I didn’t think he was legally forced, but was going to have to pay a billion dollar break up fee. I’m not positive of that, and the fact he did end up buying somewhat proves he was forced, I’m just not sure why he’d put himself in that position. What was the contingencies of the break up fee?
They were never made fully public, but most of the time a breakup fee is the result of regulatory hurdles, inability to secure financing or fraud on one party's part. Musk seemed to be trying to float the idea of fraud with the whole "bots" narrative, but as the chancery court date got closer, more leaks started coming out and it was revealed that Musk had multiple opportunities to look into all of his objections and had declined them all. Because discussions were so far along, there was such a long paper trail and Musk's actions likely had an impact on twitter's stock price , people were speculating that he would not only lose but be on the hook for a few billion in damages. (I actually think he might have been buying time, expecting a few years long trial, waiting for tesla stock to recover and it not be such a big hit to his personal wealth, but the trial was going to this business court in delaware where even complex cases are usually wrapped up in a week.)
What has made it profitable ?
That article doesn't actually say twitter is now profitable, just that it's debt obligations have changed.
