The key to opposing the poison pill is whether it goes against the fiduciary responsibility of the board to the shareholders and that argument may hinge on opposition to the clause that would allow shares to be bought “at a discount”, as a means to thwart an investor/investors obtaining more than 15% of Twitter shares. That discount - not a market derived value - would inappropriately allow some board-favored “investors” to obtain shares “on the cheap”, achieving shares valued at more than what everyone else might have paid for the same shares on the open market. It also means shares would be sold, at that discount, meaning less than market value, which, once executed could diminish Twiiter share values in the open market.
Re: 38;- Interesting comment, thanks.