in 2021. Mr. Musk has said he hates advertising. In a series of tweets earlier this year, he suggested Twitter should move toward subscriptions and remove ads from Twitter Blue, a premium program that gives users additional features. 

Twitter will become a private company if Elon Musk’s $44 billion takeover bid is approved. The move would allow Musk to make changes to the site. WSJ’s Dan Gallagher explains Musk’s proposed changes and the challenges he might face enacting them. Illustration: Jordan Kranse

Mr. Musk describes himself as a “free speech absolutist” and has said Twitter should be more cautious about removing tweets or banning users.

Mr. Musk may have reasons to avoid any drastic changes to Twitter’s ad business. Twitter will take on $13 billion in debt in the deal. The online-ad markets already are shaky, amid concerns about the economy, with

Snap Inc.

and

Alphabet Inc.

posting lower-than-expected revenue results for the September quarter.

Like other ad-supported social-media platforms, Twitter provides advertisers with adjacency controls, tools that are meant to ensure ads don’t appear next to certain content the brands deem objectionable.

Ask WSJ

The Musk-Twitter Deal

WSJ Financial Editor Charles Forelle sits down with Alexa Corse, WSJ reporter covering Twitter, at 1 p.m. ET Oct. 28 to discuss Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter. What does the future hold for the platform? And what does this deal mean for Mr. Musk’s business empire?

Some ad buyers said Twitter lags behind its competitors in providing so-called brand safety features. Joshua Lowcock, global chief media officer at UM Worldwide, an ad agency owned by Interpublic Group of Cos., called Twitter’s adjacency controls inadequate and “poorly thought through.”

Ad agency

Omnicom Media Group

evaluates the major social-media platforms’ progress on brand-safety tools every quarter. In July, Omnicom rated Twitter’s progress behind that of YouTube,

Facebook,

Instagram, TikTok and Reddit, according to a document reviewed by the Journal. Robert Pearsall, managing director of social activation at Omnicom Media Group, said Twitter has made agreements to improve its brand-safety controls to meet Omnicom’s standards, but it hasn’t introduced those changes to the market yet.

“There are significant concerns about the implications of a possible change to content moderation policy,” he said. Twitter has said it is working on tools to give advertisers a better idea of where their ads appear.

Advertising provided 89% of Twitter’s $5.08 billion revenue last year.



Photo:

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Automotive manufacturers have expressed concerns about advertising on Twitter under Mr. Musk’s ownership, given his role at electric-vehicle juggernaut Tesla, some ad buyers said. Advertisers often share data with Twitter and other platforms—on their own customers or people that are in the market for a car—to help target their ads at the right people. Some auto companies will be wary of doing so, out of concern that data may leak to Tesla, the buyers said.

Though Twitter relies on ad dollars, it isn’t one of the biggest players in the digital-ad economy. The company gets about 1.1% of U.S. digital-ad spending, according to Insider Intelligence, a much smaller slice than Google, Meta Platforms Inc. or

Amazon.com Inc.

Already, there have been signs of anxiety on Madison Avenue about Mr. Musk’s takeover of Twitter. In July, the company reported a 1% decrease in second-quarter revenue, which it blamed on uncertainty over the deal as well as broader pressures in the digital ad market.

Given Mr. Musk’s past remarks on advertising, some advertisers wonder if Mr. Musk may exit the ad business entirely.

“The question we keep getting asked is: Do we think Musk will turn off ads completely?” said UM Worldwide’s Mr. Lowcock.

Write to Patience Haggin at patience.haggin@wsj.com and Suzanne Vranica at suzanne.vranica@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Read original article here

Business

Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover Close at Hand as Banks Begin to Turn Over $13 Billion of Cash

Leave a comment

Banks have started to send $13 billion in cash backing

Elon Musk’s

takeover of

Twitter Inc.,

TWTR 1.08%

according to people familiar with the matter, the latest sign the $44 billion deal for the social-media company is on track to close by the end of the week after months of twists and turns.

Mr. Musk late Tuesday sent a so-called borrowing notice to the banks that agreed to provide him with the debt for the purchase, one of the people said. That kicked off a process that is currently under way by which banks will deposit funds they are on the hook for into an escrow account after hammering out final details of the debt contracts, the people said.

Once final closing conditions are met, the funds will be made available for Mr. Musk to execute the transaction by the Friday deadline.

It indicates the deal is on track to close, after Mr. Musk visited Twitter’s San Francisco office Wednesday. “Entering Twitter HQ – let that sink in!” Mr. Musk tweeted, along with a video of himself walking into Twitter’s headquarters carrying a white basin.

Twitter told employees in an internal message that they would hear directly from Mr. Musk on Friday, according to an internal note reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The billionaire also changed the bio description on his Twitter profile to “Chief Twit” and added his location as “Twitter HQ.”

Twitter will become a private company if Elon Musk’s $44 billion takeover bid is approved. The move would allow Musk to make changes to the site. WSJ’s Dan Gallagher explains Musk’s proposed changes and the challenges he might face enacting them. Illustration: Jordan Kranse

Funding notices are typically sent three to five days in advance of when the money is needed. In normal circumstances, such documents are part of the mundane deal-closing procedures handled by back-office staffers that receive little to no mention. But after Mr. Musk spent months trying to back out of the deal to buy Twitter before flip-flopping and agreeing to go through with it earlier this month, Wall Street and Silicon Valley alike have been on high alert for evidence that he will actually follow through.

If Mr. Musk proceeds to close the deal as the signs currently suggest, it would bring to an end a six-month-long corporate drama and Twitter would cease to be publicly traded, with its current shareholders receiving $54.20 a share. The outspoken billionaire entrepreneur is expected to take the influential platform in a new direction, having floated ideas for changing Twitter, including by limiting content moderation and ushering in a new business model.

As recently as earlier this month, Mr. Musk was slated to face Twitter in a Delaware court over the stalled deal. He had argued the company misled him about its business including the amount of spam on its platform. Twitter countered that he was looking for an out after a market downturn gave him cold feet.

Twitter has been at the center of a six-month-long corporate drama that appears to be close to an end.



Photo:

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Then, in the days before he was to sit for a deposition, Mr. Musk changed his position again and proposed closing the deal at the original price. The judge presiding over the legal clash postponed a trial scheduled to start Oct. 17 and gave Mr. Musk until Oct. 28 to close the deal.

Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick said if the deal doesn’t close by that date, the parties should contact her to schedule a November trial.

The closing of the deal won’t be the end of the story for the banks that agreed to help fund it, including

Morgan Stanley,

MS 0.50%

Bank of America Corp.

BAC 0.88%

and

Barclays

BCS -0.14%

PLC. They are likely to hold on to the debt rather than sell it to third-party investors, as is the norm in such deals, until the new year or later, people familiar with the matter have said. Those lenders could face upward of $500 million in losses if they tried to sell Twitter’s debt at current market levels, as many investors are worried about a recession and curbing new exposure to risky bonds and loans.

—Alexa Corse and Lauren Thomas contributed to this article.

Write to Laura Cooper at laura.cooper@wsj.com, Alexander Saeedy at alexander.saeedy@wsj.com and Cara Lombardo at cara.lombardo@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Read original article here